MPI Corp v. Technoprobe SPA

Case Overview: MPI Corp v. Technoprobe SPA

In a legal battle between two major players in the semiconductor test industry, Taiwan-based MPI Corp. has sued Italian competitor Technoprobe S.p.A. for patent infringement. The lawsuit, filed on April 17, 2026, alleges that Technoprobe's probe cards, essential components for testing integrated circuits, incorporate MPI's patented technology without authorization. Both MPI and Technoprobe are significant operating companies that design and manufacture these high-tech interfaces, which form a critical link between the semiconductor wafer and the test equipment. The dispute highlights the intense competition and focus on intellectual property within the global semiconductor supply chain.

The complaint centers on Technoprobe's probe cards that utilize its "HiP Architecture," which MPI claims infringes on at least two of its U.S. patents. The patents-in-suit are:

• U.S. Patent No. 9,423,424: This patent generally relates to a probe card assembly with a rigid main body and a flexible portion to improve contact with the device under test.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,823,272: This patent describes methods and apparatuses for reducing heat loss in probe cards, particularly at the edges, to ensure testing accuracy across different temperatures.

The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (2:26-cv-00305) and has been assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a prominent figure in patent litigation. This venue is historically favored by patent plaintiffs due to its experienced judiciary, specialized local patent rules, and a reputation for relatively fast trial schedules that can pressure defendants into settling. Judge Gilstrap, in particular, has overseen a significant percentage of all patent cases filed in the United States, making his courtroom a key battleground for high-stakes IP disputes. The case is notable as it involves a direct confrontation between two global competitors in a critical technology sector. Its outcome could impact market dynamics and licensing strategies for probe card technologies essential for manufacturing next-generation electronics. To date, no parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings have been identified for the asserted patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Legal Developments & Case Status

As of May 4, 2026, the patent infringement lawsuit between MPI Corp. and Technoprobe S.p.A. is in its earliest procedural stages. The case has not yet seen significant substantive legal battles, and its ultimate trajectory remains to be determined.

Chronological Developments:

• 2026-04-17: Complaint Filed – MPI Corp. filed its patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges that Technoprobe's HiP Architecture and Phantom probe card lines infringe upon U.S. Patent Nos. 9,423,424 and 9,823,272. The case was assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap and referred to Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne for pretrial management. MPI is represented by attorneys from Troutman Pepper, including Bryan Guy Harrison and Ryan E. Dornberger.
• 2026-04-17: Initial Court Filings – Concurrent with the complaint, MPI filed a request for the clerk to issue a summons for Technoprobe S.p.A. and submitted the required patent/trademark form to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, officially notifying the agency of the litigation. The summons was issued the same day.

Current Posture and Next Steps:

The case is currently open and in the initial pleadings phase. Key upcoming events will include:

• Service of Process: Technoprobe, an Italian company, must be formally served with the complaint and summons according to international law, likely under the Hague Convention. This process can sometimes be lengthy.
• Defendant's Response: Once served, Technoprobe will have a deadline to file its response to the complaint. This will likely take the form of an Answer, which may include affirmative defenses (e.g., non-infringement, invalidity of the patents) and potential counterclaims against MPI.
• Pre-trial Motions: Technoprobe may choose to file early motions, such as a motion to dismiss for improper service or lack of personal jurisdiction, or a motion to transfer venue to a different court. Given Judge Gilstrap's history of denying such motions, this would be a significant early test for the defense.
• Scheduling Order: After the defendant responds, the court will likely issue a scheduling order that sets deadlines for discovery, claim construction (Markman) briefing, and dispositive motions, establishing the timeline for the remainder of the case.

Parallel PTAB Proceedings:

As of this date, a search of the USPTO's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) records reveals no inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR) petitions have been filed by Technoprobe or any related entity challenging the validity of the '424 or '272 patents. It is a common strategy for defendants in patent litigation to file IPRs, and such a filing would represent a major development, potentially leading to a motion to stay the district court case pending the PTAB's review. However, no such actions have yet been taken.

The litigation is still in its infancy, and no substantive rulings have been made. The next several months will be critical in shaping the course of the dispute as Technoprobe formally appears and outlines its defense strategy.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record Identified in MPI's Eastern Texas Lawsuit

As of May 4, 2026, court filings in the patent infringement lawsuit brought by MPI Corp. against Technoprobe S.p.A. reveal a multi-firm legal team representing the plaintiff. The team combines attorneys from the national law firms Winston & Strawn and Troutman Pepper Locke, supported by well-known local Texas trial counsel.

Notices of appearance have been filed by attorneys from all three firms, establishing a lineup with deep experience in high-stakes patent litigation, particularly within the Eastern District of Texas.

---

Lead Counsel

• Michael A. Bittner (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Winston & Strawn LLP, Dallas, TX.
  • Note: Bittner is an IP trial lawyer with extensive experience in patent litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants across technologies like telecommunications and data management. He has previously led a joint defense group of over 400 defendants in the Eastern District of Texas.

• Bryan Guy Harrison (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Note: Harrison is a lead trial attorney focusing on intellectual property, trade compliance, and competition law, with experience before numerous district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC).

• Ryan E. Dornberger (Of Counsel)

  • Firm: Troutman Pepper Locke LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Note: Dornberger is a trial lawyer specializing in complex technology disputes, including patent, copyright, and trade secret litigation, and has represented clients in defeating and asserting patents in U.S. district courts and before the USPTO.

Local Counsel

• Claire Abernathy Henry (Local Counsel)
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Note: Henry has extensive experience in federal court practice and patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas, having previously clerked for former U.S. District Judge T. John Ward of that district. Her firm, formerly Ward, Smith & Hill, has a national reputation for its work in high-stakes IP trials.

Counsel for Defendant Technoprobe S.p.A.

As of May 4, 2026, counsel for the defendant, Technoprobe S.p.A., has not yet formally appeared on the docket in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas for case number 2:26-cv-00305.

The complaint was filed by MPI Corp. on April 17, 2026, and a summons was issued for Technoprobe S.p.A.. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant typically has 21 days to respond after being served with the summons and complaint. However, serving an international defendant such as Italy-based Technoprobe can be a more time-consuming process governed by international agreements like the Hague Service Convention, often extending the time before a response is due.

A review of the public docket reveals no notice of appearance, answer, or any other filing by legal representation on behalf of Technoprobe S.p.A. at this early stage of the litigation. Such filings are required for an attorney to be officially recognized by the court as counsel of record. Until a formal appearance is made, the specific attorneys and law firms representing the defendant remain unconfirmed.