Empire Technology Development LLC v. Intel Corp

Case Overview and Background

This patent infringement suit pits Empire Technology Development LLC, a prolific non-practicing entity (NPE), against semiconductor giant Intel Corporation. Empire Technology, a subsidiary of Allied Inventors Management, LLC (AIM), is known for acquiring and monetizing large patent portfolios, often by filing litigation against major technology companies. It has engaged in numerous litigation campaigns and has divested patent assets to other NPEs, such as those associated with IP Edge. The defendant, Intel, is a world-leading semiconductor manufacturer and a frequent target of patent litigation. This case represents a typical scenario in high-tech patent law: a patent assertion entity leveraging a single patent to target a core, high-revenue product line of a major operating company.

The dispute centers on Intel's Xeon Scalable Processors, a flagship product line for data centers and high-performance computing. Empire's complaint alleges that the "mesh" interconnect architecture within these processors infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,307,116. Intel transitioned from a "ring" to a "mesh" architecture to improve efficiency and scalability as the number of processor cores increased, allowing for more direct communication paths between cores, memory, and I/O controllers. The asserted patent, titled "Multinodal on-chip network," describes a system for routing data within a multi-processor chip that ensures data can travel between any two nodes in a maximum of two "hops." Empire contends that the fundamental structure and data routing method of Intel's mesh architecture falls within the scope of its patent claims.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas and has been assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue is highly significant in patent litigation. For years, Judge Albright actively cultivated a reputation for being a favorable forum for patent plaintiffs, attracting a substantial percentage of all U.S. patent cases through patent-friendly rules, a reluctance to transfer cases, and an expedited schedule. Although a 2022 court order mandated the random assignment of new patent cases filed in the Waco division to a wider pool of judges to curb this concentration, Judge Albright remains a key figure. The case's assignment to Judge Albright makes its procedural trajectory particularly noteworthy, as his historical practices have often been seen as advantageous for patent assertion entities like Empire.

Litigation Timeline: Early Stages

As of May 4, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Empire Technology Development LLC against Intel Corp. is in its nascent stages. Key developments have been limited to the initial filing and case assignment.

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed. Empire Technology Development LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Intel Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserts that Intel's Xeon Scalable Processors, and other similar products, infringe upon U.S. Patent No. 8,307,116, which pertains to on-chip data routing technology.
• 2026-04-21: Case Assignment. The case, docket number 1:26-cv-00989, was assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright.

There are no publicly available documents indicating that Intel has filed its answer to the complaint or any counterclaims. Similarly, no significant pre-trial motions, such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay, have been docketed. The litigation has not yet progressed to key stages like claim construction (Markman hearings), and there is no public record of any parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings having been filed by Intel at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning the '116 patent. The case remains open and active in the initial pleadings phase.

Plaintiff Counsel Identified in Intel Patent Suit

As of early May 2026, the counsel of record for plaintiff Empire Technology Development LLC consists of Texas-based attorney Timothy F. Dewberry, who filed the initial complaint. Based on Empire's litigation history in other recent patent cases, a team from the New York office of Milbank LLP is expected to serve as lead counsel.

The following attorneys have been identified:

Local Counsel

• Name: Timothy Franklin Dewberry
• Role: Local Counsel
• Firm: Folio Law Group PLLC (Office location not publicly specified, but attorney is based in Texas)
• Note: A seasoned patent litigator, Dewberry's practice focuses on helping clients increase the return on investment on their patent portfolios through litigation.

While only local counsel has formally appeared on the docket by filing the initial complaint, public records and active litigation in other districts show a clear pattern of Empire Technology Development retaining a specific team from Milbank LLP as lead counsel for its patent assertion campaigns. This team has represented Empire in recent, similar lawsuits against other major technology companies like AMD, AT&T, and Texas Instruments.

Expected Lead Counsel

• Name: Christopher J. Gaspar

• Role: Lead Counsel (Probable)

• Firm: Milbank LLP (New York, NY)

• Note: Gaspar is a partner and a leader in Milbank's intellectual property group, frequently representing major companies in high-stakes technology and patent litigation.

• Name: Nathaniel T. Browand

• Role: Counsel (Probable)

• Firm: Milbank LLP (New York, NY)

• Note: Browand is an IP litigation partner at Milbank with extensive experience in patent cases involving semiconductors, computer software, and telecommunications.

As the case progresses, it is anticipated that attorneys from Milbank will file notices of appearance to formally lead the litigation against Intel, consistent with their established role for the plaintiff in other matters.

Defendant's Counsel of Record

As of May 4, 2026, Intel Corp. has not yet filed a notice of appearance or an answer to the complaint in Empire Technology Development LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 1:26-cv-00989 (W.D. Tex.). Therefore, no outside or in-house counsel has formally appeared on the public docket for the defendant.

Intel is frequently a defendant in patent litigation and often retains counsel from firms with deep expertise in high-stakes technology disputes. Based on prior litigation patterns, counsel from firms such as WilmerHale, Fish & Richardson, or Kirkland & Ellis LLP, which have represented Intel in numerous past patent cases, could potentially appear. However, until a formal notice is filed with the court, any specific individuals or firms would be speculative. An answer or other responsive pleading from Intel is expected to be filed in the coming weeks, at which point its legal representation will be made public.