Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

Case Overview and Background

Parties and technology. Sentient Sensors, LLC ("Sentient")—an Albuquerque, New Mexico entity tied to inventor Kenneth G. Blemel and his family-owned business Management Sciences Inc. ("MSI," identified as Sentient's managing member and an IPR real party in interest)—sued Cypress Semiconductor Corporation, the San Jose-based programmable semiconductor maker whose product lines included the PSoC (Programmable System-on-Chip) family. Sentient is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177 B1 ("the '177 patent"), titled "Multi-Chip Module Smart Controller," filed December 19, 2001, and issued August 30, 2005; the invention was developed by Blemel through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the U.S. government for compact, low-power instrumentation controllers (e.g., space-based experimental test devices). The '177 patent claims an "instrument controller" that combines a processor with embedded initialization memory and high-/low-frequency operation, non-volatile and volatile storage, at least two internal oscillators, a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) coupled to the processor and "configured to run independent processes in parallel with the processor," and multiple analog-to-digital converters digitizing at one of at least two bit depths—with subsets of FPGA gates performing signal processing and acting as a signal-distribution matrix, and dependent claims adding features such as an internal "embedded power converter" and resettable real-time clock. Sentient's complaint accused Cypress's PSoC 3/4/5/6 programmable system-on-chip lines—devices that integrate a microcontroller core with programmable analog blocks and programmable digital fabric. Notably, Sentient asserted only the single '177 patent. While Sentient described itself in its claim-construction brief as "a practicing entity that produces products covered by the patent," its litigation posture—asserting a 2001-era inventor patent through Blemel-family entities against multiple semiconductor defendants (see below)—is characteristic of a small-entity patent-monetization campaign rather than a traditional operating-company dispute.

Procedural posture and venue. The case, Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01868-MN, was filed October 4, 2019, in the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika (with Magistrate Judge Christopher J. Burke handling ADR referral). Delaware venue was available because Cypress—like many semiconductor companies—is a Delaware corporation, making venue proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) in a district that is the nation's most active patent forum. Cypress moved early to transfer the case to the Northern District of California (D.I. 13), where its headquarters were located; the motion was fully briefed in early 2020, and Judge Noreika issued a memorandum opinion on July 6, 2020—although the case continued in Delaware through claim construction, indicating the transfer bid was unsuccessful (the outcome of that motion is not expressly confirmed in the sources I reviewed). Discovery proceeded through 2020 under the District's default standard, and the parties filed a joint claim-construction brief (D.I. 63) and second amended claim-construction chart (D.I. 77-1). On January 28, 2021, Judge Noreika issued a Memorandum Order construing the disputed terms of the '177 patent (D.I. 89), rejecting Cypress's proposed "multichip module instrument controller" limitation for the claim preambles (claims 1–20), adopting plain meanings for "embedded," "power converter," and the "two internal oscillators" limitation, and refusing to read preferred embodiments into the claims. Cypress's motion for reargument on "instrument controller" (D.I. 90) was denied, and a later O2 Micro–style motion seeking further construction of "embedded" (D.I. 165) was denied on June 24, 2021. The case was ultimately terminated by a joint motion/stipulation of dismissal with prejudice—i.e., a confidential settlement—consistent with the case metadata.

Why the case is notable. The suit is a useful example of an older, inventor-origin patent being asserted years later against modern programmable-SoC products, and it sits within a broader Blemel-family enforcement pattern: the same '177 patent was asserted by Blemel Technologies LLC against National Instruments (E.D. Tex. No. 15-cv-134, transferred to W.D. Tex. and dismissed with prejudice in No. 16-cv-1280) and by Sentient against Xilinx in Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 22-cv-00173 (D. Del.), per the PTAB record in IPR2023-00195. The central claim-construction fight—whether the "instrument controller" preamble and prosecution history confined the invention to a multi-chip module (Cypress's non-infringement linchpin, since PSoCs are single-chip SoCs) or encompassed a system-on-a-chip (Sentient's position)—produced a substantive memorandum order that later became Exhibit 1012 in the parallel proceeding. That IPR, Xilinx, Inc., Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., and ATI Technologies ULC v. Sentient Sensors, LLC (IPR2023-00195, filed February 3, 2023), challenged all 20 claims of the '177 patent on obviousness grounds, was instituted September 20, 2023, and reached a Final Written Decision on September 18, 2024 that is now on appeal—so the patent's validity remains contested in the PTAB/Federal Circuit track even after the district-court case settled. Market context also matters: Cypress was acquired by Infineon Technologies AG during the litigation (deal closing in 2020), and the PSoC franchise at issue is a flagship embedded-design line, giving the case significance beyond the specific parties.

Key sources: CourtListener opinion (claim construction, D.I. 89, Jan. 28, 2021), Justia docket/opinion copies (D.I. 89; D.I. 165 order), the joint claim construction brief (D.I. 63) available via PTACTS, the IPR2023-00195 institution/FWD record (including the related-litigation section in the Board decision), UniCourt's case-summary docket, and the '177 patent specification and claims. A few facts—the precise outcome of the transfer motion and the identity of the IPR prevailing party—are not fully confirmed in the sources reviewed and should be verified against PACER and the PTAB final written decision before citation in a filing.

I'll research the key legal developments chronologically, focusing on docket events, rulings, and the parallel PTAB proceeding.

Let me get details on the answer/counterclaims, the summary judgment motion, the final dismissal, and check for any Cypress-filed IPR.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiff Sentient Sensors, LLC

Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01868-MN (D. Del.)

Counsel of record for Sentient changed over the life of the case. The complaint was filed by Delaware counsel from Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, and the substantive/lead role was carried by an out-of-state patent team (initially Kaliko & Associates, then augmented by King & Spalding lawyers who later moved to Cahill Gordon). The fullest public signature block for plaintiff's team appears on the parties' filings in late 2020–2021 (e.g., the Joint Claim Construction Brief, D.I. 63, and later papers such as D.I. 114), which is the best evidence of the final counsel-of-record lineup.

Delaware local counsel (Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC — Wilmington, DE)

Of counsel / New York–area co-counsel (Eckert Seamans, White Plains, NY)

Co-counsel / pro hac vice–style trial team (Kaliko & Associates, LLC — Wyckoff, NJ)

Lead / substantive trial counsel (King & Spalding LLP — New York, NY)

Sources and reliability notes

• Complaint/early filings: CourtListener RECAP and Justia dockets show "Pileggi, Francis" as the filing attorney on D.I. 1, 6, 21, 24, 32 (Oct. 2019–Mar. 2020).
• Final lineup: Signature block on the Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 63, filed Oct. 2020), reproduced in the USPTO PTACTS record for IPR2023-00195, lists Eckert Seamans (Lipkin, Rogin; Morris of counsel), Kaliko & Associates (Shanahan, Kaliko), and King & Spalding (Flattmann, Rizzi, Cochran) as "Attorneys for Plaintiff Sentient Sensors, LLC"; a copy of D.I. 114 hosted on a firm website (Cadwalader) shows the same lineup in the 2021 phase.
• Discrepancy flagged: UniCourt's party/attorney page lists only Pileggi, Shanahan, Kaliko, and Morris as plaintiff attorneys — but that page reflects docket data last updated in early March 2020, before the King & Spalding and Lipkin/Rogin signatories appeared. Do not treat UniCourt's four-name list as the complete roster.
• Caveats: I could not verify from public sources the precise dates of appearance/withdrawal, the pro hac vice orders for the NJ/NY attorneys (D. Del. requires local counsel plus pro hac vice admission for non-Delaware lawyers), or whether additional associates signed later trial-phase pleadings (e.g., Daubert or summary-judgment papers) — those would require PACER. No in-house counsel for Sentient appeared; Sentient is a Blemel-family LLC (with Management Sciences Inc. as managing member), and no separately-retained in-house lawyers are identified in the record.

I'll research the counsel of record for Cypress Semiconductor in this Delaware patent case.

I found initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the specific attorneys and their roles.

Let me verify the full roster of defense counsel and their firm affiliations.

Based on my research across the docket record, court filings, and attorney profiles, here is the defense counsel roster for Cypress Semiconductor Corporation in Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 1:19-cv-01868-MN (D. Del.).

---

Counsel of Record — Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation

Cypress was represented entirely by Fish & Richardson P.C., with a Delaware-local team in Wilmington and a lead national/regional partner in Austin. This is confirmed by the signature blocks on court filings (e.g., the PTACTS-filed court document captioned for this case listing "Attorneys for Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation") and by UniCourt's attorney listing for the case.

1. Thomas L. Halkowski — Delaware local/lead counsel

• Role: Delaware counsel (lead locally; the senior D. Del. practitioner on the filing)
• Firm/office: Fish & Richardson P.C., 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 (Delaware bar No. 4099)
• Experience: A veteran Delaware patent litigator and longtime Fish & Richardson principal who regularly serves as Delaware counsel in semiconductor and other complex patent cases before Judge Noreika and other D. Del. judges; he appeared on Cypress's substantive filings including the claim-construction papers that produced the January 28, 2021 Memorandum Order (D.I. 89).

2. David M. Hoffman — Lead merits counsel

• Role: Lead/co-lead counsel on the merits (out-of-state technical lead)
• Firm/office: Fish & Richardson P.C., 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 810, Austin, TX 78701
• Experience: Semiconductor patent-litigation specialist; Fish & Richardson's own bio for Hoffman highlights his representation of Cypress Semiconductor in the Northern District of California SRAM patent cases against GSI Technology (Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. GSI Technology, Inc., Nos. 3:13-cv-02013 & 3:13-cv-03757 (N.D. Cal.), settled). His presence here is consistent with Cypress using him as national trial counsel on PSoC/SoC chip disputes.

3. Grayson P. Sundermeir — Local/backup counsel

• Role: Delaware local counsel (associate; backup to Halkowski)
• Firm/office: Fish & Richardson P.C., 222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 (Delaware bar No. 6517)
• Experience: D. Del. patent litigator at Fish & Richardson; signed filings alongside Halkowski as counsel for Cypress.

4. Ronald P. Golden III — Local associate (early case management)

• Role: Local associate at Fish & Richardson during the active phase (2019–2020)
• Firm/office: Then Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE; now Of Counsel at Bayard, P.A., 600 North King Street, Suite 400, Wilmington, DE (he left Fish & Richardson for Bayard in October 2020)
• Experience: Docket evidence shows Golden was the attorney of record who filed Cypress's early case-management submissions — the transfer-motion reply (D.I. 27), request for oral argument (D.I. 28), proposed protective order (D.I. 29), and notices of service of initial disclosures (D.I. 25, 31) — all docketed under "(Golden, Ronald)." Former courtroom deputy to Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark; now a recognized Delaware IP litigator (Best Lawyers "Ones to Watch," IAM Patent 1000).

---

Additional notes and caveats

• No in-house counsel of record identified: I found no evidence that Cypress in-house attorneys (or, after the Infineon Technologies acquisition closed in 2020, Infineon lawyers) entered appearances as counsel of record in the PACER docket. Representation remained with Fish & Richardson throughout, per the filing signature blocks.
• Role labels: The docket does not formally designate "lead" vs. "local" counsel in a way that is publicly visible; the roles above reflect the standard D. Del. structure (Wilmington firm as local counsel of record + out-of-district national counsel), corroborated by who signed which filings. Halkowski and Sundermeir are the Delaware-bar members listed on Cypress's filings; Hoffman is the Austin-based technical lead whose bio confirms Cypress as a client.
• Late-stage counsel: The O2 Micro–style motion (D.I. 165) and the June 24, 2021 order (D.I. 168) postdate Golden's departure to Bayard; filings from that period were handled by the remaining Fish & Richardson team (Halkowski/Sundermeir/Hoffman). I could not verify from public sources whether any additional Fish & Richardson attorneys (e.g., additional associates or counsel in Austin/Wilmington) entered appearances later in the case; a PACER attorney-appearance query would be the definitive check.
• Source strength: The signature-block identification comes from a PTACTS-hosted copy of a court filing in this very case and UniCourt's case-attorney listing; individual docket entries (D.I. 25–31) confirm Golden's filing activity; Hoffman's client relationship with Cypress is confirmed by his Fish & Richardson bio. No attorneys have been invented here — anyone not appearing in these sources has been omitted.

Bottom line: If you need the formal "counsel of record" list for a certificate of service or related-litigation disclosure, use: Thomas L. Halkowski, Grayson P. Sundermeir (Fish & Richardson, Wilmington, DE) and David M. Hoffman (Fish & Richardson, Austin, TX), with Ronald P. Golden III (then Fish & Richardson, now Bayard) having handled early-filed docket entries in 2019–2020.