Onesta IP, LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation

Onesta IP, LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation is a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff, Onesta IP, LLC, is a Delaware-based non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent assertion entity (PAE) that acquired a portfolio of approximately 100 U.S. patents from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and its subsidiary ATI Technologies in November 2024. The defendant, NVIDIA Corporation, is a leading technology company known for its graphics processing units (GPUs) and AI computing platforms. Onesta IP accuses NVIDIA of infringing its patents through the provision of "certain integrated circuits, circuit board assemblies, graphics cards, and computers."

The lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, assigned to Judge Alan D. Albright, was stayed in June 2025 pending the final determination of a parallel investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Investigation No. 337-TA-1450. [cite: 10 (from previous step), 11 (from previous step), 13 (from previous step)] The ITC investigation, which also named Qualcomm, OnePlus Technology, and Nothing Technology Limited as respondents, concerned the importation and sale of "certain integrated circuits, electronic devices containing the same, and components thereof" that allegedly infringe Onesta IP's patents. [cite: 11 (from previous step), 12 (from previous step), 13 (from previous step)] As of May 11, 2026, the ITC investigation was terminated with respect to all respondents, including NVIDIA, based on settlement agreements. This development means the condition for the stay in the district court case has been fulfilled, and the stay is expected to be lifted, or the case may proceed to dismissal.

The patents asserted in the district court complaint (1:25-cv-00586) against NVIDIA include U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,381; 9,116,809; 9,519,943; 11,741,019; and 11,841,803. [cite: 7 (from previous step)] These patents generally relate to processor and/or memory operations, semiconductor configurations, and graphics processing. Specifically:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,854,381 covers a "processing unit that enables asynchronous task dispatch." [cite: 5 (from previous step)]
• U.S. Patent No. 9,116,809 relates to managing "a memory operation," which involves commands or instructions to access memory.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,519,943 describes "virtual device(s)" defined as software-based processes appearing as GPUs to the CPU for different command priorities.
• U.S. Patent No. 11,741,019 pertains to "memory pools in a memory model for a unified computing system," focusing on allocating memory to processor operations. [cite: 4 (from previous step)]
• U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803 details "GPU chiplets using high bandwidth crosslinks" within a chiplet system where a CPU is coupled to GPU chiplets via a passive crosslink. [cite: 26 (from previous step)]
  The case is notable for involving an NPE asserting patents acquired from a major chip designer (AMD) against another industry giant (NVIDIA). Furthermore, the choice of the Western District of Texas is a common strategy for patent holders due to its reputation for plaintiff-friendly juries and the efficiency of Judge Albright's patent docket. [cite: 3 (from previous step), 23 (from previous step), 24 (from previous step)] Onesta IP has also pursued an unusual strategy of asserting U.S. patents against BMW in a German court, further highlighting its aggressive assertion patterns. [cite: 19 (from previous step)]

The patent infringement lawsuit Onesta IP, LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, has seen several key legal developments since its initiation. The case is currently stayed.

Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-04-17: Onesta IP, LLC filed a complaint for patent infringement against NVIDIA Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint asserted infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,854,381, 9,519,943, 11,741,019, 11,841,803, and 9,116,809.
• NVIDIA was accused of infringing these patents through the provision of certain "integrated circuits, circuit board assemblies, graphics cards, and computers."

Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• 2025-06-04: NVIDIA Corporation filed an unopposed motion to stay the case.
• 2025-07-02: Judge Alan D. Albright granted NVIDIA's unopposed motion, staying the case pending the resolution of a parallel proceeding at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), Investigation No. 337-TA-1450, including any appeals thereof. This aligns with the existing summary that the case was stayed in June 2025 (though the order was issued July 2, 2025).

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and ITC Investigation:

• 2025-05-27: The ITC instituted Investigation No. 337-TA-1450, titled "Certain Integrated Circuits, Electronic Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof," based on a complaint filed by Onesta IP, LLC. This investigation included NVIDIA Corporation as a respondent, along with Qualcomm Incorporated, OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., and Nothing Technology Limited. The complaint alleged infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803, which is also at issue in the district court case.
• 2025-10-14: NVIDIA Corporation filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00011, against U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803, owned by Onesta IP, LLC. The petition challenged claims 1-4 and 7-10 of the patent.
• 2026-02-09 (Institution Decision Date)/2026-02-10 (Decision Date): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Decision denying institution of the IPR (IPR2026-00011). The IPR was terminated on this date.
• 2026-04-06: Onesta and NVIDIA filed a joint motion to terminate the ITC investigation with respect to NVIDIA based on a release agreement and patent agreement.
• 2026-04-17: The presiding Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Determination granting the motion to terminate the investigation with respect to NVIDIA, Qualcomm, OnePlus, and Nothing.
• 2026-05-11: The ITC determined not to review the ALJ's Initial Determinations, thereby terminating the entire Investigation No. 337-TA-1450, as all respondents were terminated.

Current Posture:

• The district court case in the Western District of Texas remains formally stayed pending the resolution of the ITC investigation. Given the ITC investigation (337-TA-1450) has concluded with the termination of all respondents as of May 11, 2026, the basis for the stay may now be revisited. It is highly probable that NVIDIA will move to lift the stay in the near future or the parties will move to dismiss based on the settlement that led to NVIDIA's termination from the ITC investigation.

Counsel of record representing Onesta IP, LLC in Onesta IP, LLC v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00586, include lead counsel from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., and local counsel from Miller Fair Henry PLLC.

The identified attorneys are:

• Michael T. Renaud

  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., Boston, MA.
  • Experience: Mr. Renaud is the firmwide Chair of the Intellectual Property Division at Mintz and is recognized as a leading IP strategist. He possesses extensive experience in patent litigation, licensing, and monetization of complex technology portfolios, with a strong track record in federal district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC). He notably led teams in successful patent enforcement actions, including for GlobalFoundries. He signed the initial complaint in this case.

• Yanyi Liu

  • Role: Lead Counsel (appeared pro hac vice).
  • Firm: Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C., San Francisco, CA.
  • Experience: Ms. Liu is a registered patent attorney and intellectual property litigator, representing clients in federal district courts and in post-grant proceedings before the US Patent and Trademark Office. Her experience spans various stages of litigation and encompasses a wide range of technology areas, including electrical and computer innovations, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors.

• Garrett Parish

  • Role: Local Counsel.
  • Firm: Miller Fair Henry PLLC, Longview, TX.
  • Experience: Mr. Parish is a partner at Miller Fair Henry, focusing on intellectual property litigation and complex commercial litigation. He has extensive experience in patent trials and is known for his trial-oriented approach and ability to make technically challenging cases understandable to a jury.

Ashanthi Meena Seralathan, who had initially obtained an order to appear pro hac vice, subsequently had an unopposed motion to withdraw as attorney granted in July 2025 and is no longer counsel of record. Charles Liu, a member of Mintz's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice based in Washington, DC and working remotely from Texas, has relevant experience in federal District Courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, but there is no explicit docket entry confirming his appearance in this specific case.

Defendant NVIDIA Corporation is represented by the following counsel of record:

• David M. Prichard (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Prichard Oliver Montpas LLP
  • Office Location: While specific office location for Prichard Oliver Montpas LLP is not explicitly stated in the provided search results, David M. Prichard's professional biography notes he began his career in San Antonio, and he is admitted to practice in all U.S. District Courts in Texas.
  • Relevant Experience: David M. Prichard has practiced law for over 40 years, trying more than 150 lawsuits to jury verdict. His experience includes handling "intellectual property suits" among various commercial matters. He is a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates and has received multiple designations as a "Best Lawyer in America" and "Texas Super Lawyer".

• David R. Montpas (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Prichard Oliver Montpas LLP
  • Office Location: Same as for David M. Prichard, consistent with their shared firm.
  • Relevant Experience: David R. Montpas is listed as representing NVIDIA alongside David M. Prichard. While a detailed biography for David R. Montpas was not explicitly found in the provided search results, his partnership in Prichard Oliver Montpas LLP suggests significant legal experience, particularly given the firm's involvement in "Litigation: Commercial" and "intellectual property suits".