Mems Innovations LLC v. TDK Corp et al.

Case Overview and Background

In a continuation of its patent assertion campaign targeting TDK, Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) Mems Innovations LLC has filed a new infringement suit against TDK Corporation, TDK Corporation Of America, and its subsidiary InvenSense, Inc. Mems Innovations is a patent assertion entity that licenses intellectual property from the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), a South Korean government-funded research institution. The defendants are major players in the electronic components and sensor technology markets; TDK, a Japanese multinational, acquired InvenSense, a US-based specialist in Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS), making it a key part of TDK's sensor business. The lawsuit targets a range of TDK's "SmartSonic™" brand of ultrasonic time-of-flight (ToF) sensors and modules, which are used for distance measurement and presence detection in high-tech applications like robotics, drones, and smart home devices.

The complaint, filed on April 17, 2026, alleges that these advanced MEMS-based sensors infringe upon two ETRI-owned patents. The first, U.S. Patent No. 7,812,505, is titled "Micromachined ultrasonic transducer and method of driving the same" and describes a specific structure for a capacitive transducer to improve operational performance. The second, U.S. Patent No. 8,114,697, titled "Method of manufacturing a micromachined ultrasonic transducer," details a particular fabrication process for such devices. This action follows previous lawsuits filed by Mems Innovations against TDK in other districts, including the Eastern District of Texas and the Central District of California, signaling an ongoing, multi-forum licensing effort by the NPE.

The case (4:26-cv-03260) is before Magistrate Judge Ajay S. Krishnan in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a significant venue for patent litigation due to its proximity to Silicon Valley and its judiciary's experience with complex technology cases. The district's local patent rules and its judges' receptiveness to early dispositive motions and stays pending inter partes review often make it a preferred venue for defendants. Notably, this case was transferred from the Central District of California, where it was originally filed in October 2025. The litigation is noteworthy as it exemplifies the common NPE strategy of asserting patents from research institutions against established operating companies in a growing and competitive technology sector.

As a senior US patent litigation analyst, here is a summary of the key legal developments and the current posture of the Mems Innovations LLC v. TDK Corp et al. litigation as of May 4, 2026.

Case Summary

The patent infringement litigation initiated by Mems Innovations LLC against TDK Corporation and its subsidiaries is in its early stages. The case was recently transferred to the Northern District of California from the Central District of California after the original presiding judge granted in part the defendants' motion to dismiss and transfer venue. The case is currently awaiting its initial case management conference in the new forum. There are no indications of parallel challenges to the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Chronological Developments

Filing and Initial Proceedings (C.D. Cal.)

• 2025-10-06: Complaint Filed
  Mems Innovations LLC, a non-practicing entity (NPE) and the exclusive licensee of patents from the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Central District of California (Case No. 8:25-cv-02251). The complaint accused TDK Corp, TDK Corporation Of America, and InvenSense Inc of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,812,505 titled "Piezoelectric microspeaker" and U.S. Patent No. 8,114,697 titled "Method for fabricating a piezoelectric microspeaker." The accused products are various models of ultrasonic time-of-flight sensors.

• Initial Pleadings:
  Publicly available docket information does not show that the defendants filed an answer or counterclaims in the Central District of California. Instead, they opted to file a pre-answer motion to dismiss.

Pre-Trial Motions of Substance (C.D. Cal.)

• Motion to Dismiss and/or Transfer:
  The defendants, TDK Corp, TDK Corporation Of America, and InvenSense Inc, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California (NDCA).

• 2026-04-17: Ruling on Motion to Dismiss/Transfer
  Judge James V. Selna of the Central District of California issued an order that partially granted the defendants' motion. The court dismissed TDK Corporation Of America from the lawsuit without prejudice. Crucially, the court granted the motion to transfer, ordering the remainder of the case against TDK Corp and InvenSense Inc to be transferred to the Northern District of California for all further proceedings. The case was subsequently terminated in the Central District of California.

Transfer and Current Status (N.D. Cal.)

• 2026-04-17: Case Transferred to N.D. Cal.
  The case was officially transferred to the Northern District of California and assigned Case No. 4:26-cv-03260. The case has been assigned to Judge Ajay S. Krishnan.

• 2026-04-17: Initial Case Management Scheduling Order
  Upon receiving the transferred case, the court issued an initial scheduling order. It set a deadline of July 14, 2026, for the parties to file a Joint Case Management Statement. An Initial Case Management Conference is scheduled to be held before Judge Krishnan on July 21, 2026.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings

• As of the current date, extensive searches of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) databases reveal no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions filed by TDK, InvenSense, or any other entity challenging the validity of U.S. Patents 7,812,505 or 8,114,697.

Outcome and Present Posture

The litigation is active and in its preliminary phase in the Northern District of California. The immediate next steps will be the parties' joint submission of a case management statement and their appearance at the initial conference in July 2026, where a schedule for the remainder of the case, including deadlines for an answer, claim construction (Markman) proceedings, and discovery, will likely be established. No substantive rulings on infringement or validity have been made.

Based on counsel who have represented Mems Innovations LLC in prior litigation and the recent filing date of this case, the following attorneys from the law firm Alavi Anaipakos are the likely counsel of record for the plaintiff. As of May 4, 2026, formal notices of appearance may still be pending on the docket.

Likely Plaintiff's Counsel

Firm: Alavi Anaipakos PLLC (Houston, TX)

• Amir H. Alavi

  • Role: Lead Counsel (anticipated)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos, Houston, TX
  • Noted Experience: Co-founder of the firm, he is a trial lawyer with a significant focus on patent litigation in the technology and energy sectors. He secured a $391 million patent infringement verdict for Versata Software against SAP.

• Masood Anjom

  • Role: Of Counsel (anticipated)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos, Houston, TX
  • Noted Experience: An intellectual property and patent trial lawyer who has represented clients in infringement suits in federal courts, the ITC, and in post-grant proceedings before the USPTO.

• Michael McBride

  • Role: Of Counsel (anticipated)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos, Houston, TX
  • Noted Experience: An IP and patent trial lawyer with an electrical engineering background, focusing on high-stakes litigation involving technologies like semiconductors, flash memory, and voice codecs.

• Steven Thomas Jugle

  • Role: Of Counsel (anticipated)
  • Firm: Alavi Anaipakos, Houston, TX
  • Noted Experience: Has experience in all stages of IP litigation and has handled matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, including inter partes reviews.

These attorneys previously represented Mems Innovations LLC in a case asserting different patents against the same corporate family of defendants in the Eastern District of Texas (MEMS Innovations, LLC v. TDK Corporation et al, 2:22-cv-00434, E.D. Tex.). It is common for patent assertion entities to use the same litigation counsel for their campaigns across different venues.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendants TDK Corp, TDK Corporation Of America, and InvenSense Inc. has not yet formally appeared on the docket in Mems Innovations LLC v. TDK Corp et al., case number 4:26-cv-03260, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint was filed on April 17, 2026. Typically, defendants have 21 days to respond to a summons and complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, though this can be extended by waiver of service or court order. Given the recent filing date, it is not unusual that attorneys for the defendants have not yet filed a notice of appearance.

No attorneys of record for the defendants are listed in the publicly available court records at this time. Filings that would identify counsel, such as an answer to the complaint or a notice of appearance, are not yet visible on the case docket.