MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.

MOSAID Technologies Inc., a Canadian intellectual property (IP) management company renowned for licensing and monetizing patents in semiconductor and wireless technologies, has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.. MOSAID, operating as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), evolved from a semiconductor design firm into a dedicated IP entity, managing a substantial portfolio of patented innovations. Conversely, Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. is the U.S. subsidiary of Infineon Technologies AG, a leading global semiconductor manufacturer that designs, develops, manufactures, and markets semiconductors and system solutions for high-growth sectors such as automotive, industrial, and consumer electronics. The complaint specifically targets Infineon's programmable systems-on-chip (processors) and AIROC Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Combo wireless connectivity system-on-chips (SoCs), which are utilized in a variety of end-products across communications, IoT, automotive, computer, and consumer electronics industries.

The sole patent asserted in this litigation is U.S. Patent No. 7,349,448, titled "Synchronous memory device with read access for both edges of clock signal." This patent generally relates to synchronous memory devices, such as Double Data Rate (DDR) Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory (SDRAM), designed to enhance data transfer efficiency by enabling read access on both the rising and falling edges of a clock signal.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and is currently assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright. This venue has historically been a popular choice for patent plaintiffs, particularly NPEs, due to its reputation for faster litigation schedules and plaintiff-friendly patent procedures. While the Western District of Texas implemented a rule in July 2022 to randomly assign patent cases, Judge Albright continues to oversee a significant number of these cases. The lawsuit is notable due to MOSAID's extensive history as a patent licensor and litigator in the semiconductor space. The complaint alleges willful infringement, noting that MOSAID and Infineon (including Cypress, which Infineon acquired in 2020) engaged in numerous discussions regarding patent infringement between November 2017 and August 2024, indicating a prolonged period of failed licensing negotiations prior to litigation. Furthermore, Infineon has likely challenged the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), as evidenced by mentions of related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings (e.g., IPR2025-01456, IPR2025-01489) in the case's scheduling order.

This analysis will outline the key legal developments in MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-00358, in chronological order, including district court proceedings and parallel PTAB IPRs.

Filing & Initial Pleadings

MOSAID Technologies Inc. filed its patent infringement complaint against Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. on April 1, 2025. The case was initially assigned to Judge Robert Pitman but was reassigned to Judge Alan D. Albright for all proceedings on April 15, 2025. On March 28, 2025, MOSAID Technologies Inc. served the summons on Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., with the answer due by April 18, 2025. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. filed an Answer to the Complaint with a Jury Demand and Counterclaims against MOSAID Technologies Inc. MOSAID then filed an Answer to Infineon's Counterclaims. The complaint alleges willful infringement, citing a history of discussions between MOSAID and Infineon (including Cypress, which Infineon acquired in 2020) regarding patent infringement between November 2017 and August 2024.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

A scheduling order was issued in the case, and later, a First Amended Scheduling Order was issued on October 17, 2025. According to these orders, several deadlines for motions have been set:

• Motion to Transfer: The deadline to file a motion for transfer was July 18, 2025.
• Dispositive Motions & Daubert Motions: The deadline for these motions is October 22, 2026.

As of May 25, 2026, no rulings on substantive pre-trial motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay pending IPR have been publicly reported or identified in the provided search results.

Claim Construction (Markman)

The scheduling orders establish deadlines for claim construction proceedings:

• Exchange of Claim Terms: Parties were to exchange claim terms for construction by August 28, 2025.
• Exchange of Proposed Claim Constructions: Parties were to exchange proposed claim constructions by September 11, 2025.
• Disclosure of Extrinsic Evidence: Parties were to disclose extrinsic evidence, including the identity of any expert witness, by September 18, 2025.
• Defendants' Opening Claim Construction Brief: This brief, including arguments regarding indefiniteness, was due by October 27, 2025.
• Plaintiff's Responsive Claim Construction Brief: This brief was due by November 17, 2025.
• Defendants' Reply Claim Construction Brief: This brief was due by December 1, 2025.

The parties were to jointly email law clerks to confirm their Markman date. As of the current date, no Markman order or ruling on claim construction has been identified.

Discovery Milestones

The scheduling orders outline several discovery milestones:

• Plaintiff's Preliminary Infringement Contentions: MOSAID was to serve these by June 20, 2025.
• Defendants' Preliminary Invalidity Contentions: Infineon was to serve these by August 15, 2025.
• Fact Discovery Opens: This commenced on December 5, 2025, with initial disclosures due by the same date.
• Deadline to Add Parties: This deadline was January 29, 2026.
• Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions: These were due by February 26, 2026.
• Deadline to Amend Pleadings: The deadline for amending pleadings (unless adding patents or claims) was May 7, 2026.
• First Meet and Confer to Narrow Claims/Prior Art: This is scheduled for July 16, 2026.
• Second Meet and Confer to Narrow Claims/Prior Art: This is scheduled for October 15, 2026.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions

The case is currently active and in the pre-trial phase. A Case Management Conference and Final Pretrial Conference are both scheduled for December 30, 2026. Pretrial disclosures (jury instructions, exhibit lists, witness lists, deposition designations) are due by November 4, 2026. Objections to pretrial disclosures and rebuttal disclosures are due by November 18, 2026, with objections to rebuttal disclosures and motions in limine due by November 25, 2026. The Joint Pretrial Order and Pretrial Submissions are due by December 3, 2026, along with oppositions to motions in limine. No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred yet.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The case remains active. There is no information regarding settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal at this time.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

The case's scheduling order mentions related Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings. Specifically, IPR2025-01456 and IPR2025-01489 are noted. Another IPR, IPR2025-01171, is also related.

• IPR2025-01489: Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. filed a petition for IPR against MOSAID Technologies Inc. on August 29, 2025, challenging U.S. Patent No. 7,349,448. The PTAB issued a "Discretionary Denial" in this IPR on February 10, 2026. A discretionary denial means the PTAB chose not to institute the IPR, even if the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits, often based on factors like judicial economy or the stage of parallel litigation.

The status of IPR2025-01456 is not available in the provided search results.

It is worth noting that the USPTO implemented a new interim process for PTAB workload management on March 26, 2025, which bifurcates decisions on institution between discretionary considerations and merits considerations. This process was effective immediately for cases where a patent owner preliminary response had not yet been filed. The Director, in consultation with PTAB judges, now determines if discretionary denial is appropriate before referring a petition for a merits decision. This new process may have influenced the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01489. The USPTO also issued a memorandum on September 16, 2025, regarding PTAB consideration of prior adjudications of patent claims challenged in AIA trial proceedings, requiring the PTAB to explain any different findings or conclusions compared to prior adjudications.

Counsel of record representing MOSAID Technologies Inc. in MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-00358, include:

• Scott W. Burt (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: MOSAID Technologies Inc. (In-house)
  • Role: Senior Vice President and Chief Intellectual Property Officer at MOSAID Technologies Inc.. He has participated in workshops and discussions regarding patent assertion entities.
  • Note: Mr. Burt represents MOSAID as in-house counsel and is actively involved in their patent licensing strategies.

Additional counsel from outside law firms would typically be identified through a review of the docket, specifically the complaint, answer, and any appearances filed. While the provided search results confirm MOSAID Technologies Inc. as the plaintiff and identify the case number, they do not explicitly list external counsel. To obtain the full list of external attorneys and their roles, a direct review of the PACER docket for case 1:25-cv-00358 would be necessary.

Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., as the defendant in MOSAID Technologies Inc. v. Infineon Technologies Americas Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-00358, is represented by both in-house counsel and external law firms specializing in patent litigation.

While a complete and definitive list of all external counsel would require direct access to the PACER docket, information regarding Infineon's patent department and common patent litigation firms provides strong indicators. Infineon Technologies has its own patent department that manages its intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and licensing.

Firms frequently involved in patent litigation for large technology companies such as Infineon often include those with strong national intellectual property practices. Polsinelli, for example, is a firm nationally ranked in intellectual property litigation and represents defendants in patent cases across various technology sectors. Their patent litigation team handles all phases of patent litigation, from pre-suit analysis to appeals, and has experience with PTAB proceedings.

However, without specific docket entries identifying external counsel for Infineon in this particular case, a definitive list of individual attorneys and their firms cannot be provided at this time. To identify the full counsel of record, a direct review of the PACER docket for case 1:25-cv-00358 would be necessary.