Intel Corporation v. AmberWave Systems Corporation

I'll research this case carefully, starting with the patents and docket.

Case Overview — Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00301-KAJ (D. Del.)

The parties. Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, CA; Delaware-incorporated) is the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer and, in this dispute, the accused infringer — and, unusually, the declaratory-judgment plaintiff. AmberWave Systems Corporation (Salem, NH; also Delaware-incorporated) was an MIT spin-out founded in 1998 by Prof. Eugene A. Fitzgerald and his former student Mayank Bulsara, built on an exclusive license of MIT strained-silicon technology plus Fitzgerald's earlier Bell Labs work. AmberWave was not a classic non-practicing entity: it ran its own 30,000 sq.-ft. R&D facility and class-10 clean room, employed roughly 20–23 people (about a quarter with PhDs), raised $60–91 million from 3i, Adams Capital Management, ARCH Venture Partners, The Hillman Company and TeleSoft, and monetized through patent licensing rather than chip sales — by its own account it had licensed seven semiconductor manufacturers (Applied Materials, Agere, Sumitomo Mitsui, Siltron and, after this case, Intel). It therefore sits between a university technology-transfer office and a licensing assertion entity; Fitzgerald was publicly described as the "Father of Strained Silicon." Sources: AmberWave prepared statement of Bryan P. Lord to the House Small Business Committee (Mar. 29, 2007); AmberWave fact sheet; EE Times, Oct. 22, 2001; MRS Bulletin, Jan. 2007 interview with Fitzgerald.

The technology and the patents. The accused technology was Intel's 90-nm process generation of Pentium microprocessors, which used strained silicon — a relaxed SiGe buffer grown on a silicon substrate, with a thin silicon channel placed under biaxial tension to raise electron (and, less so, hole) mobility, so that chips run faster at constant power or draw less power at constant frequency. AmberWave contended Intel adopted its proprietary strain-processing techniques without a license; Intel publicly countered that the foundational strained-silicon work traced to Stanford's Judy Hoyt and James Gibbons, previewing an invalidity/inventorship defense. Three patents were in suit, all naming AmberWave as assignee:

• US 6,831,292 — "Semiconductor Structures Employing Strained Material Layers with Defined Impurity Gradients and Methods for Fabricating Same" (issued Dec. 14, 2004; filed Sept. 20, 2002; Currie, Lochtefeld, Hammond, Fitzgerald). Keeps regions of the strained layer free of interdiffusing impurities (e.g., from a doped SiGe layer) that degrade device performance.
• US 6,881,632 — "Method of Fabricating CMOS Inverter and Integrated Circuits Utilizing Strained Surface Channel MOSFETs" (granted April 2005; filed July 1, 2003; Fitzgerald & Gerrish). Uses a compositionally graded buffer to relax SiGe on Si, then grows a strained silicon surface channel, enabling faster CMOS inverters/ICs.
• US 6,946,371 — "Methods of Fabricating Semiconductor Structures Having Epitaxially Grown Source and Drain Elements" (issued Sept. 20, 2005). Methods for substantially facet-less raised epitaxial source/drain regions.
  Technical sketches per Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Sys. Corp., 233 F.R.D. 416 (D. Del. 2005); patent front pages; Compound Semiconductor, July 2005; heise online, July 2005.

Procedural posture, venue, and why it matters. AmberWave sent Intel a cease-and-desist/formal notice letter on May 9, 2005; Intel responded eight days later by filing a DJ action of non-infringement of the '292 patent in the District of Delaware (May 17, 2005) before Judge Kent A. Jordan. AmberWave counterclaimed for '292 infringement, then on July 15, 2005 filed its own '632 suit in the plaintiff-friendly E.D. Tex. (Marshall Division), No. 2:05-cv-321, before Judge Leonard Davis. Intel moved to transfer under the first-to-file rule, and Judge Davis granted the transfer on Nov. 1, 2005, holding the two patents — though addressing different "scientific aspects, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering"—presented "closely related questions or subject matter" over the same accused products (AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., 2005 WL 2861476 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005)). The '371 patent produced a genuine race: it issued on Sept. 20, 2005, and AmberWave dropped a complaint in the Marshall courthouse box at 5:50 a.m. Central; Intel filed its own DJ complaint in Delaware at about 8:30 a.m. Eastern (No. 05-682-KAJ). Judge Jordan granted Intel's motion to supplement the '301 complaint to add the '371 patent on Nov. 29, 2005 (233 F.R.D. 416), and the actions were consolidated in Delaware in February 2006 (RPX Insight records Judge Jordan presiding until Dec. 7, 2006 — consistent with his elevation to the Third Circuit — with Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. among those thereafter assigned). No claim construction or merits ruling appears in the record I could locate; the case ended on March 5, 2007 with a global settlement in which Intel took a 10-year license to AmberWave's patent portfolio, the parties agreed to continue discussions about AmberWave's R&D, and all other terms were confidential (LA Times and Mercury News, Mar. 5–6, 2007; Intel Form 10-K disclosure of joint dismissal). Delaware mattered twice over: it was the parties' common state of incorporation and the first-filed forum, and Intel's preemptive DJ is a textbook use of the declaratory-judgment device to pull a would-be Marshall case into a slower, less plaintiff-oriented court — the scenario now associated with TC Heartland–era venue strategy. The case is notable for (i) putting ownership of strained silicon, the principal performance lever of the 90-nm-to-45-nm era, at issue against the industry's largest chipmaker; (ii) its same-day, hour-by-hour courthouse race over the '371 patent; (iii) an asymmetric outcome in which a 20-person licensor obtained a paid portfolio license from Intel without any adjudication of validity or infringement; and (iv) its afterlife as a patent-reform exhibit — AmberWave testified before the House Small Business Committee in March 2007, days after settling, and was a founding member of the Innovation Alliance. AmberWave itself wound down around 2010, its assets reincorporated as AmberWave, Inc. (xConomy, Aug. 2010).

Sourcing caveats. I did not verify the docket entry-by-entry on PACER, and I could not confirm trial counsel of record, any ex parte reexamination requests, or the precise identity of the judge(s) who inherited the case after Judge Jordan's confirmation (RPX lists Farnan plus two others, which I have not independently corroborated). There were no PTAB/IPR proceedings because the case closed five years before the AIA created the IPR regime — absence of IPR linkage here is a function of timing, not of the parties

I'll research this case across multiple sources, starting with broad searches on the litigation.

Good initial results. Now let me dig into docket detail, claim construction, and any dispositive rulings.

Now let me check whether the case reached Markman/summary judgment, and examine the related '907 and '655 patent actions.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., C.A. No. 1:05-cv-00301 (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This was a 658-day, forum-war-driven declaratory-judgment consolidated action over AmberWave's strained-silicon patents. It never reached trial, Markman ruling, or summary judgment: the only published substantive ruling is a November 29, 2005 Rule 15(d)/first-to-file decision, 233 F.R.D. 416, and the case ended by stipulated dismissal with prejudice on 2007-03-05 as part of a global settlement in which Intel took a 10-year license. There were no PTAB proceedings (the AIA trial regime did not exist until 2012).

---

I. Filing & Initial Pleadings

Sources: Intel's original complaint, https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[192215](/patent/192215)/Complaint_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; EE Times, 2005-07-18, https://www.eetimes.com/amberwave-files-suit-against-intel/; CNET, https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/intel-hit-with-chip-tech-lawsuits/.

Note on the caption: after consolidation the Delaware action was formally captioned AmberWave Systems Corp. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 05-301 (Consolidated) (including 05-837), with Intel's DJ claims proceeding as counterclaims. The prompt's caption reflects the original 2005 filing.

---

II. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

1. The transfer fight (the real venue battle).
Intel moved in E.D. Tex. to transfer the '632 case to Delaware under the first-to-file rule. On 2005-11-01, Judge Davis granted transfer in AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., 2005 WL 2861476 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005), holding that substantial overlap "does not require that the core issues be identical, but that the two actions will involve closely related questions or subject matter" — even though the patents addressed "different scientific aspects, mechanical engineering and electrical engineering," and even though Delaware was the declaratory-judgment plaintiff's chosen forum. Judge Davis quoted Judge Jordan's September 7, 2005 telephonic-conference admonition that AmberWave had "created now a conflict that probably shouldn't have existed by suing the same party in another district."
https://www.casetext.com/case/amberwave-systems-corp-v-intel-corporation

2. Intel's Rule 15(d) motion to supplement (D.I. 30, filed 2005-09-26). Granted 2005-11-29: Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Sys. Corp., 233 F.R.D. 416 (D. Del. 2005) (Jordan, J.). Two holdings matter:

• Supplementation to add the newly issued '371 patent was proper under Rule 15(d) (no undue prejudice/delay), notwithstanding GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp., 90 F.3d 479 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (no patent, no § 2201 jurisdiction) — because jurisdiction already existed over the '292 dispute.
• For first-filed priority purposes, the supplemental '371 claim could be treated as relating back to the May 17, 2005 filing date — defeating AmberWave's argument that its 5:50 a.m. Texas '371 filing won the race. Judge Jordan: "It makes no sense to burden the Eastern District of Texas with this third and latest version of the substantially overlapping disputes between the parties."
  https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[8759735](/patent/8759735)/intel-corp-v-amberwave-systems-corp/ | https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/opinion/intel-corporation-v-amberwave-systems-corporation

3. Consolidation. The parties stipulated to consolidate AmberWave's infringement claims on the '292,

I'll research counsel of record for both sides to be precise about which party was "plaintiff" at which stage (Intel as DJ plaintiff, AmberWave as consolidated plaintiff).

Good baseline. Now let me confirm the Delaware-specific appearances and the Simpson Thacher team.

Now let me pull the actual Delaware docket to confirm appearances and pro hac vice admissions.

Scope note before the names

The metadata lists Intel Corporation as plaintiff, and that is correct for the case as filed on 2005-05-17 — Intel's declaratory-judgment complaint, D.I. 1, was signed and submitted on Intel's behalf. But as noted in the prior section, after the E.D. Tex. transfers and consolidation the docket was formally recaptioned AmberWave Systems Corp. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 05-301 (Consolidated), with AmberWave as plaintiff/counterclaim-plaintiff. So "plaintiff's counsel" means two different teams depending on the date. I give Intel's team as the primary answer (matching the metadata) and then AmberWave's team, because after November 2005 AmberWave held the plaintiff's slot in the operative caption.

---

I. Intel Corporation — counsel of record (D. Del.)

A. Delaware local counsel — Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP (Wilmington)

Sources: D.I. 6, Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Sys. Corp., C.A. No. 05-301-KAJ (D. Del. June 6, 2005), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[191971](/patent/191971)/Stipulation_to_EXTEND_Time_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; D.I. 95 (Mar. 23, 2006 stipulation), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[191917](/patent/191917)/Stipulation_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; D.I. 136 (July 12, 2006 notice of service), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[192155](/patent/192155)/Notice_of_Service_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware.

B. Of counsel / lead trial counsel — Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Source for the pro hac vice admissions: the E.D. Tex. docket in AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 2:05-cv-321 (E.D. Tex.), https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2xoepl6pt/texas-eastern-district-court/amberwave-systems-corporation-v-intel-corporation/ (approved PHV applications for Konrad, Ostrow, King, Ridder, Newcombe for Intel). The Delaware "Of Counsel" attribution is from D.I. 95 and the 2006 notice of service in C.A. No. 06-638, https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[119844](/patent/119844)/Notice_of_Service_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware.

C. Texas counsel for Intel (in the transferred/parallel E.D. Tex. matters)

Source: Intel's response filing in AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., E.D. Tex., https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[119854](/patent/119854)/Response_to_Motion_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; Bufe and Jones Delaware appearances noted in the E.D. Tex. docket index above (notices of appearance dated 08/04/2006).

---

II. AmberWave Systems Corp. — counsel (plaintiff under the consolidated caption)

Sources: D.I. 95 (Mar. 23, 2006); D.I. 129 (June 27, 2006 Sheasby declaration), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[192166](/patent/192166)/Redacted_Document_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; Oct. 17, 2006 motion, https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[192079](/patent/192079)/Motion_to_Amend_Correct_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; Dec. 8, 2005 notice of appearance in C.A. No. 05-837, https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[153965](/patent/153965)/Notice_of_Appearance_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware.

---

III. Verification notes and gaps

• No in-house Intel attorney appears as counsel of record in any filing I could retrieve. Intel's licensing-side people (Brad Greenwald, Reza Afghan, Farshid Adibi-Rizi, Reed Stahlie) appear only as fact witnesses in AmberWave's May 9, 2005 notice letter, not as counsel. I could not confirm any Intel legal-department attorney entering an appearance — treat that as "none identified," not "none existed."
• Steven J. Frank signed the May 9/10, 2005 cease-and-desist letter "We represent AmberWave Systems Corporation," but he is not counsel of record in C.A. 05-301 and I could not verify from the retrieved filings whether he was AmberWave in-house or outside counsel at that time. Do not list him as counsel of record.
• Office assignments for Konrad, Ostrow, and Ridder are not confirmed. The E.D. Tex. docket establishes only that they were Simpson Thacher attorneys admitted pro hac vice for Intel; the retrieved records do not state which Simpson Thacher office. I have deliberately not assigned them one.
• Firm-name caveat: Simpson Thacher's Palo Alto address appears in the record both as "2250 Hanover Street" and "3300 Hillview Avenue" (and once as "3330 Hillview"), reflecting a move during 2005–2006; both are the firm's Palo Alto office. Young Conaway appears both as "Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor" and "Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor."
• Docket-initial discrepancy to flag: the earlier sections of this summary cite the case throughout as "C.A. No. 05-301-KAJ." That is correct for the 2005–06 entries (Judge Jordan), but later filings bear "05-301-JJF-MPT," and RPX records Judge Jordan as presiding only "until 12/07/2006," with Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. thereafter. This is consistent with Judge Jordan's elevation to the Third Circuit and does not affect the counsel roster, but the caption initials change mid-case and attorneys' filings reflect both. https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation/dedce-34834-intel-v-amberwave-systems
• Sealed material: AmberWave's June 27, 2006 amendment papers and related filings were filed under seal with redacted public versions (D.I. 129 and accompanying brief), so any additional counsel appearing only on sealed exhibits would not be captured here.

I'll research counsel of record for AmberWave (the defendant in the original Delaware action and counterclaim-plaintiff after consolidation).

Strong hit. Let me pull the Delaware docket and confirm full counsel lists, including pro hac vice and in-house appearances.

Let me verify the Delaware-side pro hac vice admissions and check for any mid-case changes of counsel.

Counsel of Record — Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00301-KAJ (D. Del.)

Framing note on "defendant." In the action as filed (Intel's May 17, 2005 DJ complaint), the sole defendant was AmberWave Systems Corporation, and it is AmberWave's defense team that is the subject of this section. After consolidation (Feb. 2006) the caption flipped to AmberWave Systems Corp. v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 05-301 (Consolidated), with AmberWave as plaintiff/counterclaim-plaintiff and Intel as defendant/counterclaim-defendant. I therefore give AmberWave's roster first, then Intel's, clearly labeled — because in the operative consolidated pleading the "defendant" is Intel.

---

A. AmberWave Systems Corporation — Delaware counsel of record (local counsel)

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 N. Market Street, P.O. Box 1347, Wilmington, DE 19899-1347.

Sources: AmberWave Disclosure Statement, D.I. 8 (June 6, 2005); Notice of Service, D.I. 136 (July 12, 2006); Motion for Leave to Amend/Supplement, D.I. 184 (Oct. 17, 2006), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/192079/Motion_to_Amend_Correct_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware; Stipulation, D.I. 210 (Jan. 22, 2007).

B. AmberWave — lead/trial counsel (of counsel), not admitted in Delaware as local counsel

Irell & Manella LLP, 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (310) 277-1010 — designated "OF COUNSEL" on the Delaware filings.

Sources: Motion for Leave to Amend (D.I. 184) and Notice of Service (D.I. 136), both listing "OF COUNSEL: Morgan Chu, David I. Gindler, Jason G. Sheasby, IRELL & MANELLA LLP"; Declaration of Jason G. Sheasby (D.I. 129, filed June 27, 2006), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/192166/Redacted_Document_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware.

C. AmberWave — in-house counsel who appeared

Source: Sept. 7, 2005 telephone conference transcript, D. Del. (Judge Jordan), https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[154010](/patent/154010)/Remark_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware.

D. AmberWave — pro hac vice roster in the parallel E.D. Tex. action

In AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 2:05-cv-321 (E.D. Tex.) — the '632 case transferred to Delaware on Nov. 1, 2005 — the court approved pro hac vice applications for AmberWave from: Morgan Chu, David I. Gindler, Jason G. Sheasby, Maclain Wells, Alexander C.D. Giza, Andrew D. Weiss, Samuel K. Lu, Amir A. Naini, and Christopher A. Vanderlaan (all Irell & Manella). Source: Plainsite docket, https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/2xoepl6pt/texas-eastern-district-court/amberwave-systems-corporation-v-intel-corporation/.

Caveat: that Plainsite page aggregates filings and also lists Intel's Simpson Thacher pro hac vice admissions; I could not verify each AmberWave name against the individual docket entry, and some may relate to a later AmberWave–Intel Texas filing (the page also shows a 2006 complaint and a 10/31/2006 Rule 16 conference in Beaumont, which does not match the transferred 2005 case). Treat roster D as indicative, not docket-verified.

E. Pre-suit licensing counsel — not counsel of record

Steven J. Frank (then Goodwin Procter LLP, Exchange Place, Boston, MA) signed the May 9, 2005 cease-and-desist/notice letter to Intel CEO Paul Otellini (Exhibit B to Intel's complaint) "in connection with business and intellectual-property matters." I found no Delaware or Texas appearance by Frank or Goodwin Procter in this litigation; he appears to have acted as AmberWave's licensing/transactional IP counsel, not litigation counsel of record.

---

F. For completeness — Intel's counsel (the "defendant" in the consolidated caption)

Sources: Sept. 7, 2005 conference transcript (Ingersoll, Newcombe, King); Notice of Service, D.I. 136 (service list); Stipulation, D.I. 210 (Ingersoll, Shaw, Keller); E.D. Tex. Request for Judicial Notice signed by Michael E. Jones with Newcombe of counsel, https://www.findforms.com/single_form.php/form/[154036](/patent/154036)/Case_Transferred_In_District_Transfer_District_Court_of_Delaware_District_Court_of_Delaware_Delaware.

---

Verification notes and one cross-reference correction

1. Source quality. I did not pull the PACER docket directly. The roster above is reconstructed from imaged Delaware filings (D.I. 8, 95, 129, 136, 184, 210), the Nov. 29, 2005 opinion (233 F.R.D. 416), the Sept. 7, 2005 conference transcript, and the Plainsite/CourtListener dockets. No filing I located was under seal as to counsel identities; the sealed items in this case were substantive patent documents and discovery papers (e.g., sealed transfer briefing), not appearances.
2. Judge/footnote correction to the earlier section. Every 2006–07 Delaware filing in this case bears the header "Case 1:05-cv-00301-JJF-MPT", i.e., Judge Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. (JJF) with Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge (MPT) — corroborating the earlier caveat about post-Jordan succession and identifying the magistrate. The prior summary's "Farnan plus two others, uncorroborated" should be refined to Farnan + Thynge on this record.
3. No change of counsel detected. AmberWave's team (Morris Nichols + Irell) is stable from June 2005 through the January 2007 stipulations, and the same two firms appear for AmberWave in the related Delaware action No. 06-429 (Intel's later DJ suit), e.g., AmberWave's July 12, 2006 Answer in that case listing "OF COUNSEL: Morgan Chu, David I. Gindler, IRELL & MANELLA LLP."
4. Do not attribute Frank/Goodwin Procter, or the pro hac vice names in roster D, as counsel of record in the Delaware case without checking the D. Del. docket directly.