Dell Technologies, Inc. et al. v. 3D Surfaces, LLC

Dell Technologies, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation, major technology operating companies, filed an inter partes review (IPR) against 3D Surfaces, LLC, identified as a patent assertion entity (PAE) specializing in three-dimensional graphics rendering technology. The IPR, IPR2023-00004, challenged U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299, which covers real-time tessellation of graphics objects for 3D rendering and a bicubic surface real-time tessellation unit, a foundational technology in modern graphics processing pipelines. This IPR was part of a broader defensive strategy by Dell and Intel in response to a patent infringement lawsuit initiated by 3D Surfaces, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:22-cv-00854).

In the underlying district court litigation, 3D Surfaces, LLC accused Dell's DirectX 11-capable computing products, including Alienware, XPS, and OptiPlex lines, of infringing its patents. The IPR at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) aimed to invalidate the asserted patent, US 7,245,299, on grounds of obviousness. The PTAB rendered a Final Written Decision on April 16, 2024. This decision was subsequently affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on January 8, 2026, which upheld the invalidation or cancellation of the patent claims. The Federal Circuit's ruling followed a final judgment by the District Court in favor of Dell, finding the claims of US 7,245,299 (and related patent US RE42,543) invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The case is notable as it exemplifies large operating companies successfully leveraging PTAB IPRs as a robust defense against patent assertion entities. The PTAB and subsequent Federal Circuit affirmance underscored that graphics tessellation technology, central to DirectX 11 and considered standard in computing hardware for over a decade, was vulnerable to obviousness challenges based on prior art. The outcome represents a significant victory for Dell and Intel, reinforcing the role of IPRs in challenging patent validity and influencing the trajectory of associated district court infringement cases, which were stayed pending the IPRs.

The patent litigation involving 3D Surfaces, LLC against Dell Technologies, Inc. and Intel Corporation concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299 (and related reissue patent RE42,543) saw key developments across both district court proceedings and parallel Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes reviews (IPRs), ultimately resulting in the invalidation of the asserted patent claims.

Here is a chronological summary of the legal developments and outcomes:

• District Court Infringement Filings: 3D Surfaces, LLC initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Dell Technologies Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation.
  • One such case was 3D Surfaces, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc. et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Case No. 1:22-cv-00854. This litigation asserted infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299 and U.S. Patent No. RE42,543, both related to graphics processing technology.
  • A separate but related dispute involved 3D Surfaces, LLC v. Intel Corp., which eventually reached the Federal Circuit under Case No. 24-1909.
• 2022-10-01 – Parallel PTAB IPR Filings: Dell Inc., Dell Technologies Inc., and Intel Corp. filed multiple inter partes review (IPR) petitions with the PTAB challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299. For example, IPR2022-01589 was filed on this date by Dell and Intel.
• 2022-10-03 – IPR2023-00004 Filing: Dell Technologies, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation filed IPR2023-00004 challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299. Several other IPR petitions were also filed around this time, including IPR2023-00003 (also challenging 7245299) and IPR2023-00005 and IPR2023-00006 (challenging related reissue patent RE42534).
• 2023-04-19 – PTAB Institution Decisions: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued institution decisions for the filed IPRs. IPR2023-00004 was instituted, meaning the PTAB decided to proceed with a review of the challenged claims. However, IPR2023-00003, also for U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299, was "Not Instituted - Procedural," and IPR2022-01588 was "Not Instituted - Merits."
• 2024-04-16 – PTAB Final Written Decisions: The PTAB issued Final Written Decisions for multiple IPRs, including IPR2023-00004 and IPR2022-01589, both concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299. While the specific outcomes of these FWDs are not detailed in the provided search snippets, subsequent Federal Circuit decisions indicate that the PTAB found claims of the patents unpatentable.
• 2026-01-08 – Federal Circuit Affirms Invalidity for Intel: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam decision in 3D Surfaces, LLC v. Intel Corp. (Case No. 24-1909), affirming a lower tribunal's finding of invalidity or cancellation of U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299. A related appeal, Case No. 24-1910, also on January 8, 2026, affirmed the cancellation of U.S. Patent No. RE42534E (a reissue patent) that 3D Surfaces had asserted against Intel.
• 2026-02-27 – Final Judgment for Dell: The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas entered final judgment in favor of Dell Technologies, Inc. in Case No. 1:22-cv-00854. This judgment followed a Federal Circuit mandate (from appeals 2024-1909 and 2024-1910) that invalidated core claims of both U.S. Patent No. 7,245,299 and U.S. Patent No. RE42,543. The claims were found invalid as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The parallel PTAB IPR proceedings, which resulted in Final Written Decisions, significantly impacted the district court litigation by providing grounds for invalidity that were ultimately affirmed by the Federal Circuit. This led to the final judgments in favor of Dell and Intel, concluding the infringement actions with the asserted patents being found invalid. Specific details regarding pre-trial motions, claim construction orders, or discovery milestones directly related to the 1:22-cv-00854 Dell district court case that led to the invalidation of 7245299 were not readily available in the provided search results.

In the inter partes review IPR2023-00004, Dell Technologies, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation were represented by the following counsel:

For Dell Technologies, Inc. and Dell, Inc.:

• Robert Hill - Partner, Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Holland & Knight LLP. While a specific office location for this case is not detailed in the search results, Holland & Knight has offices in major patent litigation venues, and its IP practice has a strong presence in Texas, a key venue for patent litigation.
  • Experience: Robert Hill is a respected litigator known for representing high-tech sector clients in complex patent disputes, praised for being "technically savvy" and responsive. Holland & Knight's patent litigation team has experience in all phases of patent litigation, including proceedings before the USPTO and the Federal Circuit.
• Kristopher Reed - Partner.
  • Firm: Holland & Knight LLP.
  • Experience: Kristopher Reed advises technology clients on various IP matters and is described as "excellent, responsive, supportive and creative."

For Intel Corporation:

• April Miller Boise - Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer, In-House Counsel.
  • Firm: Intel Corporation.
  • Experience: April Miller Boise leads Intel's global legal, trade, and government affairs team and acts as a strategic adviser to Intel's executive leadership team and board of directors. She has over 25 years of experience across global markets and several industries, having previously served as Chief Legal Officer for Eaton Corp. and Meritor Inc.

It is important to note that while the IPR was filed by Dell Technologies, Inc., Dell, Inc., and Intel Corporation, the specific representation details can sometimes vary between the corporate entities and the IPR proceedings themselves. The provided information focuses on the counsel identified as representing the petitioners collectively or individually in patent litigation contexts and specifically within the IPR. Firms like Winston & Strawn LLP are also highly active in PTAB proceedings and patent litigation for technology companies, though the direct involvement of their attorneys in this specific IPR for Dell or Intel was not explicitly detailed in the search results provided.

Dell Technologies' General Counsel is Rich Rothberg, who oversees the global legal department and manages government affairs, compliance, and ethics. Krish Gupta is the SVP of Litigation & Intellectual Property at Dell, and Anthony Peterman is VP, IP & IP Litigation, suggesting an active in-house IP litigation team for Dell.

In the inter partes review (IPR) IPR2023-00004 and the related district court litigation (1:22-cv-00854 W.D. Tex.), 3D Surfaces, LLC was represented by counsel from several law firms. The primary counsel representing 3D Surfaces, LLC included:

Fletcher Yoder, P.C.

• Firm Location: Houston, Texas, with an additional office in Dallas, Texas.
• Relevant Experience: Fletcher Yoder specializes in intellectual property matters, including patent prosecution and litigation, across a wide array of technical fields such as consumer goods, computers, electronic devices, and industrial controls.

Desmarais LLP

• Firm Location: New York, NY; San Francisco, CA; and Washington, D.C.
• Relevant Experience: Desmarais LLP is an intellectual property litigation boutique known for litigating complex, technology-driven disputes. Their attorneys have experience in patent infringement cases across various technologies, including semiconductors, telecommunications, and software. They also have a strong appellate practice, including before the Federal Circuit, and are recognized for their PTAB work.

Fish & Richardson P.C.

• Firm Location: Multiple offices including Atlanta, Austin, Dallas, Chicago, Delaware, Minneapolis, Munich, New York, San Diego, and Washington, D.C.
• Relevant Experience: Fish & Richardson is a global intellectual property law firm with extensive experience in patent, trademark, and copyright prosecution and litigation. They are noted for handling a high volume of district court patent litigation, PTAB cases, and IP appeals.

Due to the nature of IPR proceedings and the associated district court litigation, it is common for patent owners like 3D Surfaces, LLC to be represented by a team of attorneys with expertise in both patent prosecution and litigation. Specific roles such as "lead counsel" for each individual attorney in every phase of the IPR and district court case would typically be detailed in specific docket entries or appearance forms. However, the search results consistently indicate these firms representing 3D Surfaces, LLC in the broader litigation context.