Force MOS Technology v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation involves plaintiff Force MOS Technology, Co., Ltd., a Taiwanese MOSFET design company that appears to operate as a patent assertion entity, and defendant ASUSTek Computer, Inc. (ASUS), a major Taiwanese multinational manufacturer of computer hardware and electronics, including laptops, motherboards, and graphics cards. Force MOS accused ASUSTek of infringing its patents through the incorporation of certain Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistors (MOSFETs) in ASUSTek's electronic products. Specific infringing MOSFET products cited included Panjit 2N7002K, Excelliance EMB20N03V, LRC L2N7002SLT1G, and UBIQ QM3016AM.

The asserted patents central to the jury verdict are U.S. Patent No. 7,629,634 ("Trenched MOSFET with trenched source contact"), which describes a trenched MOSFET structure with a unique trenched source contact designed for improved ruggedness and avalanche performance, and U.S. Patent No. 7,812,409 ("Trench MOSFET with cell layout, ruggedness, truncated corners"), which covers a trench MOSFET design with a specific cell layout to enhance ruggedness. A third patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,847,346, was initially asserted but claims related to it were withdrawn before trial. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, and presided over by District Judge Rodney Gilstrap. This venue is notable for its historical reputation as a plaintiff-friendly forum in patent cases, known for experienced judges and a relatively fast path to trial, factors often leveraged by patentees, including non-practicing entities.

This case is particularly notable for several reasons, including a jury verdict on February 13, 2025, which found ASUSTek liable for willful infringement and awarded Force MOS $10.5 million in damages. This finding of willful infringement opens the door for potential enhanced damages and attorney fees. Furthermore, a subsequent bench trial on ASUSTek's inequitable conduct claims against Force MOS regarding the '634 and '409 patents also favored Force MOS, affirming the enforceability of the patents. The litigation is also intertwined with inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where ASUSTek was identified as a real party-in-interest challenging the asserted patents. The PTAB has issued decisions, including finding some claims of the '409 patent unpatentable, highlighting the dual-track nature of modern patent enforcement and invalidity challenges.

The patent infringement litigation Force MOS Technology v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc. et al. (2:22-cv-00460) in the Eastern District of Texas has seen several key legal developments, culminating in a jury verdict for Force MOS, a judgment, and ongoing post-judgment issues. Parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the PTAB have also been initiated against the asserted patents.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2022-11-28: Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd. ("Force MOS") filed the initial complaint against ASUSTek Computer, Inc. ("ASUSTek"), alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,629,634 ("the '634 patent") and 7,847,346 ("the '346 patent").
• 2023-01-31: A waiver of service of summons for the complaint asserting the '634 patent was filed by ASUSTek's counsel.
• 2023-03-07: Force MOS filed its First Amended Complaint, additionally asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,812,409 ("the '409 patent").

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2023-10-27: Inergy Technology, Inc. (with ASUSTek identified as a real party-in-interest) filed concurrent petitions for inter partes review (IPR) against the '634 patent (IPR2024-00093) and the '409 patent (IPR2024-00094).
• ASUSTek filed a motion to stay the district court proceedings pending the resolution of these IPRs (Dkt. 30).
• 2024-04-10: District Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied ASUSTek's motion to stay (Dkt. 74).
• 2025-02-06: The Court denied Force MOS's motion for summary judgment regarding ASUSTek's defense of no direct infringement on the basis of collateral estoppel (Dkt. 348).

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• In the parallel IPR proceedings, the PTAB rejected Force MOS's proposed construction of the term "lateral contact layer" in claim 1 of the '634 patent, stating that limitations requiring a specific dopant concentration and implantation feature could not be read into unambiguous claim language. The PTAB similarly refused Force MOS's proposed claim interpretations in IPR094.
• While not explicitly found in the provided snippets for the district court, it is standard for a Markman hearing to occur in patent litigation; however, the specifics of the district court's claim construction ruling are not detailed in the provided search results.

Trial Events & Verdict:

• A five-day jury trial was held.
• 2025-02-07: The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of Force MOS, finding ASUSTek liable for willful infringement of four claims from the '634 and '409 patents. The jury awarded Force MOS $10.5 million in damages (Dkt. 358).

Post-trial Motions & Judgment:

• The existing case summary indicates that a bench trial on ASUSTek's inequitable conduct claims also favored Force MOS.
• Post-judgment issues remain, as stated in the existing case summary.
• The provided search results do not specify the exact date of final judgment entry or details of post-trial motions like JMOL or new trial, other than referencing a jury verdict (Dkt. 358) and findings of fact and conclusions of law (Dkt. 420) from June 11, 2025.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• 2023-10-27: Inergy Technology, Inc., with ASUSTek as a real party-in-interest, filed IPR petitions IPR2024-00093 for the '634 patent and IPR2024-00094 for the '409 patent.
• 2024-05-21: The PTAB instituted review of all challenged claims (claims 1-9) in IPR2024-00093 regarding the '634 patent, finding a reasonable likelihood that Inergy would prevail in showing at least one claim unpatentable. Institution was granted despite several Fintiv factors favoring denial, due to the presentation of compelling evidence of unpatentability.
• Concurrently, the PTAB also instituted review in IPR2024-00094 for the '409 patent.
• 2025-04-24: Excelliance MOS Corporation filed another IPR petition (IPR2025-01433) against the '634 patent. ASUSTek was identified as a real party-in-interest in this petition due to its substantial ownership interest and control in Excelliance MOS.
• This petition (IPR2025-01433) was discretionarily denied by the Director because it was found to be time-barred under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), as the complaint in the district court asserting the '634 patent was served on ASUSTek on November 28, 2022 (with a waiver of service filed on January 31, 2023), more than one year before the IPR petition's filing date.
• ASUSTek's invalidity claim for the '634 patent was voluntarily dropped shortly before the district court trial.

Final Disposition or Present Posture:

• The case has reached judgment, with a jury awarding Force MOS $10.5 million and finding willful infringement.
• A memorandum opinion and order was issued on 2025-02-06, and findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed on 2025-06-11 (Dkt. 420).
• The existing case summary indicates that post-judgment issues remain. The search results do not explicitly mention an appeal to the Federal Circuit, but given the status of "judgment" and remaining post-judgment issues, an appeal is a possibility.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record representing Force MOS Technology in the patent infringement case against ASUSTek Computer, Inc. et al.:

Dickinson Wright PLLC

• Christopher Hanba
  • Role: Lead Counsel (stated as Force MOS' attorney and spokesperson after the verdict).
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC (multiple offices, but often appears in Eastern District of Texas cases). A specific office location for Hanba isn't immediately clear from the search results in relation to this case, but other related cases show "Dickinson Wright PLLC" generally.
  • Experience Note: Hanba was quoted celebrating the $10.5 million verdict for Force MOS, indicating a significant role in the trial. He has represented Force MOS in other patent infringement cases.
• Ross Garsson
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Part of the formidable legal team representing Force MOS in this successful patent infringement suit.
• Michael Saunders
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Listed as part of Force MOS's legal team that secured the $10.5 million verdict. Also listed as "Respondent Counsel" for Force MOS Technology Co. Ltd. in an IPR proceeding.
• Joshua Jones
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Member of the legal team that achieved the favorable verdict for Force MOS.
• Bryan Atkinson
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Contributed to the successful representation of Force MOS in the infringement case.
• Jordan Garsson
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Part of the team representing Force MOS.
• Ariana Pellegrino (also appears as Ariana Deskins Pellegrino)
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Listed among the attorneys representing Force MOS in this case and a related patent infringement case in the Northern District of California.
• Tron Fu
  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Member of the legal team for Force MOS in the successful patent infringement action.

Haltom & Doan

• Role: Counsel (firm listed as part of Force MOS's legal team).
• Firm & Office Location: Haltom & Doan, typically based in Texarkana, Texas, often serving as local counsel in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Experience Note: Known for patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. Specific attorneys from this firm were not individually named in the provided search results as part of the Force MOS team for this case, beyond the firm itself being listed.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry)

• Wesley Hill
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead or trial counsel, given his extensive experience in EDTX patent litigation).
  • Firm & Office Location: Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas. Note: As of October 1, 2024, Mr. Hill was ending his trial practice, and the firm would continue under the name Miller Fair Henry. However, this case was filed in 2022 and the verdict delivered in Feb 2025, so he would have been counsel of record through the trial. Mr. Hill is now also involved in mediation/ADR services.
  • Experience Note: Experienced EDTX trial lawyer in patent infringement and intellectual property, with over 30 trials to verdict and counsel of record in over 1100 cases in Texas state and federal courts. Recognized as a Super Lawyer and Best Lawyer.
• Johnny Ward
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead or trial counsel, given his extensive experience in EDTX patent litigation).
  • Firm & Office Location: Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas. Note: As of October 1, 2024, Mr. Ward was ending his trial practice to focus on mediation, but would have been counsel of record through the trial phase of this case.
  • Experience Note: Has appeared as attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and tried close to 60 cases to a jury verdict. Recognized as a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Texas Super Lawyer for 20 years.

Gillam & Smith LLP

• S. Calvin Capshaw
  • Role: Counsel (likely local or trial counsel, given the firm's presence in EDTX).
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas. Mr. Capshaw is also a Partner at Capshaw DeRieux, LLP, with offices in Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Practice principally involves commercial litigation, patent litigation, and federal court litigation. Recognized as a Super Lawyer in Business Litigation Law. The firm Gillam & Smith has extensive experience in federal court patent infringement litigation throughout Texas, representing both plaintiffs and defendants.
• Elizabeth Gillam
  • Role: Counsel (likely local or trial counsel).
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Co-founder of Gillam & Smith, known for their extensive experience in patent, commercial, and personal injury law, with a strong focus on trial representation in Texas federal courts.

It is important to note that while Gillam & Smith LLP was listed among the defense counsel for ASUSTeK in one article, other firm information and attorney profiles strongly suggest their involvement in plaintiff-side patent litigation, particularly in the Eastern District of Texas. Given the conflicting information, and the prominence of Dickinson Wright PLLC and Haltom & Doan in the post-verdict reporting for the plaintiff, the inclusion of Gillam & Smith LLP and Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC is based on their general and highly active presence as plaintiff's counsel in EDTX patent cases and specific mentions for Force MOS in other contexts. However, the clearest and most direct mentions for the plaintiff in this specific case's verdict are for Dickinson Wright PLLC and Haltom & Doan.The following counsel of record represented Force MOS Technology in Force MOS Technology v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc. et al.:

Dickinson Wright PLLC

This firm led the legal team for Force MOS Technology, with several attorneys identified in post-verdict reporting.

• Christopher Hanba
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC. While the specific office location for Mr. Hanba in relation to this case is not explicitly stated, Dickinson Wright PLLC is a national firm with a presence in various patent litigation hubs. He has also represented Force MOS in other patent infringement matters.
  • Experience Note: Quoted celebrating the $10.5 million jury verdict, indicating a prominent role in the trial.
• Ross Garsson
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Member of the legal team that secured the $10.5 million patent infringement win for Force MOS.
• Michael Saunders
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Part of the "formidable legal team" representing Force MOS and also listed as respondent counsel for Force MOS in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding.
• Joshua Jones
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Contributed to the successful patent infringement trial for Force MOS.
• Bryan Atkinson
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Involved in the successful representation of Force MOS.
• Jordan Garsson
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Acknowledged as part of the legal team for Force MOS.
• Ariana Pellegrino (also referred to as Ariana Deskins Pellegrino)
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Listed among the attorneys who represented Force MOS, including in other patent infringement litigation.
• Tron Fu
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Dickinson Wright PLLC.
  • Experience Note: Member of the legal team for Force MOS in the patent infringement action.

Haltom & Doan

This firm was also identified as part of the legal team representing Force MOS Technology.

• Role: Counsel (firm listed generally).
• Firm & Office Location: Haltom & Doan, Texarkana, Texas.
• Experience Note: The firm is recognized for its work in the Eastern District of Texas, often serving as trial or local counsel in patent litigation. Specific individual attorneys from the firm were not named in the provided sources for this particular case.

Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry)

This firm's attorneys are noted for their extensive patent litigation experience in the Eastern District of Texas and likely acted as local counsel or trial counsel through the early stages and trial of this case.

• J. Wesley Hill
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead or trial counsel through the trial phase).
  • Firm & Office Location: Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas. Note: Mr. Hill ended his trial practice effective October 1, 2024, to focus on mediation/ADR services.
  • Experience Note: An experienced Eastern District of Texas trial lawyer in patent infringement and intellectual property litigation, having been counsel of record in over 1100 cases and trying over 30 cases to verdict. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers.
• Johnny Ward
  • Role: Counsel (likely lead or trial counsel through the trial phase).
  • Firm & Office Location: Formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC, Longview, Texas. Note: Mr. Ward also ended his trial practice effective October 1, 2024, to focus on mediation.
  • Experience Note: Has appeared as attorney of record in over 500 patent infringement cases and tried nearly 60 cases to a jury verdict, earning recognition as a Texas Super Lawyer for 20 years.

Gillam & Smith LLP

This firm is highly active in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. While one article mentioned them as part of the defense team, their firm profile and other mentions indicate a strong presence representing plaintiffs in the EDTX.

• S. Calvin Capshaw
  • Role: Counsel (likely local or trial counsel).
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas. He is also a Partner at Capshaw DeRieux, LLP in Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: His practice includes patent litigation and federal court litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, and he has been recognized as a Super Lawyer in Business Litigation.
• Elizabeth Gillam
  • Role: Counsel (likely local or trial counsel).
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP, Marshall, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Co-founder of Gillam & Smith, the firm has extensive experience representing both plaintiffs and defendants in federal court patent infringement litigation throughout Texas, often trying several cases each year.

The defendant, ASUSTek Computer, Inc., in Force MOS Technology v. ASUSTek Computer, Inc. (2:22-cv-00460), was represented by counsel from several law firms. The legal team for ASUSTeK included attorneys from Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Lumens Law Group PLLC, and Gillam & Smith LLP.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP

• Charles M. McMahon
  • Role: Counsel. He filed a Notice of Appearance for ASUSTek Computer, Inc..
  • Firm & Office Location: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP, Chicago, Illinois.
  • Note: McMahon has actively participated in the case, including communications regarding pre-trial conferences and mediation updates.
• Kal Shah
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.
  • Note: Shah is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team in this case.
• Thomas DaMario
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.
  • Note: DaMario is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team in this case.
• Kathleen Lynch
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff LLP.
  • Note: Lynch is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team in this case.

Lumens Law Group PLLC

• Ziyong (Sean) Li
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Lumens Law Group PLLC.
  • Note: Li is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team.
• Li Chen
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Lumens Law Group PLLC.
  • Note: Chen is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team.

Gillam & Smith LLP

• Melissa Smith
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP.
  • Note: Smith is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team in this case, a firm known for its presence in Eastern District of Texas patent litigation.
• J. Travis Underwood
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Gillam & Smith LLP.
  • Note: Underwood is listed as part of ASUSTeK's legal team.

While other firms like Kasowitz LLP (Jonathan K. Waldrop, Marcus A. Barber, ThucMinh Nguyen, Fria R. Kermani) and Wolf Greenfield (Scott A. McKeown) have represented ASUSTeK in related patent matters or IPRs, the specific docket entries and news reports for 2:22-cv-00460 primarily identify the attorneys listed above as the counsel of record for ASUSTeK in this particular district court case.