Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al. v. Apple et al.

Marlin Semiconductor Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited have initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against technology giants Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm in the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs, both Irish-based entities, are subsidiaries of IPValue Management, a patent monetization firm specializing in acquiring and licensing intellectual property. Marlin Semiconductor acquired its portfolio of logic, memory, manufacturing process, and packaging patents from United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) in 2021. Longitude Licensing, also part of the IPValue Management Group, manages and licenses these and other portfolios, totaling over 8,000 active patents, primarily in semiconductor design and manufacturing, non-volatile storage, and display technologies. This identifies them as Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) or Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs) rather than operating companies.

The lawsuit alleges infringement of patents, including US8993384, which generally relate to semiconductor fabrication. Specifically, the defendants are accused of infringement through the provision and/or incorporation of "non-x86 semiconductor devices," such as wafers or dies manufactured using TSMC's 16nm and smaller process nodes, as well as downstream products like smartphones, tablets, personal computers, smartwatches, and network units that incorporate these semiconductor devices. Apple is a multinational technology company known for consumer electronics, software, and online services, including iPhones, iPads, and Macs. Broadcom is a global technology company that designs, develops, and supplies a wide range of semiconductor and infrastructure software solutions for markets including data center, networking, broadband, and wireless. Qualcomm is a leader in wireless technology, primarily focusing on advanced semiconductor designs and licensing of wireless communication standards for mobile devices, automotive applications, and the Internet of Things (IoT).

The case is proceeding in the Western District of Texas, a venue known for its plaintiff-friendly reputation and expedited patent litigation schedules, particularly under Judge Alan Albright. While a new rule in July 2022 implemented random assignment of patent cases in the Waco Division to address Judge Albright's historical monopoly, the Western District of Texas remains a highly popular forum for patent plaintiffs, especially NPEs. This litigation is notable as it targets major technology companies over fundamental semiconductor manufacturing processes, originating from UMC, a significant foundry. Parallel to this district court case, Longitude Licensing and Marlin Semiconductor have also filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC) (337-TA-1443) against the same defendants, along with TSMC, alleging unlawful importation of foreign-fabricated semiconductor devices. The district court case against Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm has been stayed pending the final determination of the ITC investigation. This dual approach in both district court and the ITC indicates an aggressive enforcement strategy by the patent monetization firms. Furthermore, at least one Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01265) has been instituted by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited against Marlin Semiconductor Ltd. et al. concerning a patent involved in their asserted portfolio.

The patent infringement litigation Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al. v. Apple et al. (1:25-cv-00215) was filed in the Western District of Texas. The case, asserting patents including US8993384, has seen initial pleadings and is currently ongoing, with parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings significantly impacting its trajectory.

Here's a chronological breakdown of the key legal developments and outcomes:

Legal Developments

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed: Marlin Semiconductor Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited filed their complaint against Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm in the Western District of Texas on February 13, 2025.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings
The litigation has been significantly influenced by multiple parallel IPR proceedings initiated against Marlin Semiconductor's patents, including US8993384, by various parties.

• IPR2025-00847 Filed (US8993384): Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) against US Patent No. 8,993,384 on April 16, 2025.
• IPR2025-00864 Filed (US9147747 and US9184292): On April 17, 2025, Apple Inc. and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. (TSMC) filed a petition for IPR against US Patent No. 9,147,747 and US Patent No. 9,184,292, also owned by Marlin Semiconductor. This IPR petition explicitly noted its relation to the Western District of Texas case 1:25-cv-00215.
• Institution of IPR2025-00847: On October 8, 2025, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) granted institution of Inter Partes Review for IPR2025-00847, challenging US8993384.

3. Current Posture
As of May 21, 2026, the district court litigation (1:25-cv-00215) is ongoing. The institution of IPR proceedings against the asserted patents suggests a potential stay of the district court case while the PTAB reviews the patentability of the claims. However, specific docket entries regarding motions to stay, claim construction, discovery milestones, trial events, or a final disposition in the district court case are not publicly detailed in the provided search results beyond its initial filing and the acknowledgment of its existence in related IPR documents.## Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al. v. Apple et al.

The patent infringement litigation, Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al. v. Apple et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00215, was filed in the Western District of Texas and is currently ongoing. The case involves patents related to semiconductor fabrication, including US8993384. A significant aspect of this litigation is the parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings initiated against the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• Complaint Filed (2025-02-13): Marlin Semiconductor Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited initiated the lawsuit by filing a complaint against Apple, Broadcom, and Qualcomm in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserts patent infringement related to semiconductor fabrication.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings

The asserted patents, including US8993384, have been challenged in multiple Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings at the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• IPR2025-00847 Filed (2025-04-16): Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited (TSMC) filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 8,993,384, which is one of the patents at issue in the district court litigation.
• IPR2025-00864 Filed (2025-04-17): Apple Inc. and TSMC jointly filed a petition for Inter Partes Review against U.S. Patent No. 9,147,747 and U.S. Patent No. 9,184,292, also owned by Marlin Semiconductor. This petition specifically cited the ongoing district court case (1:25-cv-00215) as a related matter.
• Institution Granted for IPR2025-00847 (2025-10-08): The PTAB issued a decision granting institution of inter partes review for IPR2025-00847, challenging U.S. Patent No. 8,993,384. This decision indicates that the petitioners demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to at least one challenged claim, allowing the review process to proceed.

3. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

While the search results confirm the existence of the district court case and its relation to the IPRs, specific details regarding substantive pre-trial motions within the district court docket (such as motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR) were not explicitly found in the provided snippets. The institution of IPRs often leads to motions to stay the district court litigation, but an order on such a motion is not yet available in the provided information.

4. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

No information regarding claim construction (Markman) proceedings or outcomes in the district court case was found in the provided search results.

5. Discovery Milestones

No specific strategic discovery milestones for the district court case were identified in the search results.

6. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case is currently ongoing, and there is no indication that it has reached the trial stage or resulted in a verdict or post-trial motions.

7. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal – Present Posture

The district court litigation Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al. v. Apple et al. (1:25-cv-00215) remains active and ongoing as of the current date (2026-05-21). There has been no reported settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal. The institution of IPRs, particularly concerning US8993384, means that the patentability of the asserted claims is being examined by the PTAB, which could significantly influence the district court proceedings, potentially leading to a stay or affecting claim validity arguments.

The plaintiffs, Marlin Semiconductor Limited and Longitude Licensing Limited, are represented by counsel from several firms.

Lead Counsel:

• Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
  • William Meunier (Partner, Boston, MA or New York, NY office, likely) - Has experience representing Marlin Semiconductor and Longitude Licensing as lead counsel in ITC investigations and companion district court cases involving semiconductor devices and manufacturing technology. He is also listed as an attorney for Marlin Semiconductor in IPR2025-00847.
  • Michael T. Renaud (Partner, Boston, MA office, likely) - Listed as an attorney for Marlin Semiconductor in IPR2025-00847.
  • Tawfik A. Goma (Attorney, likely Boston, MA office) - Listed as an attorney for Marlin Semiconductor in IPR2025-00847.
  • Michael R. Dokhanchy (Attorney, likely Boston, MA office) - Listed as an attorney for Marlin Semiconductor in IPR2025-00847.

Other Counsel:

• Adam Rizk (Attorney, firm not specified on docket but likely local counsel for WDTX or in-house counsel for IPValue) - Adam Rizk filed the Notice of Designation of Lead Attorney for Longitude Licensing Ltd. and Marlin Semiconductor Limited in the district court case. He is also listed as an attorney for Marlin Semiconductor in IPR2025-00847.
• IPValue Management, Inc. (In-house counsel, Bridgewater, NJ) - As the parent company of the plaintiffs, IPValue Management has its own legal team.
  • John Lindgren (Director of Longitude Licensing and CEO of IPValue) - Has a long career focused on patent licensing, including 20 years with Texas Instruments. He is a member of the Texas, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and U.S. Patent and Trademark bars.
  • Carl Bilicska (Vice President, IP Counsel) - Extensive experience in intellectual property, licensing, strategy, and valuation analysis. Previously Senior IP Corporate Counsel at Alcatel-Lucent.
  • Gregg Murgia (Vice President, IP Counsel) - Oversees global patent prosecution, assertion, negotiation, and licensing of IP portfolios. Over 24 years of experience in intellectual property.
  • Andrew J. Wu (VP, IP Counsel) - Over 20 years of experience in patent and intellectual property law, including patent litigation.

The following is a list of identified counsel of record for the defendants in Marlin Semiconductor Limited et al. v. Apple et al., as derived from available docket information and public records.

For Defendant Apple:

• Brian K. Erickson (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, TX.
  • Note: DLA Piper has a significant patent litigation practice across various industries.

• John M. Guaragna (Counsel)

  • Firm: DLA Piper LLP (US), Austin, TX.
  • Note: John M. Guaragna is also associated with DLA Piper's patent litigation efforts.

• Apple In-House Counsel: While specific attorneys for this case are not explicitly named in the public docket for in-house roles, Apple maintains a robust internal IP litigation team. For instance, job postings indicate roles like "Principal Legal Counsel – IP Litigation" and "Senior Legal Counsel - IP Litigation" who are responsible for driving litigation strategy and managing complex patent disputes. Robert Giles is Senior Vice President and Chief IP Counsel at Qualcomm, having previously worked in IP litigation at Morrison & Foerster LLP and managing IP disputes in US district courts and the ITC.

For Defendant Broadcom:

• Steven R. Borgman (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Houston, TX.
  • Note: Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton is known for its intellectual property litigation practice. Steven Borgman specifically appeared on behalf of Broadcom.

• Broadcom In-House Counsel: Broadcom employs in-house counsel responsible for patent licensing campaigns and managing offensive and defensive IP litigation. Mark Terrano is Vice President and General Manager of the Intellectual Property and Licensing Division, overseeing all IP matters for Broadcom.

For Defendant Qualcomm:

• Evan Zachary Pearson (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Austin, TX.
  • Note: Quinn Emanuel is a prominent firm specializing in high-stakes business litigation, including intellectual property. Evan Pearson specifically appeared on behalf of Qualcomm.

• Qualcomm In-House Counsel: Qualcomm has an in-house litigation team that manages patent and other IP litigation, commercial disputes, and related legal issues globally. John Scott, Vice President and Legal Counsel, manages patent litigation for Qualcomm, and Stephen Wurth is also an attorney on Qualcomm's in-house litigation team. Robert Giles is the Senior Vice President and Chief IP Counsel at Qualcomm.

It's important to note that this case has been stayed pending the final determination of the ITC investigation (337-TA-1443).