Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Technologies Inc.

The IPR case IPR2025-01487, Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Technologies Inc., involves an intellectual property dispute before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning the validity of U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. is a subsidiary of Infineon Technologies AG, a leading global semiconductor company headquartered in Germany. Infineon designs and manufactures semiconductor devices for various markets, including automotive, industrial, and IoT applications, focusing on power systems and energy efficiency. Mosaid Technologies Inc., on the other hand, is a Canadian intellectual property (IP) management company specializing in the licensing, acquisition, and monetization of patents, particularly in semiconductor and wireless technologies. Mosaid, which has a history of developing DRAM technology, is widely recognized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), deriving its revenue primarily from patent licensing and enforcement rather than product manufacturing. This IPR proceeding targets a patent held by Mosaid, indicating a defensive action by Infineon against potential or actual infringement claims.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381, is titled "Memory device and method for operating the same." It generally relates to semiconductor memory technology, aiming to improve the operation of memory devices. While the specific accused products or technologies by Infineon are not explicitly detailed in the IPR filings, IPRs are typically initiated by companies facing allegations of patent infringement in district court or as a preemptive measure against such claims. Mosaid has a history of asserting its DRAM-related patents against major semiconductor manufacturers.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review before the PTAB, which is an administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The IPR was instituted and is currently pending, meaning the PTAB has agreed to review the patent's validity based on the grounds presented by Infineon. The "Terminated: 2026-03-17" date provided in the metadata is likely inaccurate given the "Pending - Instituted" status; institution dates or other procedural milestones are sometimes incorrectly labeled as "terminated" in initial summaries. The PTAB venue is significant because it offers an alternative, often faster and less expensive, forum for challenging patent validity compared to district court litigation. This case is notable as it represents an ongoing clash between a major operating semiconductor company, Infineon, and a prominent NPE, Mosaid, in the high-stakes semiconductor industry, highlighting the strategic use of IPRs to challenge patents asserted by licensing entities.The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case IPR2025-01487, Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Technologies Inc., is a significant patent validity challenge currently before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. is a subsidiary of Infineon Technologies AG, a German-based global leader in semiconductor manufacturing, specializing in power systems and IoT solutions for automotive, industrial, and multimarket sectors. Conversely, Mosaid Technologies Inc. operates as a Canadian intellectual property (IP) management company, widely recognized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) or Patent Assertion Entity (PAE), primarily engaged in licensing and monetizing its extensive patent portfolio, particularly in semiconductor and wireless technologies. This IPR proceeding was initiated by Infineon, likely as a defensive strategy against potential or existing patent infringement allegations from Mosaid, a company known for asserting its intellectual property rights against industry leaders.

The central subject of this dispute is U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381, titled "Memory device and method for operating the same." This patent generally pertains to innovations in semiconductor memory technology, focusing on methods and structures for improving the operation of memory devices. While the specific products or technologies manufactured by Infineon that are alleged to infringe this patent are not detailed in the IPR filing itself, the petition for IPR typically arises in the context of an underlying or anticipated patent infringement lawsuit. Mosaid has a long history of developing and licensing DRAM (Dynamic Random Access Memory) technologies and actively enforces its patent rights, often against major players in the semiconductor industry.

The case is currently in the "Pending - Instituted" status before the PTAB, meaning the Board has determined that Infineon's petition presents a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on at least one claim and has commenced a trial to review the patent's validity. The PTAB serves as a crucial administrative alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, offering a potentially more streamlined and cost-effective process. The mention of "Terminated: 2026-03-17" in the metadata appears to be an error, as an instituted and pending IPR is an active proceeding. This IPR is notable as it underscores the continuing trend of operating companies utilizing PTAB proceedings to challenge patents asserted by NPEs in critical technology sectors like semiconductors, reflecting broader industry strategies for managing patent litigation risk.

Legal Developments and Outcome for Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. v. Mosaid Technologies Inc., IPR2025-01487

This case concerns an Inter Partes Review (IPR) initiated by Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. ("Infineon") against Mosaid Technologies Inc. ("Mosaid") at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381. The IPR proceeding has concluded with a Final Written Decision.

Key Legal Developments

1. Parallel District Court Litigation:
Prior to the IPR filing, Mosaid Technologies Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, case number 1:25-cv-00436, on March 25, 2025. This lawsuit asserted, among other patents, U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381. Infineon responded to the district court complaint by filing an Answer and Counterclaims. Mosaid also filed another infringement complaint against Infineon (case 1:25-cv-00358 in the Western District of Texas) asserting different patents, against which Infineon also filed IPR petitions.

2. IPR Petition Filing:
Infineon filed its petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01487, against U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381 on August 29, 2025.

3. Institution Decision:
The PTAB instituted the IPR on February 10, 2026. The decision to institute an IPR means the PTAB found that Infineon demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable.

4. Claim Construction:
In IPR proceedings, the PTAB typically construes claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) standard for unexpired patents. While specific claim construction rulings for IPR2025-01487 were not detailed in available public records, claim construction was a significant issue in related IPRs filed by Infineon against Mosaid. For instance, in IPR2025-01171 (also Infineon v. Mosaid), the Director vacated an institution decision and denied institution due to Infineon's failure to adequately explain inconsistent claim constructions presented at the PTAB and in the parallel district court proceeding.

5. Final Written Decision:
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in IPR2025-01487 on May 7, 2026.

Outcome

The PTAB proceeding, IPR2025-01487, concluded with a Final Written Decision on May 7, 2026. While the case metadata initially indicated a "Terminated" status of 2026-03-17 and "Pending - Instituted", the issuance of a Final Written Decision supersedes this, confirming the IPR is no longer pending at the PTAB. The specific outcome of the Final Written Decision – whether the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,972,381 were found unpatentable or upheld – is not available in the publicly accessible search results.

The parallel district court litigation, Mosaid Tech Inc v. Infineon Tech AG, 1:25-cv-00436 (W.D. Tex.), remains open as of the current date. The outcome of the IPR will likely have implications for the validity arguments in the ongoing district court case.

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., the petitioner in IPR2025-01487, is represented by counsel from Fish & Richardson P.C. The lead attorneys of record appear to be Kenneth W. Darby and David M. Hoffman.

Here is a breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Kenneth W. Darby

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, Texas Office
  • Relevant Experience: Kenneth Darby has extensive experience in complex patent matters, particularly in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), where he has served as counsel in over 100 proceedings and is frequently designated lead counsel. He also has appellate experience, arguing and prevailing in multiple appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His practice spans various technical fields, including semiconductor manufacturing, distributed computing architectures, and telecommunications. He is noted for his ability to draft patents that withstand post-grant challenges.

• David M. Hoffman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Fish & Richardson P.C., Austin, Texas Office
  • Relevant Experience: David Hoffman's practice focuses on patent litigation, inter partes review proceedings, commercial and civil litigation, and patent prosecution. He has a strong record in U.S. district courts, including the Western District of Texas, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where he has appeared in over 60 IPRs. His technical background includes work as a configuration engineer and production supervisor for Applied Materials, Inc., and he has experience with semiconductor technology, memory, software, and wireless communications.

While Jamie McDole from Winstead PC is noted as counsel for Infineon in other related IPRs (IPR2025-01456 and IPR2025-01489) against Mosaid Technologies Inc. and a related district court case, there is no direct information confirming his appearance of record specifically for Infineon in IPR2025-01487.

tool_code
print(google_search.search(queries=["IPR2025-01487 Mosaid Technologies Inc. counsel of record", "Mosaid Technologies Inc. PTAB IPR2025-01487 attorneys", "Mosaid Technologies Inc. patent litigation counsel", "PTAB IPR2025-01487 docket counsel"]))
thought
The user is asking for the counsel of record representing Mosaid Technologies Inc. (the defendant/patent owner) in IPR2025-01487. I need to find the names of the attorneys, their roles, their firms and office locations, and a brief note on their relevant experience. I will use web search to find this information, specifically looking for docket entries, firm websites, and legal news sites.The defendant in IPR2025-01487, Mosaid Technologies Inc., is represented by counsel from at least two law firms: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, which holds the power of attorney for Mosaid, and Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP, with Nathan Lowenstein designated as backup counsel.

Here is the breakdown of the identified counsel:

• Nathan Lowenstein

  • Role: Backup Counsel
  • Firm: Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP
  • Office Location: Santa Monica, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Nathan Lowenstein is a founding and co-Managing Partner of Lowenstein & Weatherwax LLP and is recognized as one of the most active and best-performing IPR litigators in the United States for patent owners. He has represented patent owners in hundreds of PTAB proceedings and has been ranked by Patexia as the #1 performing IPR attorney representing patent owners for the period of July 2020 to June 2025. He also has experience as lead counsel in dozens of Federal Circuit appeals and federal court patent litigations.

• Borden Ladner Gervais LLP

  • Role: Counsel of Record (Power of Attorney)
  • Firm: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG)
  • Office Location: Ottawa, ON, Canada (listed on USPTO filings)
  • Relevant Experience: Borden Ladner Gervais LLP is a large, full-service Canadian law firm with a strong Intellectual Property Group. They are well-regarded for their patent prosecution and trademark filing work, as well as transactional matters and infringement litigation. Many professionals in their IP Group hold advanced degrees in various engineering, science, and technology fields. Given Mosaid Technologies Inc. is a Canadian company, BLG likely serves as the primary legal representation.