Onesta IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al.

This patent infringement litigation, Onesta IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al., involves a non-practicing entity (NPE) asserting intellectual property against major technology companies in the semiconductor and consumer electronics sectors. The plaintiff, Onesta IP, LLC, is a Delaware-formed patent assertion entity that acquired a portfolio of approximately 100 U.S. patents from AMD, via its subsidiary ATI Technologies, in November 2024. The defendants include Qualcomm Incorporated, a global leader in wireless technologies and semiconductor design known for its Snapdragon processors; Nothing Technology Limited, a British consumer electronics company manufacturing smartphones and audio products; and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., a Chinese consumer electronics manufacturer specializing in smartphones. Onesta IP alleges that Qualcomm infringes through its Snapdragon-series processors, while Nothing and OnePlus are accused based on their smartphones that incorporate these allegedly infringing processors. The primary patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803, generally relates to methods and systems for coupling GPU chiplets using high bandwidth passive crosslinks for inter-chiplet communications.

The case was filed on April 17, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, and is presided over by Judge Alan D. Albright. The Western District of Texas, particularly under Judge Albright, has been a popular venue for patent litigation due to its fast-paced dockets and judicial experience in patent law, although recent changes have randomized judge assignments for patent cases within the district. The district court case was stayed in June 2025, pending the outcome of a related International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation, 337-TA-1450. In this parallel ITC proceeding, Onesta IP asserted the same patent (11,841,803) and others against Qualcomm, Nothing, OnePlus, and NVIDIA, alleging infringement by integrated circuits and electronic devices. The ITC investigation has recently concluded with respect to Qualcomm, OnePlus, and Nothing, and separately with NVIDIA, based on settlement agreements, leading to the termination of the investigation for these respondents.

This litigation is notable for several reasons. It exemplifies an NPE's strategy of asserting a recently acquired patent portfolio from a prominent operating company (AMD) across multiple enforcement venues, including district court and the ITC. The dispute targets foundational semiconductor technology used in competitive consumer electronics markets. Additionally, Onesta IP has concurrently made headlines by asserting U.S. patents against BMW in a German court, following an EU court decision (BSH Hausgeräte v. Electrolux AB) that expanded the jurisdiction of European national courts over foreign patents. This extraterritorial assertion prompted BMW to file a separate declaratory judgment action and successfully obtain an anti-suit injunction from Judge Albright in the Western District of Texas, ordering Onesta to cease enforcing its U.S. patents in the Munich proceedings, highlighting a significant and evolving jurisdictional conflict in international patent enforcement.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Onesta IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al.

The patent infringement litigation, Onesta IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al. (Case No. 1:25-cv-00587), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, involves allegations of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803, among others. The case has been stayed pending the outcome of a related investigation at the International Trade Commission (ITC), and a settlement with a key defendant, Qualcomm, has been announced in the parallel ITC proceeding.

Chronological Summary of Developments:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

• 2025-04-17: Onesta IP, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against Qualcomm Incorporated, Nothing Technology Limited, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in the Western District of Texas. Onesta is a non-practicing entity that acquired a significant patent portfolio from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. The complaint alleges that Qualcomm's Snapdragon mobile processor chips infringe five patents related to shared virtual memory management, CPU power management, and CPU-GPU task management, including U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803.

2. Parallel ITC Investigation:

• 2025-04-18: Onesta IP, LLC filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission (ITC), leading to Investigation No. 337-TA-1450, titled "Certain Integrated Circuits, Electronic Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof."
• 2025-05-08: Onesta filed a supplemental letter to its ITC complaint.
• 2025-05-20: The USITC voted to institute Investigation No. 337-TA-1450. The respondents identified in the ITC investigation include NVIDIA Corporation, Qualcomm Incorporated, Nothing Technology Limited, and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. The ITC investigation also asserts patent 11,841,803, among others.

3. Pre-trial Motions of Substance:

• June 2025: The Western District of Texas case (1:25-cv-00587) was stayed pending the outcome of the related ITC investigation. The exact date of the stay order within June 2025 is not readily available from public search results without direct PACER access, but the fact and reason for the stay are confirmed.

4. Settlement and Current Posture:

• 2026-03-14: Filings with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the USITC revealed that Onesta IP, LLC had agreed to the broad terms of a settlement with Qualcomm. Separately, Onesta also settled with NVIDIA Corporation in the ITC investigation, filing a joint motion to stay the ITC investigation with respect to NVIDIA on March 6, 2026.
• Current Posture: The Western District of Texas case remains stayed. Given the settlement between Onesta and Qualcomm in the parallel ITC investigation, it is highly probable that the district court case against Qualcomm will be dismissed. The status of the case against the other defendants, Nothing Technology Limited and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., will likely depend on the terms of the settlement with Qualcomm and any ongoing proceedings in the ITC or separate agreements with those entities.

5. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

• A search of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Post-Grant Review (PGR) proceedings specifically against U.S. Patent No. 11,841,803 does not show any publicly accessible records of such challenges being instituted as of the current date.

The counsel of record representing Onesta IP, LLC in Onesta IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al. (Case number: 1:25-cv-00587) cannot be definitively identified from the publicly available search results at this time.

One attorney, Ashanthi Meena Seralathan, who was previously counsel for Onesta IP, LLC, was granted a motion to withdraw from the case on September 19, 2025. The docket information available does not specify who replaced her or who the other active counsel of record are for the plaintiff in this stayed case.

While no specific current attorneys are identified, plaintiffs in patent infringement cases in the Western District of Texas, especially non-practicing entities (NPEs) like Onesta IP, LLC (which acquired a portfolio of patents from Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.), commonly retain prominent intellectual property litigation firms and local counsel. Firms frequently active in such cases include:

• Niro Law Firm
  • Office Location: Chicago, Illinois.
  • Experience Note: Specializes in intellectual property litigation, with founding member Raymond P. Niro, Jr. known for successfully litigating patent cases and securing multimillion-dollar verdicts for plaintiffs nationwide.
• McKool Smith
  • Office Locations: Austin, Dallas, Houston, Marshall, Los Angeles, New York, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience Note: A leading trial firm with a strong focus on high-stakes patent litigation for plaintiffs, boasting numerous significant jury verdicts and extensive experience in federal courts and the ITC.
• Gillam & Smith LP
  • Office Locations: Marshall, Texas; Tyler, Texas.
  • Experience Note: Experienced trial lawyers frequently representing plaintiffs in patent infringement litigation throughout Texas and often serving as local counsel in federal courts.
• Ward, Smith & Hill, PLLC (now Miller Fair Henry PLLC)
  • Office Location: Longview, Texas.
  • Experience Note: A Texas trial boutique recognized for high-stakes patent and commercial litigation, with attorneys known for major trial victories for plaintiffs.

The following counsel of record represent the defendant(s) in Onesta IP, LLC v. Qualcomm Incorporated et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas:

For Defendant Qualcomm Incorporated:

Qualcomm Incorporated is represented by attorneys from Jones Day.

• William E. Devitt

  • Role: Lead Counsel (Trial Lawyer)
  • Firm: Jones Day, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: A first-chair trial lawyer focusing on technology-related patent and trade secret litigation, with extensive experience in federal district courts and the ITC, including for Qualcomm in various patent disputes.

• Matthew J. Hertko

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: Represents clients in high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies, including semiconductors and communications, and has served as trial counsel in numerous jurisdictions.

• Kristina N. Hendricks

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: Focuses on complex patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation matters involving sophisticated technologies such as semiconductor devices, computer hardware and software, and wireless protocols, with experience in both district court and ITC litigation.

• Michael A. Lavine

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day, San Francisco, CA / Silicon Valley, CA
  • Experience: Has argued patent and trademark cases before the Federal Circuit, PTAB, and U.S. District Courts, including participating in trials at the ITC and district courts, with a focus on integrated circuits, wireless communications, and digital displays.

• Yury Kalish, Ph.D.

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day, San Diego, CA (previously Washington, D.C.)
  • Experience: A patent attorney with industry experience in a wide range of technologies, focusing on patent litigation, prosecution, and IP counseling, including matters for Qualcomm, NXP, and Google.

• Marc S. Blackman

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day, Chicago, IL
  • Experience: An intellectual property lawyer with over 25 years of experience in high-stakes patent infringement cases before U.S. district courts, the ITC, and the PTAB, handling cases involving computer hardware and software, semiconductors, and wireless communication.

• Keith B. Davis

  • Role: Local Counsel / Counsel
  • Firm: Jones Day, Dallas, TX
  • Experience: A native Texan who has spent over 20 years leading high-stakes patent, trade secret, and copyright lawsuits in Texas courts and other IP jurisdictions nationwide, including for Qualcomm. He filed a motion to appear pro hac vice for William Edward Devitt, indicating his role in assisting with local practice.

For Defendants Nothing Technology Limited and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd.:

As of the current date and based on available public information, counsel of record representing Nothing Technology Limited and OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. in this patent infringement case has not been explicitly identified. While OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. has been served with a waiver of service, no specific attorney appearances for either Nothing Technology Limited or OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. were found in the provided search results. The case was stayed in June 2025, which may precede formal appearances by all defendants.