Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search before drafting the overview.

Good initial results. Now let me dig into the NPE/ownership structure, IPR activity, and case outcome.

Let me verify the IPR proceedings, the '493 patent outcome, and the case's procedural path.

Case Overview

Parties. Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-00197 (D. Del., filed Mar. 29, 2016), is a patent-infringement action between a patent-licensing vehicle and a leading image-sensor supplier. Collabo is a Delaware corporation that pleaded its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California (D.I. 14 ¶ 1), and is a subsidiary of the Canadian licensor Wi‑LAN Inc.; Collabo's PTAB mandatory notices in the parallel IPRs identify Collabo Innovations, Inc., Wi‑LAN Technologies Inc. and Wi‑LAN Inc. as real parties-in-interest, and later filings put Wi‑LAN under Quarterhill Inc. (TSX-listed). Collabo is a non-practicing entity — it makes no accused products; its business is asserting acquired patent portfolios. OmniVision Technologies, Inc. is the operating company: a Delaware corporation headquartered in Santa Clara, California (Rule 7.1 disclosure listing Seagull International Limited as corporate parent), a fabless designer of CMOS image sensors (CIS) fabricated by foundries such as TSMC and VisEra. Market disclosures from Will Semiconductor's acquisition of OmniVision (via Beijing OmniVision/美国豪威) describe OmniVision as one of the world's three leading CIS suppliers alongside Sony and Samsung, with sensors going into smartphones, automotive cameras, medical imaging, surveillance, drones and VR/AR devices.

Accused technology. The amended complaint accuses OmniVision's image sensors of direct, induced and contributory infringement, expressly naming the OmniVision OV7740 image sensor and "related products and technologies, including … camera modules in products such as the Nintendo Wii U Gamepad Console" (D.I. 14 ¶ 18). The infringement case later expanded dramatically: Collabo's August 2018 discovery letter to Magistrate Judge Fallon lists roughly 60 accused or related part numbers (e.g., OG02A1B, OS05A10/OS05A20, OS08A10, OV02718 through OV32A10, OVM6946, OX01B40, OX03A10), and describes subpoenas, letters rogatory and a motion to compel OmniVision to obtain core technical documents (design rules, GDS/tape-out files, SEM images, process-layer specifications) from TSMC and VisEra — a useful illustration of the supply-chain discovery burden in suing a fabless sensor designer.

Patents asserted. The D. Del. docket's Report to the Commissioner (Mar. 29, 2016) lists five patents, all pre-AIA and all pleaded as solely owned by assignment: (1) U.S. 7,411,180, "Solid state image sensor with transparent film on micro-lenses and offsetting positions of micro-lenses and color filters…" (iss. Aug. 12, 2008) — micro-lens/color-filter geometry and a transparent film directly on the micro-lenses; (2) U.S. 7,944,493, "Solid-State Imaging Device with Specific Contact Arrangement" (iss. May 17, 2011) — active-region and shared/common-drain pixel layout; (3) U.S. 7,728,895, "Solid-state image sensing device having shared floating diffusion portions" (iss. June 1, 2010) — sharing floating diffusions among pixels to shrink pixel size; (4) U.S. 8,004,026, "Solid-State Imaging Device" (iss. Aug. 23, 2011) — floating-diffusion-layer architecture for photosensitive cells; and (5) U.S. 8,592,880, "Solid-State Imaging Device" (iss. Nov. 26, 2013) — "active region" claim terms. Caveat on the metadata: the case metadata supplied to me also lists U.S. 6,166,405, but no docket entry, court opinion, PTAB filing or press report I found ties that patent to this case; the docket report and both substantive opinions reflect only the five patents above, so the '405 entry should be treated as unverified and probably erroneous.

Posture and venue. Filed in the District of Delaware and assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson, with referral to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon (case caption 16-197-SLR-SRF; later filings show "16-cv-197-JFB-SRF," a reassignment I could not independently confirm). OmniVision moved to transfer to the Northern District of California (D.I. 8) and to dismiss the indirect-infringement claims (D.I. 5, renewed at D.I. 19). Judge Fallon's Report and Recommendation (D.I. 39, Jan. 25, 2017) recommended denying transfer and granting dismissal in part, and Judge Robinson adopted it (D.I. 42, Feb. 14, 2017): transfer was denied because OmniVision is "a large Delaware corporation with resources to litigate in this district" and had not shown witnesses would be unavailable or documents untransportable, while the indirect-infringement claims survived only for post-filing conduct (pre-filing inducement/contributory claims dismissed). Venue matters here chiefly because both parties were Delaware corporations, making Delaware a "predictable, legitimate" forum for the NPE plaintiff notwithstanding OmniVision's California operations — the court applied Jumara, Helicos and ADE Corp. v. KLA‑Tencor. Claim construction followed on Aug. 25, 2017 (D.I. 87), where the court adopted Collabo's constructions for "pixel signal" ('895) and "the floating diffusion layer" ('026), adopted OmniVision's construction of "active region" ('493/'880), agreed constructions for the '180 terms, and held "the first active region" ('493) indefinite under Nautilus. The case was then stayed by stipulation on Oct. 25, 2018 (D.I. 286) and, per the Federal Judicial Center's docket record, terminated on Jan. 4, 2019 with a disposition of "Settled."

Why it is notable. Three points stand out. First, IPR linkage: Sony — Collabo's co-defendant in the earlier Collabo v. Sony case (No. 1:15-cv-01094, D. Del., filed Nov. 2015) — filed IPR2016-00938 and -00939 against the '493 patent in April 2016, before OmniVision filed any petition of its own; the Board instituted on Oct. 13, 2016 and in its Oct. 3, 2017 final written decision held claims 1–3 and 6–9 obvious over the Guidash patent. Will Semiconductor's transaction disclosure states that, following the court's claim-construction order, the '493 patent was held invalid and dismissed, leaving four patents in suit and a trial expected in July 2019. Second, constitutional spillover: Collabo's challenge to retroactive IPR of pre-AIA patents in the Sony matter produced a Federal Circuit appeal and a cert petition, Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. Sony Corp., No. 19-601 (U.S.), which raised Takings and Due Process objections to IPR — a recurring NPE defense theme. Third, assertion-pattern context: this suit is one campaign in a Wi‑LAN/Quarterhill-driven licensing program that also produced Collabo v. AMD (1:18-cv-552, W.D. Tex., 2018) and the much later Collabo v. Qualcomm (6:24-cv-00472, W.D. Tex., filed Sept. 13, 2024), the latter triggering Qualcomm's IPR2025-01015 on the unrelated '575 patent — where Qualcomm characterized Collabo as "a non-practicing entity with no known investments in research and development." The OmniVision case itself is a compact example of the mid-2010s Delaware NPE action: Delaware incorporation defeating transfer, early Rule 12 trimming of indirect infringement, claim construction doing the decisive damage, and settlement before trial.

Sourcing note: party identities, the five asserted patents, the transfer/dismissal rulings, claim constructions and the stay are grounded in the opinions and docket entries cited above (ded.uscourts.gov opinions 16-197_0.pdf and 16-197.pdf; D.I. 39, 42, 87, 286); the '493 IPR outcome is grounded in IPR2016-00938's final written decision and the PTO Litigation Center filing list; the settlement date is from the FJC IDB record via CourtListener, not a docketed settlement agreement I reviewed. The reassignment reflected by the "JFB" initials in 2018 filings, the chain of title for the five image-sensor patents (which I believe traces to Panasonic but did not verify), and the omission of U.S. 6,166,405 are flagged as unverified.

I'll research this case systematically across multiple sources.

Let me dig into the PTAB/IPR proceedings, settlement, and later docket events.

Based on my research across the D. Del. docket, the court's opinions, FJC/CourtListener docket data, and PTAB records, here is the chronological development of the litigation. (This supplements, rather than repeats, the previously-generated summary covering the complaint, the transfer denial, and the partial dismissal.)

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2016-03-29 — Complaint filed. Collabo Innovations, Inc. sued OmniVision Technologies, Inc., D. Del. No. 1:16-cv-00197 (assigned to Judge Sue L. Robinson; later 1:16-cv-00197-SLR-SRF). The Rule 3 Report to the Commissioner of Patents listed five patents: U.S. 7,411,180; 8,592,880; 7,944,493; 7,728,895; 8,004,026. Collabo alleged direct infringement (literal and DOE) and indirect infringement (induced + contributory) of CMOS image sensors, accusing e.g. the OmniVision OV7740 sensor and camera modules in the Nintendo Wii U Gamepad. (CourtListener docket 4499525, D.I. 1; complaint excerpt via RPX Insight doc. 12005536.)
  • Note/discrepancy: Case metadata lists U.S. 6,166,405 as a sixth patent-in-suit, but neither the complaint nor the docket's patent report supports that. I could not source any '405 patent in this case. Treat '405 as likely a metadata error.
• Party facts (from the R&R). Collabo is a Delaware corp. with principal place of business in Costa Mesa, CA; its Rule 7.1 disclosure identifies Wi-LAN Technologies Inc. / Wi-LAN Inc. as corporate parent/affiliate. OmniVision is a Delaware corp. headquartered in Santa Clara, CA; parent Seagull International Limited. (D.I. 14 ¶¶ 1–2; disclosd 2016-05-18.)
• 2016-05-13 — OmniVision PHV appearances (Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati: Edward G. Poplawski, James C. Yoon, Jennifer J. Schmidt, Madeleine E. Greene). Collabo's counsel included Brian E. Farnan/Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington) and PHV Jeffrey R. Bragalone, Patrick J. Conroy, Monte M. Bond (Bragalone Conroy).
• Counterclaims: I did not find a docketed OmniVision answer with invalidity counterclaims before it moved to dismiss; OmniVision's first substantive response was a motion rather than an answer. (Flagging as unsourced rather than asserting none.)

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

• 2016-05-17 — Two motions. OmniVision filed (a) a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim (D.I. 5) and (b) a motion to transfer to the Northern District of California under §1404(a) (D.I. 8), with declarations from J. Schmidt and Ray Cisneros.
• 2016-06-03 — Amended complaint (D.I. 14), filed in response; Collabo repleaded direct + indirect infringement.
• 2016-06-20 — Renewed motion to dismiss the indirect-infringement claims of the amended complaint (D.I. 19).
• 2016-07-19 — Referral to Magistrate Judge Sherry R. Fallon for discovery and motions to dismiss/amend/transfer and discovery motions (D.I. 24).
• 2017-01-25 — Report & Recommendation (D.I. 39). Judge Fallon recommended denying transfer and granting-in-part the motion to dismiss. On transfer, she applied Jumara/Helicos/In re Link_A_Media/In re Genentech, holding that because both parties are Delaware corporations, OmniVision's "home turf" argument failed; witness convenience was neutral (no witness shown "actually unavailable," Jumara 55 F.3d at 879); and the location-of-records factor was diminished because documents are exchanged electronically. On the MTD, the R&R accepted that indirect-infringement claims premised only on pre-filing conduct were inadequately pleaded (knowledge tied only to the filing of the original complaint).
• 2017-02-14 — Order (D.I. 42), Judge Robinson adopting the R&R with no objections: transfer denied; motion to dismiss granted-in-part "to the extent that those claims assert causes of action for pre-filing conduct."

3. Claim construction (Markman)

• 2017-05-11 — Claim-construction briefing completed (D.I. 49, 55, 60, 63).
• 2017-06-08 — Parties consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction for claim construction (D.I. 71).
• 2017-07-12 — Markman hearing before Judge Fallon.
• 2017-08-25 — Memorandum Opinion (D.I. 87), Judge Fallon, 25 pages. Key outcomes:
  • '180 patent — parties reached agreed constructions after meet-and-confer: "transparent film" = "a clear layer of material that allows light to pass through"; "transparent film on said micro-lenses" = "transparent film directly on said micro-lenses"; "micro-lenses" = "multiple miniature bodies of material wherein each body is for focusing light."
  • '895 patent — court adopted Collabo's construction of "pixel signal": "an electrical charge or voltage or current indicative of the intensity of light incident on the photoelectric portion of a pixel."
  • '493 patent — court held "the first active region" indefinite under Nautilus/Media Rights Techs. The term lacked antecedent basis and no intrinsic guidance identified which region was "the first"; the court refused to redraft the claim (citing Chef America v. Lamb-Weston). This was the pivotal substantive ruling against Collabo — the '493 patent effectively dropped out. (D. Del. opinion 16-197.pdf; Delaware Business Court Insider case digest D67855, 2017-09-06.)
  • '026 patent — court adopted Collabo's construction of "the floating diffusion layer" ("any one of the floating diffusion layers corresponding to at least one of the photodiodes"), rejecting OmniVision's indefiniteness position.
• Corroboration that '493 was eliminated: In a contemporaneous Chinese securities/independent-financial-advisor report concerning the Weir/Will Semiconductor acquisition of OmniVision, the litigation is described, and it states that under the court's claim construction order the '493 patent was held invalid and dismissed, leaving only the other four asserted patents, with trial reportedly expected around July 2019. (Sina Finance re 韦尔股份/OmniVision, 603501.) Treat the "trial July 2019" projection as a party/advisor estimate, not a court order.

4. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2018-06-06 — Afromowitz Declaration (D.I. 219). Collabo's expert addressed whether various OmniVision films (on-chip multi-film, low-n flat on micro-lens, acrylic, phosphosilicate glass, borosilicate glass) count as a "transparent film on the micro-lens" for the '180 patent.
• 2018-07-30 to 2018-08-06 — Discovery dispute over the '180 "transparent film" proof. Collabo moved to compel (leading to a discovery order, D.I. 245) requiring OmniVision to produce design rules, process-layer specifications, tape-out records, and SEM images for ~68+ accused products (OG02A1B, OS05A10/OS05A20, OS08A10, OV04686, OV05648, OV06710, OV07175, OV08830, etc.). On 2018-08-06 OmniVision produced 939 documents plus a one-page Chinese purchase order and an unverified supplemental interrogatory response; Collabo argued (D.I. 263, Farnan LLP brief) that OmniVision still had not produced the ordered materials showing where the films sit (i.e., on the micro-lens), leaving Collabo without per-product infringement proof for the '180 patent.
• Also docketed: a 6/6/18 deposition reference to "Lu" and a third supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 1, showing active fact discovery through mid/late 2018.

5. Trial, verdict, and post-trial motions

• No trial, verdict, or post-trial (JMOL/new-trial/fee) motions are reflected in the record for this case. The case terminated before trial (see §6). I found no injunction, damages award, or §285 fee ruling.

6. Final disposition / present posture

• FJC Integrated Database (via CourtListener docket 4499525) reports: Date Terminated = 2019-01-04; Disposition = "Settled." Combined with the absence of any post-2019 merits activity, the case appears to have been resolved by settlement and dismissed in early January 2019 — consistent with the "trial expected July 2019" projection never being realized.
• Discrepancy: the case metadata labels the case "active," which the FJC termination data and docket silence contradict. I could not retrieve the specific dismissal/stipulation order text or settlement terms (the settlement amount, if any, is not public). Flagging this as a source gap.
• No Federal Circuit appeal of this case was found. (Note: the Federal Circuit appeal Collabo v. Sony, Nos. 2018-1311 / 2018-1154, concerning U.S. 7,714,714 and claim terms "adhesive"/"wider area," is a different Collabo case — D. Del. 1:15-cv-01094 — and should not be conflated with the OmniVision matter.)

7. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect

• Directly on the five OmniVision-asserted patents (7,411,180 / 8,592,880 / 7,944,493 / 7,728,895 / 8,004,026): I found no IPR or PGR petitions filed by OmniVision against these patents. This is a notable negative finding — unlike many parallel campaigns, OmniVision did not appear to attack the asserted patents at the PTAB, and no stay-pending-IPR motion appears in this docket.
• Related Collabo PTAB activity (adjacent, not directly this case):
  • IPR2017-00958 and IPR2017-00960 — Sony challenges to Collabo's U.S. 7,023,034, in the Collabo v. Sony matter. Collabo's mandatory notices (dated 2017-03-14) identified itself and Wi-LAN Technologies Inc./Wi-LAN Inc. as real parties-in-interest. (PTAB P-TACTS doc 1483295.)
  • IPR2019-01523 and IPR2019-01524 — Advanced Micro Devices v. Collabo (filed 2019-09-16), arising from Collabo v. AMD, W.D. Tex. 1:18-cv-552. Institution was denied on 2020-03-27 and 2020-03-30, respectively. (PTAB records via P-TACTS doc 1557902.)
  • Later/adjacent (2025): Collabo-related patents remain in PTAB disputes — e.g., Qualcomm v. Collabo, IPR2025-01015 (U.S. 7,930,575) and OmniVision v. RE Secured Networks, IPR2025-01019 — but these involve different patents/cases and post-date the OmniVision–Collabo litigation.

Bottom line

Collabo's image-sensor suit against OmniVision (D. Del. 1:16-cv-00197) survived OmniVision's transfer and (partial) dismissal motions in early 2017, proceeded through Markman on 2017-08-25, where Collabo won the '895 and '026 terms but lost the '493 patent to indefiniteness, reducing the case to four patents. After hard-fought 2018 discovery over the '180 "transparent film on the micro-lens" limitation, the case settled and was terminated on 2019-01-04, with no trial and no PTAB IPR by OmniVision on the asserted patents.

---

Key sources

• D. Del. opinions: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/16-197_0.pdf (transfer/MTD R&R) and https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/16-197.pdf (claim construction).
• Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4499525/collabo-innovations-inc-v-omnivision-technologies-inc/ and https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2016cv00197/59109.
• FJC IDB termination/settlement: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4499525/idb/collabo-innovations-inc-v-omnivision-technologies-inc/
• Discovery dispute brief: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ded.59109/gov.uscourts.ded.59109.263.0.pdf
• PTAB: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1483295/... (IPR2017-00960 mandatory notices) and .../1557902/... (AMD IPR2019-01523/-01524).
• Contemporaneous corporate filing referencing the '493 invalidity and expected trial: Sina Finance, Weir/Will Semiconductor (603501) advisor report.

Unverified/uncertain items I did not want to fabricate: the exact settlement date and any terms; the precise dismissal-order language; and whether OmniVision filed any IPR/PGR or a stay motion (I found none). The '405 patent's appearance in the case metadata is unsupported by the docket and appears erroneous.

I'll research the counsel of record for Collabo Innovations in this D. Del. case.

Let me dig into the specific attorney appearances and firm affiliations.

I'll research the defendant's counsel of record across the docket, opinions, and firm sources.

Let me pull the docket and pro hac vice appearances to confirm every defense attorney.

Now let me find the full defense team on the briefs and the PTAB/IPR side.