Marlin Semiconductor et al. v. TSMC et al.

Marlin Semiconductor and Longitude Licensing have initiated an ongoing patent infringement investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against a consortium of major technology companies, including TSMC, Apple, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Lenovo, Motorola, and OnePlus. Longitude Licensing is identified as an intellectual property management company, often categorized as a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) or Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), that acquires and licenses patent portfolios from various technology firms. The asserted patents, which Marlin Semiconductor acquired from UMC, are directed towards semiconductor devices and manufacturing technology. The respondents are leading operating companies in their respective fields: TSMC is the world's largest dedicated semiconductor foundry, Apple is a global titan in consumer electronics, software, and services, Broadcom develops and supplies a wide range of semiconductor and infrastructure software solutions, and Qualcomm is a leader in wireless communication technologies and chipsets. Lenovo, along with its smartphone brand Motorola (likely Motorola Mobility), and OnePlus, are prominent manufacturers of consumer electronics, especially smartphones and PCs.

The complaint, filed in February 2025, alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,745,847, 9,093,473, 9,147,747, 9,184,292, and 9,953,880, all generally pertaining to semiconductor devices and their manufacturing methods. The accused products are described as "certain foreign-fabricated semiconductor devices, products containing the same, and components thereof." Specifically, the investigation targets non-x86 semiconductor devices, such as wafers and dies, produced using TSMC's advanced 7 nanometer and smaller process nodes outside the United States. The allegedly infringing end products encompass a broad range of consumer electronics, including smartphones, tablets, personal computers, smartwatches, and network units, as well as their integrated circuits, circuit boards, and other components.

This investigation (337-TA-1443) is being conducted at the U.S. International Trade Commission, a venue known for its expedited proceedings compared to district courts and its powerful remedy of exclusion orders, which can block the importation of infringing products into the U.S. An evidentiary hearing was held in February 2026, and an Administrative Law Judge's decision is anticipated in June 2026, with the full Commission's final determination expected in October 2026. The case is notable for its potential industry-wide impact, given the critical role TSMC plays in manufacturing advanced chips for numerous major technology companies and the assertion pattern by an NPE against key players in the semiconductor and consumer electronics supply chain. No information regarding parallel inter partes reviews (IPRs) for the asserted patents by the respondents was found in the provided search results.

The ITC investigation 337-TA-1443, titled "Certain Foreign-Fabricated Semiconductor Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof," has seen several key legal developments since its initiation.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• On February 18, 2025, Marlin Semiconductor and Longitude Licensing (Complainants) filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), alleging violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint was supplemented on February 21, 2025, and March 10, 2025.
• The complaint accused multiple respondents, including TSMC, Apple, Broadcom, Qualcomm, Lenovo, Motorola, and OnePlus, of infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 7,745,847; 9,093,473; 9,147,747; 9,184,292; and 9,953,880. These patents, acquired from UMC, relate to semiconductor devices and manufacturing technology.
• On March 21, 2025, the ITC voted to institute the investigation 337-TA-1443.

Pre-trial motions of substance:

• Concurrent with the ITC filing, Marlin and Longitude also filed parallel district court cases. Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm were sued in the Western District of Texas, while Lenovo, OnePlus, and TSMC faced a complaint in the Eastern District of Texas.
• On February 13, 2025, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Case No. 1:25-cv-215-ADA) by Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited against Apple Inc., Broadcom Inc., and Qualcomm Inc., alleging infringement of the same five patents.
• These defendants subsequently filed an unopposed motion to stay the district court action pending the final determination of the ITC investigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659.
• On July 1, 2025, the Complainants and Lenovo Group Ltd. (LGL) jointly moved to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to substitute several specific Lenovo entities for LGL and to terminate LGL from the investigation. The ITC determined not to review an Initial Determination (Order No. 34) granting this motion on August 14, 2025.
• Several patent claims were partially terminated from the investigation based on withdrawal by the complainant. This occurred in stages:
  • On July 31, 2025, an Initial Determination (No. 36) was issued which, upon the ITC's decision not to review on August 15, 2025, terminated claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,093,473.
  • On November 19, 2025, an Initial Determination (No. 47) granted an unopposed motion for partial termination. The ITC decided not to review this ID on December 15, 2025, leading to the termination of claims 1-5 and 7-11 of the '847 patent; claims 6 and 8-10 of the '473 patent; claims 1-3 and 6-7 of the '747 patent; claims 8-9, 11-15, and 17-20 of the '292 patent; and claim 6 of the '880 patent.
  • On January 30, 2026, an Initial Determination (No. 66) was issued, and the ITC decided not to review it on February 24, 2026. This resulted in the termination of claims 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,093,473; claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,184,292; and claims 1-4, 9, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 9,953,880, based on complainant's withdrawal.

Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

• A Markman hearing was scheduled for September 18, 2025.

Trial events, verdict, and post-trial motions:

• An evidentiary hearing (trial) was scheduled for February 2, 2026.

Settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal – the final disposition or the present posture if active:

• The investigation is currently "Pending before the ALJ" as of March 19, 2025, with a target date for completion set for September 29, 2026.
• An Initial Determination on the merits is expected by May 28, 2026.
• The Administrative Law Judge's decision is expected in June 2026, and the Commission's final decision is expected in October 2026.
• Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. and other related Lenovo entities settled, and their part of the investigation was terminated on August 14, 2025.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR proceedings:

• Several Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions were filed against the asserted patents by TSMC and Apple.
• IPR2025-00847, filed by Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg Co Ltd v. Marlin Semiconductor Ltd, was instituted on October 9, 2025, challenging claims of the '847 patent.
• However, on September 3, 2025, the Director of the USPTO decided that discretionary denial of institution was appropriate for IPR2025-00848, IPR2025-00864, IPR2025-00865, and IPR2025-00879. The Director cited the scheduled ITC hearing for February 2, 2026, as making it unlikely that a final written decision in these IPRs would issue before the ITC trial, leading to potential duplication of effort and risk of inconsistent decisions. This suggests that IPRs related to patents other than the '847 patent were denied institution due to the parallel ITC proceeding.
• TSMC and Apple specifically targeted all 11 claims of the '847 patent in IPR2025-00847.
• The projected final written decision due date for the instituted IPRs is November 15, 2026.

Marlin Semiconductor and Longitude Licensing are represented by attorneys from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. (Mintz) as lead counsel in ITC Investigation 337-TA-1443. The firm's involvement in this investigation, which includes companion district court cases, highlights their expertise in semiconductor device and manufacturing technology patent disputes.

While specific individual attorneys for this case were not named in the provided search results, Mintz has a strong intellectual property litigation practice with a focus on Section 337 investigations at the U.S. International Trade Commission. Their relevant experience includes representing complainants and respondents in numerous ITC investigations involving complex technologies. For example, Mintz has represented Juul Labs Inc. in an ITC investigation defending against patent assertions, obtaining a favorable initial determination of non-infringement. They also represented patent owner Daedalus Prime in two ITC investigations concerning semiconductor manufacturing processes and power management techniques, which resulted in settlements. Additionally, Mintz represented Innovative Foundry Technologies in a global enforcement strategy for semiconductor fabrication and packaging patents, and Advanced Micro Devices in enforcing GPU technology patents, securing a recommended exclusion order.

The following identifies the counsel of record representing the defendants in ITC Investigation 337-TA-1443:

TSMC

Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C. (where many ITC cases are handled).
Attorneys (Lead Counsel):

• Alex Lasher: Nationally ranked ITC expert, practiced before the ITC for over twenty years, representing complainants, respondents, and third parties in over one hundred and twenty Section 337 investigations.
• Kevin Chu: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.
• Mike Doman: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.

Note: Quinn Emanuel explicitly states they represent Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) and Qualcomm, Inc. in this investigation. The firm has a strong track record in ITC proceedings, including representing TSMC and its customers in previous semiconductor design and fabrication investigations.

Apple

While Apple Inc. is listed as a respondent, specific counsel for Apple in 337-TA-1443 has not been explicitly identified in the available search results. Apple has been involved in numerous ITC cases, utilizing various firms and in-house counsel in the past, such as Joseph J. Mueller who argued for Apple in a recent Federal Circuit appeal related to an ITC judgment. Without direct evidence for this specific investigation, counsel cannot be definitively listed.

Broadcom

Firm: Paul Hastings LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C. The firm has a recognized ITC practice.
Attorneys: Specific individual attorneys for Broadcom in this investigation are not named in the provided search results.
Note: Paul Hastings has significant experience representing both complainants and respondents in Section 337 cases, and has achieved successful outcomes for Broadcom in prior ITC actions.

Qualcomm

Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys (Lead Counsel):

• Alex Lasher: Nationally ranked ITC expert, practiced before the ITC for over twenty years, representing complainants, respondents, and third parties in over one hundred and twenty Section 337 investigations.
• Kevin Chu: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.
• Mike Doman: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.

Note: Quinn Emanuel explicitly states they represent Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) and Qualcomm, Inc. in this investigation. The firm has a history of representing Qualcomm, including in patent infringement actions against Apple before the ITC. Qualcomm's Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Counsel is Robert Giles.

Lenovo

Firm: O'Melveny & Myers
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys: Specific individual attorneys for Lenovo in this investigation are not named in the provided search results.
Note: O'Melveny & Myers is listed as the participant representative for Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. and Lenovo (United States) Inc. in 337-TA-1443. It's worth noting that in a different ITC case (337-TA-1148), Lenovo Group Ltd. was represented by Todd M. Friedman of Kirkland & Ellis LLP and in-house by Anup M. Shah. For 337-TA-1443, O'Melveny & Myers appears to be the primary external counsel for the Lenovo entities involved.

Motorola

Motorola Mobile Communication Technology Ltd. and Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility Technologies Communication Company Limited are listed as respondents. However, specific counsel of record for these Motorola entities in 337-TA-1443 has not been explicitly identified in the available search results. Motorola Solutions has been involved in other ITC cases, often as a complainant, with counsel such as McKool Smith, and has also had claims rejected against them.

OnePlus

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. is listed as a respondent. However, specific counsel of record for OnePlus in 337-TA-1443 has not been explicitly identified in the available search results.Here is the identified counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in ITC Investigation 337-TA-1443:

TSMC

Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys (Lead Counsel):

• Alex Lasher: Nationally ranked ITC expert, practiced before the ITC for over twenty years, representing complainants, respondents, and third parties in over one hundred and twenty Section 337 investigations.
• Kevin Chu: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.
• Mike Doman: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.
  Note: Quinn Emanuel explicitly represents TSMC in this patent-based investigation and has a strong background in semiconductor-related ITC cases.

Apple

Firm: Paul Hastings LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys: Specific individual attorneys for Apple in this investigation are not named in the provided search results, but Paul Hastings is listed as the participant representative.
Note: Paul Hastings has extensive experience in Section 337 investigations before the ITC.

Broadcom

Firm: Paul Hastings LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys: Specific individual attorneys for Broadcom in this investigation are not named in the provided search results, but Paul Hastings is listed as the participant representative.
Note: Paul Hastings has a strong ITC practice and has secured successful outcomes for Broadcom in prior ITC actions.

Qualcomm

Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys (Lead Counsel):

• Alex Lasher: Nationally ranked ITC expert, practiced before the ITC for over twenty years, representing complainants, respondents, and third parties in over one hundred and twenty Section 337 investigations.
• Kevin Chu: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.
• Mike Doman: Represented parties in over ninety Section 337 investigations.
  Note: Quinn Emanuel explicitly represents Qualcomm in this investigation and has previously represented Qualcomm in patent infringement actions against Apple before the ITC.

Lenovo

Firm: O'Melveny & Myers
Office Location: Various, including Washington D.C.
Attorneys: Specific individual attorneys for Lenovo in this investigation are not named in the provided search results.
Note: O'Melveny & Myers is listed as the participant representative for Lenovo (Shanghai) Electronics Technology Co., Ltd. and Lenovo (United States) Inc. in 337-TA-1443.

Motorola

Motorola Mobile Communication Technology Ltd. and Motorola (Wuhan) Mobility Technologies Communication Company Limited are listed as respondents in ITC Investigation 337-TA-1443. However, specific counsel of record for these Motorola entities in this particular investigation has not been explicitly identified in the available search results. Past cases show Motorola Mobility LLC represented by firms like Ropes & Gray LLP in other ITC investigations and by Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing (AZA) in district court cases. Mark Hacker is the general counsel and chief administrative officer of Motorola Solutions, Inc.

OnePlus

OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., LTD. is listed as a respondent in ITC Investigation 337-TA-1443. However, specific counsel of record for OnePlus in this particular investigation has not been explicitly identified in the available search results. In a separate patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas, Mayer Brown represented Pantech Corporation against OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., securing a jury verdict for Pantech. OnePlus was also a respondent in another ITC case, 337-TA-1450.