Litigation

HD Silicon Solutions LLC v. Microchip Technology Inc.

dismissed with prejudice

6:20-cv-01092; 3:21-cv-08295-SK

Auto-generating section 1 of 4: Case overview & background…

Each section takes ~30-60s with web-search grounding. Keep this tab open — sections will fill in below as they complete.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco) (original); U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San Francisco) (transferred)
Filed: 2020-11-30
Terminated: 2025-04-14

Patents at issue (7)

Plaintiffs (1)

π HD Silicon Solutions LLC

Defendants (1)

Δ Microchip Technology Inc.

Summary

HD Silicon Solutions LLC sued Microchip Technology Inc. for infringement of U.S. Patent 7,302,619 and six other patents. Filed in W.D. Tex. as 6:20-cv-01092, transferred to N.D. Cal. as 3:21-cv-08295-SK, and dismissed with prejudice on April 14, 2025.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

Not yet generated. Click Generate to run the LLM with web-search grounding (~30-60s).

Record id: 7302619-6-20-cv-01092-3-21-cv-08295-sk · edit in Admin

Further reading

IPR estoppel: the trade-off behind the cheapest invalidity tool
File your strongest art, file it well — or don't file at all if your strongest grounds aren't patents and publications. Estoppel is what makes IPR powerful for the system and dangerous for the defendant who underprepares.
District court vs. PTAB: where to fight a patent challenge
Every defendant who actually fights a patent ends up choosing — sometimes implicitly — between district court invalidity, PTAB IPR, or both in parallel. The trade-offs are not symmetric; the choice often determines the case.
Examples of NPE shell companies: how patent trolls structure their entities
The shell company is the patent troll's signature legal artifact. Knowing the structures lets you read the litigation strategy off the corporate filing.
What it costs to get a patent (AIPLA Economic Survey)
A US utility patent costs a median of $8,000-$12,000 in attorney fees to draft and file, depending on the technology — before USPTO fees, before drawings, and before the first office action. Here's the full bill, and why it's a rounding error next to enforcing the thing.
Patent trolls in 2025: the year in numbers
2025 was a banner year for patent trolls — and not by accident. Filings surged while the defendant's cheapest weapon, the PTAB, was quietly taken off the table. Here's what the reporting shows, and why the two are connected.

All resources →