Litigation

Macronix International Co., Ltd. et al. v. Spansion, Inc. et al.

terminated by settlement

337-TA-909

Auto-generating section 1 of 5: 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. International Trade Commission (Section 337)
Filed: 2013-12-27

Patents at issue (3)

Plaintiffs (2)

Defendants (11)

Summary

Macronix entities filed a Section 337 complaint against Spansion entities and downstream respondents alleging infringement of US 6,100,557 (claims 1-3, 7, and 9-13) and other patents. The investigation was terminated by the January 2015 global settlement before any exclusion order issued.

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).

In the news

What the press has reported about this case, summarized with links to the source articles.

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: 6100557-337-ta-909 · edit in Admin

Further reading

What patent litigation actually costs (AIPLA Economic Survey)
It costs a few hundred dollars to file a patent complaint and a median of $1.5M-$3.2M to defend one through trial. That gap isn't a side effect of patent litigation — for a troll, it is the entire business model.
Declaratory judgment actions: when to flip the table on a patent troll
The patent holder is the one with the patent. They're not always the one who gets to pick the courtroom.
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.
Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) lawsuit defense: a defendant's playbook
Defending an NPE suit is different from defending a competitor's suit. The asymmetries cut both ways — and the right plays exploit the ones that favor the defendant.
Anatomy of a shakedown: how a patent troll campaign actually works
A patent troll demand letter isn't a lawsuit. It's the output of an industrial process designed to extract money at scale, calibrated to your defense costs, and dependent on you not coordinating with the other 199 targets in the same campaign.

All resources →