Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. NXP Semiconductors N.V.

I'll research this case thoroughly across multiple sources. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Let me dig deeper into the IPR outcomes, the stay, and the patent's provenance.

Case Overview and Background

Parties. The plaintiff, Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC (HID), is a non-practicing entity — a patent-assertion vehicle formed in Texas in January 2023 as a subsidiary of Quest Patent Research Corporation (QPRC), a small, publicly traded (OTC) patent-monetization company whose only full-time employee is longtime CEO Jon S. Scahill. HID's asserted portfolio is a ten-patent set (the "HID Portfolio") it acquired from Newfort Fab, LLC (d/b/a Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach, Inc.), a Tower Semiconductor affiliate; the $3.3M cash portion of the purchase was funded by QPRC Finance III LLC, and the assignment was recorded with the USPTO on March 24, 2023 (RPX, "QPRC's Harbor Island Files First Suit," May 7, 2024). QPRC's SEC filings confirm HID is the sole real party-in-interest and describe the patents as generally related to transistor and semiconductor fabrication, with recoveries flowing through contingent-fee counsel and litigation funders. HID is represented by Fabricant LLP (Alfred Fabricant, Joseph Mercadante, Vincent Rubino III, Peter Lambrianakos, Richard Cowell), with Norton Rose Fulbright appearing in the PTAB proceedings. The defendant, NXP Semiconductors N.V., is a Dutch operating company and one of the world's largest automotive and secure-connectivity semiconductor suppliers; HID also named roughly a dozen NXP foreign affiliates (NXP B.V., and NXP entities in Japan, Hong Kong, Thailand, India, Korea, Malaysia, Beijing, Tianjin, Singapore, Taiwan, and Guangdong), which the complaint leveraged to argue that foreign entities may be sued in any judicial district. NXP's 2015 merger with the Texas-based Freescale Semiconductor and its 2019 acquisition of Marvell's Wi-Fi business were pleaded as evidence of purposeful U.S.-market targeting.

Accused product and patent. The sole asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 7,745,886, "Semiconductor on Insulator (SOI) Switching Circuit" (filed Sept. 29, 2008; issued June 29, 2010; priority Dec. 10, 2007; inventors Robert L. Zwingman and Marco Racanelli). The accused instrumentality is NXP's TDF8530TH — an I²C-bus-controlled, quad bridge-tied-load car-audio Class-D power amplifier (45 W/2 Ω per channel; SOT1131-1/HSOP44 package; AEC-Q100 qualified) built on an "NDMOST-NDMOST output stage based on SOI BCDMOS technology," per NXP's own datasheet — along with products incorporating it. The '886 patent claims an SOI switching circuit in which cascaded transistors sit in a device layer over a buried oxide (BOX) layer and bulk substrate, with source/drain junctions that stop short of (do not contact) the BOX, retaining a bulk-silicon-like junction capacitance, combined with a trench that extends through the device layer to the BOX surface to isolate a transistor and, per the functional limitation, "reduce voltage and current fluctuations." HID's amended complaint (Doc. 47, Feb. 13, 2025) pleads infringement of at least independent claim 1 using SEM micrographs purporting to show the cascaded transistors, the non-contacting junctions, and an STI trench reaching the BOX to

I'll research this case using web searches across the sources you specified.

I have substantial initial material. Let me dig into the docket, the stay, the IPR outcomes, and the appeal.

Let me dig into the district court docket (answer, motions, stay) and the PTAB final written decision and appeal.

Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC v. NXP Semiconductors N.V., No. 2:24-cv-00717-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.)

Present posture (as of 2026-09-10): The district court case remains stayed, with no substantive merits ruling ever issued. The sole asserted patent, U.S. 7,745,886, had all challenged claims (1–19) cancelled by the PTAB in a final written decision dated 2026-03-16, and that decision is on appeal (status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed"). The litigation is therefore effectively held in abeyance pending Federal Circuit review.

---

1. The patent and the accused product (background)

• U.S. 7,745,886, "Semiconductor on Insulator (SOI) Switching Circuit"; filed 2008-09-29 (priority 2007-12-10), issued 2010-06-29; inventors Robert L. Zwingman and Marco Racanelli (successor to Jazz/Conexant-era SOI work; the Quest Patent Research SEC filings describe a Tower Semiconductor portfolio purchase).
• Accused instrumentality: NXP TDF8530TH car-audio Class-D amplifier (quad BTL; "NDMOST output stage based on SOI BCDMOS" technology), asserted against claim 1 and its structural limitations (cascaded transistors over a BOX layer, source/drain junctions not contacting the BOX, trench reaching the BOX top surface). Induced/willful infringement also pleaded. (complaint analysis)

2. Filing and initial pleadings (2024)

Sources: Justia docket summary.

Answer / counterclaims: I could not verify from available sources whether NXP filed an answer, a Rule 12 motion, or invalidity/non-infringement counterclaims in this docket. The letters-rogatory activity in September 2024 indicates service on the foreign affiliates was still being perfected, and Petitioner's later statement to the Board that the court "did not issue any substantive ruling before the stay" suggests the case was frozen early. Treat the absence of confirmed answer/counterclaim entries as a sourcing gap, not a finding.

3. Amended pleading

• 2025-02-13 — Amended Complaint (Dkt. 47). It narrowed/re-focused the case on the '886 patent and the TDF8530TH, with SEM micrographs mapped element-by-element to claim 1, and added jurisdictional hooks (NXP's 2015 Freescale merger; 2019 Marvell Wi-Fi acquisition). (Dkt. 47 analysis)

4. Pre-trial motions of substance

• No Markman, no summary judgment, no motions in limine, no trial. According to Petitioner's September 2025 filing with the Board, both the NXP and Samsung district cases "have been stayed and the court did not issue any substantive ruling before the stay." (PTAB correspondence, 2025-09-25)
• Stay pending IPR: the case is stayed (per case metadata), but I could not retrieve the exact stay order date or docket number. Based on the timeline, the stay was entered during 2025, after NXP filed its IPR (2025-05-02) and in connection with the Board's institution/joinder (2025-09-22). Date unverified.
• Contrast with the parallel Samsung case: in Harbor Island Dynamic v. Samsung Electronics, No. 2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP, the court denied Samsung's motion to stay pending IPR (Dkt. 62) and entered a Docket Control Order (Dkt. 38) — both cited as exhibits in the Samsung IPR. So the two HID cases initially diverged on stay posture before both ended up stayed.
• No motion to dismiss, transfer, or forum challenge was found in the available record. I cannot confirm that none was filed.

5. Claim construction

Not reached. The case was stayed before any Markman hearing or claim-construction order. The complaint itself flagged the two terms likely to have driven construction had the case proceeded:

• "source/drain junction that does not contact said buried oxide layer" — purely structural vs. requiring bulk-silicon-like junction capacitance behavior; and
• "so as to reduce voltage and current fluctuations in said device layer" — a functional limitation requiring proof beyond structural micrographs.

6. Discovery milestones

No strategically significant discovery events are documented beyond service via letters rogatory on the Asian NXP affiliates (2024-09) — itself noteworthy, since it shows HID was pursuing foreign-manufacturing discovery and broad entity coverage. No fact discovery, expert reports, or IPR estoppel-relevant milestones are confirmed.

7. Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

None. No trial date was reached; no verdict, JMOL, new-trial, or fee motion exists.

8. Parallel PTAB proceedings — the decisive track

• NXP's petition was filed simultaneously with a motion for joinder to Samsung's IPR2024-01402, using the same grounds, same prior art, and the same expert declaration (Scott Emmet Thompson, Ph.D.), differing only in mandatory notices and deletion of the discretionary-denial section. NXP agreed to an "understudy" role. (Motion for Joinder)
• Grounds challenged claims 1–19 on: anticipation by Okashita (U.S. 6,836,172) and by Yu (U.S. 6,737,682); obviousness over Burgener (US 2006/0270367) in view of Okashita; plus Okashita-alone, Okashita+Yu, and Burgener+Okashita+Yu combinations. (petition analysis)
• 2026-03-16 — Final Written Decision (joined proceeding): the Board held the challenged claims unpatentable as anticipated and obvious. Reported 2026-03-17: "Challenged claims of Harbor Island Dynamic's patent … are unpatentable as anticipated by and obvious over prior art," relying on an LVT silicon-controlled rectifier fabricated using an SOI system, a semiconductor switch apparatus with isolated MOS transistors, and an integrated RF front end with stacked transistor switch. (Bloomberg Law, 2026-03-17) Note: the Bloomberg item's subject-matter gloss ("a circuit for correcting distortion of radio signals") does not match the '886 patent's SOI-switching-circuit disclosure, but the recited prior art maps precisely onto the '886 grounds — I treat the SOI '886 FWD as the operative holding and flag the description as inconsistent.
• Panel: APJs Arthur M. Peslak, Gregg I. Anderson, and Hyun J. Jung (listed for IPR2025-00954).
• Counsel: NXP — Eagle Robinson, Richard Zembek, Eric Green, Jiang Wu (Norton Rose Fulbright); HID — Joseph Mercadante et al. (Fabricant LLP); Samsung's IPRs — Chen Zang (Finnegan).

Effect on the litigation: Because the FWD cancelled every claim HID asserted, the district case lost its jurisdictional predicate; the stay has not been lifted and no judgment of invalidity has been entered in E.D. Tex.

9. Appeal — current posture

• The joined FWD is "Final Written Decision – Appealed."
• A 2026-06-05 filing records "Petitioner's Opposition to Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC's Request for Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal." Harbor Island therefore moved to appeal (Federal Circuit), with NXP opposing an extension of the notice-of-appeal deadline. (IPR2024-01402 docket)
• No Federal Circuit decision (Rule 36 or otherwise) is evidenced as of 2026-09-10; appeal docket number not verified.

10. Corporate/financial context

HID is a Quest Patent Research Corp. (QPRC) portfolio entity. Quest's SEC filings confirm: the Samsung suit (Feb 2024), the NXP suit (Aug 2024), Samsung's four September 2024 IPR petitions instituted April 2025, and that all actions "are pending" — with QPRC reporting no 2024 revenue from this campaign and going-concern doubt. (QPRC Form POS AM, 2026)

---

Bottom line chronology

1. 2024-08-30 – Complaint against NXP N.V. + 12 affiliates.
2. 2024-09-24 – Letters rogatory granted; Samsung files first IPRs on the '886.
3. 2025-02-13 – Amended complaint (TDF8530TH / claim 1).
4. 2025-04-04 – Board institutes Samsung's IPR2024-01402.
5. 2025-05-02 – NXP files IPR2025-00954 + joinder motion ("understudy").
6. 2025 (mid) – District case stayed (no substantive ruling).
7. 2025-09-22 – Board institutes NXP IPR and grants joinder.
8. 2026-03-16 – FWD: claims 1–19 unpatentable; proceedings terminated.
9. 2026-06 – HID appeal to the Federal Circuit pending; NXP opposes extension.
10. 2026-09-10 – District case stayed; no Markman, no trial, no damages, no final judgment.

Sourcing gaps / caveats

• Unverified: the exact district-court stay order date and docket number; whether/when NXP answered or counterclaimed; whether any motion to dismiss, transfer, or §315(b) service challenge was filed; the Federal Circuit appeal number; the Rule 90.3(c)/extension dispute's resolution.
• Potential discrepancy: HID's 2025-09-25 related-matters update ties IPR2024-01403 (as well as -01402) to the NXP case, hinting a second HID patent may have been in play against NXP. The case metadata (authoritative here) lists only the '886. I could not resolve this; flagging it rather than asserting it.
• Party/court/case-number facts are taken from the case metadata; everything else is sourced above and should be re-confirmed against live PACER/PTAB records before reliance.

I'll research the counsel of record for Harbor Island Dynamic in this case.

Bottom line

Plaintiff Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC ("HID") is represented in E.D. Tex. Case No. 2:24-cv-00717 by a single out-of-state IP boutique — Fabricant LLP, Rye, New York. Five attorneys entered appearances on the filing date (Aug. 30, 2024) and the same team appears for HID in the parallel PTAB proceedings on the '886 patent. I found no Texas local counsel entered on the docket as of the last retrievable docket capture, and no in-house counsel appearance.

---

Counsel of record for Plaintiff (district court docket, 2:24-cv-00717-JRG-RSP)

All five appearances were filed August 30, 2024 (the day the original complaint was filed), per the Justia docket sheet (docket):

Source for the PTAB designations: Patent Owner's Power of Attorney and Mandatory Notices, IPR2025-00954 (NXP v. Harbor Island Dynamic), filed May 22, 2025 — USPTO PTAB document. Note that the lead/back-up hierarchy "of record" for the plaintiff is formally designated in the PTAB filings, not in the district-court docket — E.D. Tex. dockets do not carry a lead-counsel designation, so the "lead counsel" label above derives from the IPR papers.

---

Firm context and litigation posture

• Fabricant LLP is a New York–based IP boutique that serves as outside patent-enforcement counsel to Quest Patent Research Corp. and its litigation subsidiaries. Third-party coverage of HID's first suit states plainly: "Fabricant LLP represents HID in the new case… Chief Judge Gilstrap presides" (Mondaq/prior-art-article coverage of QPRC's Harbor Island filing).
• HID is a QPRC monetization vehicle (QPRC 8-K, Oct. 31, 2024, "Harbor Island Dynamic LLC Portfolio"; otcmarkets filing). QPRC's SEC disclosure confirms HID's two EDTX campaigns (Samsung, Feb. 2024; NXP, Aug. 2024) and that QPRC litigation is funded on contingent-fee arrangements with counsel — relevant because it confirms the economic alignment of Fabricant LLP as plaintiff-side contingent counsel.
• Engagement scope: Fabricant LLP is counsel of record across the '886 patent matters — HID v. NXP (2:24-cv-00717), HID v. Samsung (2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP), and the IPRs (Samsung's IPR2024-01402, -01403, -01404, -01405, and NXP's IPR2025-00954 and its joinder request). The firm's attorneys appear in the PTAB service certificates as "Counsel for Patent Owner Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC" (Petitioner's Request for Oral Argument, IPR2024-01402).

Defendant's counsel (for contrast)

NXP is represented by Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP — Eagle H. Robinson and Eric C. Green (Austin), Richard S. Zembek (Houston), and Jiang Wu (Chicago) — as reflected in HID's PTAB service certificates. In the Samsung IPR, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP (Joshua L. Goldberg) serves as Samsung's lead counsel. Note the contrast: NXP has Texas-local counsel on the pleadings; the plaintiff does not.

---

Gaps and caveats (flagging what I could not verify)

1. No independent PACER pull was available in this research pass. The Justia docket snapshot is expressly dated "last retrieved on September 24, 2024." Because the case was stayed pending the IPRs, it is unlikely but not impossible that later appearances (e.g., pro hac vice admissions, substitutions, or a notice of withdrawal) were filed. Any post–Sept. 2024 appearance changes should be confirmed on PACER/ROI before being relied on.
2. Local counsel: I found no Texas local counsel in the docket entries or PTAB papers for HID. I cannot rule out that one appeared after the last docket capture; no such appearance is documented in the sources I could retrieve.
3. In-house counsel: None appears on the docket. QPRC is a small public shell-style parent and, per its own SEC filings, relies on contingent-fee outside counsel; no QPRC legal-department attorney has entered an appearance that I could locate.
4. Attorney bios / prior-case specifics: I did not verify individual attorney histories on Fabricant LLP's website or in court opinions during this pass. Beyond the registration numbers (Mercadante 64,077; Cowell 79,143) and their PTAB roles, I have no sourced basis for stating specific prior cases for Lambrianakos or Rubino — I have deliberately not guessed.
5. Case-viability claims circulating on investor message boards (that the '886 IPR was lost and "the NXP case is dead") are unverified and appear to contain a patent-number typo ('7,745,828' vs. '886'); treat them as rumor. As of the last authoritative document I found, the IPR2024-01402 oral argument was scheduled for January 7, 2026, and the district case remained stayed with no substantive rulings (PTAB request for oral argument). Given today's date, a final written decision may since have issued — confirm on PTAB docket before relying on the stay rationale.

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Good progress. Now let me find the district court appearances for NXP and the stay motion.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and NXP's district court appearances.

Counsel of Record for Defendant NXP Semiconductors N.V.

Important sourcing caveat up front: The public docket snapshots I could retrieve for 2:24-cv-00717-JRG-RSP (Justia's docket sheet, last refreshed September 24, 2024) stop at ETX Docket Entries 10–15 (the plaintiff's letters-rogatory motions) and do not contain any defense-side appearance notices or an answer. The defendant-side identification below is therefore grounded primarily in the PTAB record for the parallel IPR (IPR2025-00954), where the same Norton Rose Fulbright team is expressly designated "Attorneys for NXP Semiconductors N.V." I was not able to pull a current PACER docket sheet confirming each attorney's E.D. Tex. appearance notice. That inference is strong but should be treated as such until the district docket is re-pulled.

---

Attorneys identified

All are at Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP and were jointly served as NXP's counsel of record in NXP Semiconductors N.V. et al. v. Harbor Island Dynamic, LLC, IPR2025-00954 (Petition filed 05/02/2025; instituted 09/22/2025). The PTAB filing lists "Robinson, Eagle et al." as Petitioner Counsel.

Local counsel: I found no separately identified E.D. Tex. local counsel for NXP in the materials available. Norton Rose Fulbright maintains an Austin and Houston presence, which typically satisfies the district's local-counsel practice, so a separate local-counsel designation may be unnecessary here — but I cannot confirm this from a docket-verified appearance.

In-house counsel: No NXP in-house attorney is identified in the records I could retrieve. None should be assumed.

---

Corroborating source

Patent Owner Harbor Island Dynamic's Mandatory Notices in IPR2025-00954 (Paper filed May 22, 2025), Certificate of Service, lists exactly the four attorneys above as "Attorneys for NXP Semiconductors N.V." — served at their respective NRF addresses.
Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1557840](/patent/1557840)/download-documents

---

Do not confuse with Samsung's counsel

The Samsung Harbor Island case (2:24-cv-00140-JRG-RSP) and its IPRs (IPR2024-01402 through -01405) are handled by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — e.g., Chen Zang (Washington, DC) — not by NRF. Those attorneys represent Samsung, not NXP. Similarly, Plaintiff Harbor Island Dynamic is represented by Fabricant LLP (Joseph M. Mercadante, Alfred R. Fabricant, Richard M. Cowell, and Vincent J. Rubino III), with Mercadante as lead counsel in the IPRs.

---

What I could not verify

• No docket-verified district court appearance notices. The most recent public docket text available to me for 2:24-cv-00717 ends 09/24/2024, before any NXP appearance. Whether NRF entered an appearance in the E.D. Tex. case, and under exactly which attorneys and role designations (lead / of counsel / local), is not confirmed by a docket sheet.
• No sealing indication found for defense filings, but the case is stayed (stayed pending the IPR proceedings, per PTAB related-matter representations), so the district docket contains little substance and, per the PTAB correspondence, "the court did not issue any substantive ruling before the stay."
• I could not retrieve any firm-website bio pages or Law360/Reuters counsel coverage in this session to further detail individual attorneys' past matters.

Recommendation: Re-pull the PACER docket sheet for 2:24-cv-00717-JRG-RSP to capture the Notice(s) of Attorney Appearance for NXP and the motion to stay, which will confirm each attorney's district court role and whether any local counsel was designated.