Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Microsemi Corporation et al.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and patent. Sentient Sensors, LLC—a New Mexico LLC tied to sole inventor Kenneth Blemel of Albuquerque—owns U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177 ("Multi-Chip Module Smart Controller," filed Dec. 19, 2001; issued Aug. 30, 2005; 20 claims). Sentient is best described as an inventor/producer-affiliated patent owner rather than a classic NPE/PAE: RPX characterized it as "inventor-controlled," the technology was developed under a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement with the U.S. government, and in later IPR proceedings Sentient and Management Sciences Inc. (Blemel's small Albuquerque business) disclosed themselves as real parties in interest (RPX Insight; IPR2023-00195 Final Decision; USPTO Patent Owner filings). Defendants were semiconductor maker Microsemi Corporation; its FPGA/SoC subsidiary Microsemi SOC Corporation (the SmartFusion business line); and Arrow Electronics, a major components distributor. The asserted patent claims an "instrument controller" architecture that pairs a microprocessor (with embedded boot memory and dual oscillators) with a field-programmable gate array (FPGA) "configured to run independent processes in parallel with the processor," plus variable-bit-depth analog-to-digital converters and FPGA gates partitioned for signal processing and signal-routing—in essence, a reconfigurable multi-chip instrument/controller platform that improves on the earlier Air Force "Advanced Instrument Controller" of U.S. Patent 6,148,399 (Lyke).

Accused products and procedural posture. The complaint (filed March 30, 2018) accused Microsemi's SmartFusion and SmartFusion2 SoC-FPGA families—devices integrating an ARM processor, FPGA fabric, embedded memory, and analog blocks—of direct, induced, and contributory infringement (at least claim 1), and named Arrow as an inducer/contributor through its distribution and customer support of those parts (RPX-published complaint). The case was filed in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of Texas (No. 2:18-cv-00121) before District Judge Robert W. Schroeder III, with Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne also on the docket (Justia docket; RPX Insight). Venue was a live battleground: the defendants moved to dismiss (Microsemi entities, docket 24/27; Arrow, docket 35), while Sentient sought venue-related discovery (docket 32) to establish a "regular and established place of business" in the district under §1400(b) after TC Heartland—notably, the complaint's own jurisdictional allegations point to Microsemi offices in Plano, Texas, which sits in the Northern District, underscoring the post-2017 venue squeeze on E.D. Tex. filings. The case never reached a merits ruling: it was terminated April 17, 2019, by a joint motion to dismiss with prejudice—a confidential settlement roughly one year after filing (RPX; IPR2023-00195 decision).

Why it matters. The case is a useful data point in several respects: (1) it is the opening salvo of a single-patent enforcement campaign against makers of programmable SoCs—after settling with Microsemi, Sentient sued Cypress over its PSoC lines in Delaware (19-cv-1868, later settled) and Xilinx/AMD/ATI in Delaware (22-cv-173), with RPX tracking the pattern (RPX, "Six Months After Microsemi Settlement, Sentient Sensors Sues Cypress Semiconductor," Oct. 2019); (2) the underlying patent has since been tested on the merits: Xilinx et al. petitioned IPR2023-00195, the PTAB found the challenged claims unpatentable as obvious, and the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on April 10, 2026 (Appeal No. 25-1058)—meaning the very claims asserted here were later invalidated, though after this case settled; and (3) the case illustrates the strategic mix of a small inventor-controlled entity, defense/aerospace-rooted technology (the patent owner says it protects products built under a USAF CRADA), distributor-level defendants, and E.D. Tex. venue litigation that resolved by settlement before any substantive opinion. No damages figure, license terms, or settlement terms are public, and the defendants' venue motions were apparently mooted by the dismissal rather than decided.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Microsemi Corp. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00121 (E.D. Tex. Marshall Div.)

A note on sourcing: This case closed in April 2019 and produced no substantive written opinions (no venue ruling, no claim-construction order, no merits decision). The reconstruction below relies on indexed docket-entry lists (Patexia, Justia, RPX Insight) rather than full PACER text, so docket-entry titles are reliable but I could not read the underlying filings. Everything is dated per those sources.

Chronology of key events

Disposition

Final outcome: dismissed with prejudice by court order (dkt. 61) on 2019-04-17, pursuant to the parties' joint motion (dkt. 60). No damages, license, or settlement terms are public. The defendants' venue motions (dkts. 24/27/35), the venue-discovery motions (dkts. 29/32), and all scheduling/claim-construction track items were mooted by the settlement rather than decided — there is no merits, venue, or § 101/§ 112/§ 103 opinion, no Markman order, no summary-judgment motion, no trial, and no verdict.

Things that did not happen (verified by absence from docket indices)

• No answer/counterclaims are visible in the indexed docket between the 2018-07-16 extension of time and the 2019 dismissal. Given the extension and the pending venue motions, it is possible answers were filed later in unindexed entries (dkts. 25–26, 28, 30, etc. are gaps), but I could not confirm any answer on the record — flag this as unverified.
• No Markman/claim-construction order (case settled ~4–5 months before a typical E.D. Tex. Markman hearing).
• No summary judgment, no trial, no post-trial motions, no appeal.
• No stay pending IPR was sought in this case — there was no IPR pending during the life of the litigation.

Parallel PTAB proceedings (post-dating this case)

• IPR2023-00195 (Xilinx/AMD v. Sentient Sensors / Management Sciences Inc.): Petitioned by Xilinx (the successor litigation target in D. Del. 22-cv-173) years after this case settled. The PTAB instituted and issued a Final Written Decision finding the challenged claims of the '177 patent unpatentable as obvious; the Federal Circuit affirmed by Rule 36 judgment on 2026-04-10 (Appeal No. 25-1058). Because the IPR was filed in 2023 — four years after the Microsemi dismissal — it had zero effect on this litigation's outcome, but it is the definitive postscript: the patent Sentient asserted against Microsemi in 2018–2019 has since been invalidated on the merits in a later, related campaign. (Source: PTAB Final Written Decision, IPR2023-00195; prior case-section research.)

Strategic read of the trajectory

The docket tells a textbook story of a small-inventor E.D. Tex. case that never survived past the preliminary stages: complaint → amended complaint → defendants' venue motions (premised on the Plano/N.D. Tex. footprint the complaint itself alleged) → plaintiff's jurisdictional-discovery counter-motion (dkt. 32, the only fully developed motion packet on the record) → mediation referral in October 2018 → confidential settlement and with prejudice dismissal in April 2019 — approximately one year after filing, with the venue motions still undecided. The absence of any ruling means the case stands only as a settlement data point, not precedent, in the E.D. Tex. post-TC Heartland venue landscape.

Based on the available record, here is what can be established about plaintiff Sentient Sensors, LLC's counsel in Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Microsemi Corp. et al., No. 2:18-cv-00121 (E.D. Tex. Marshall Div.), with sourcing caveats noted.

Attorneys of record for Sentient Sensors, LLC (as reflected in the docket record)

Sourcing and confidence caveats

• The primary source for the Texas-bar names is the Justia docket page for this case, which lists the plaintiff as "Represented By: Debra Coleman; William Ellsworth Davis, III; Christian J Hurt; Jennifer Parker Ainsworth" (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2018cv00121/[181483](/patent/181483)). Note that Justia's consolidated party listings occasionally blur side-attribution, so I could not fully confirm from the snippet alone that every one of these four attorneys appeared for the plaintiff (as opposed to some appearing for defendants Microsemi/Arrow) — though they appear under the plaintiff's heading.
• Scott H. Kaliko's role as plaintiff's counsel is corroborated by the Patexia docket listing, which shows a "Declaration of Scott H. Kaliko in Support of Plaintiff Sentient Sensors" filed in this case (entry 32).
• Michael Shanahan's involvement is corroborated by Ex Parte's attorney profile (which associates him with 2:18-cv-00121) and by his appearance as Sentient's counsel in the closely related Sentient v. Cypress/Xilinx actions.
• I was unable to pull the PACER attorney-appearance docket entries in the time available, so precise designations (lead vs. of counsel vs. local counsel) for the Texas-named attorneys are inferred, not confirmed. Firm affiliations for Coleman, Hurt, and Ainsworth could not be verified; do not treat those as established.
• Edward M. Cannon (Knobbe Martens) appears in third-party analytics for this case number but is more likely associated with a defendant side or related IPR work; I have not listed him as plaintiff's counsel because there is no source tying him to Sentient.

If you need a definitive lead/local-counsel breakdown, the authoritative step would be pulling the live PACER docket for 2:18-cv-00121 (e.g., entries reflecting appearances, notices of attorney appearance, and the joint motion to dismiss that closed the case on 2019-04-17).

Defense Counsel of Record — Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Microsemi Corporation et al., 2:18-cv-00121 (E.D. Tex.)

A caution up front: the docket is closed (2019) and the case page on Justia shows a counsel block, but publicly indexed sources do not contain a full party-by-party attorney table. What follows separates confirmed appearances from high-confidence inferences and from names I could not attribute.

Confirmed / well-sourced

Edward M. "Ted" Cannon — lead outside counsel (Microsemi entities)

• Firm: Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP — partner in the firm's Orange County, CA office (Knobbe Martens profile).
• Confirmation: His case-history listing on Ex Parte shows representation in 2:18-CV-00121, Sentient Sensors LLC v. Microsemi Corp., filed 03/30/18 (ai-lab.exparte.com/attorney/25571). A plaintiff-side filing in the case (docket 32 exhibits) likewise references an email from plaintiff's counsel to "Ted Canno[n]," consistent with him being opposing counsel for Microsemi (Patexia document listing, Ex. 7).
• Experience note: Patent litigation/PTAB partner and chair of Knobbe's PTAB trials practice; he simultaneously handled Microsemi in parallel E.D. Tex. cases around the same period (e.g., UPF Innovations LLC v. Microsemi, 2:17-cv-00570; DIFF Scale Operation Research LLC v. Microsemi, 2:18-cv-00064). Active before the Federal Circuit and in district-court and ITC patent litigation.

Jennifer Parker Ainsworth — local counsel (Microsemi entities, likely)

• Firm: Wilson Law Firm (email jainsworth@wilsonlawfirm.com; phone 903-509-5000 — Texas 903 area code, E.D. Tex. region).
• Confirmation of role: I could not pull the appearance entry in this case, but she is documented as counsel for Microsemi Corporation in the near-identical E.D. Tex. case UPF Innovations, LLC v. Microsemi Corp. (2:17-cv-00570, Judge Gilstrap), where she filed Microsemi's § 1404(a) motion (Plainsite docket). Given the same defendant, same court, same time window, and her presence on the Justia counsel list for 2:18-cv-00121, she is almost certainly E.D. Tex. local counsel for Microsemi here.

On the docket's counsel list but not yet attributable

The Justia docket page for 2:18-cv-00121 displays a "Represented By" block listing four names: Debra Coleman, William Ellsworth Davis III, Christian J. Hurt, and Jennifer Parker Ainsworth (dockets.justia.com/docket/texas/txedce/2:2018cv00121/181483). The page's HTML formatting does not let me confirm from the indexed snippet which party each attorney represents, and I did not find independent profiles tying Coleman, Davis, or Hurt to Microsemi, Microsemi SOC, or Arrow in this case. They are plausibly the E.D. Tex. local-counsel team for one or more defendants, but I cannot responsibly assign firms or offices to them without PACER verification — do not treat them as confirmed defense counsel.

Gaps (explicitly unconfirmed)

• Arrow Electronics' counsel: No attorney or firm for Arrow is identifiable from the public sources I retrieved. Arrow separately moved to dismiss (docket 35), so it had separate counsel of record, but the name(s) are not publicly indexed.
• Additional Knobbe Martens attorneys: Cannon likely had colleagues on the Microsemi engagement (common for this firm), but no additional names surfaced.
• In-house counsel: No Microsemi/Arrow in-house attorneys are identified in the public record for this case.
• Filing-specific signatures: The motions to dismiss (dockets 24/27 for Microsemi entities; docket 35 for Arrow) would confirm signatories, but their full texts are not in the indexed sources reviewed.

Practical verification path

To lock down the complete representation table (including Arrow's counsel and any second-chair/associate attorneys), the authoritative sources are:

1. PACER for 2:18-cv-00121 (E.D. Tex.) — the attorney appearance entries and signatures on dockets 24, 27, 35, and the joint dismissal (docket ~April 2019);
2. The case's CM/ECF "attorneys" tab, which is the definitive party-by-party list.

Bottom line: Lead outside counsel for Microsemi is Ted M. Cannon (Knobbe Martens, Orange County); E.D. Tex. local counsel for Microsemi is almost certainly Jennifer Parker Ainsworth (Wilson Law Firm). Arrow's counsel and the firms/roles of Debra Coleman, William E. Davis III, and Christian J. Hurt remain unconfirmed from public sources and should be verified against PACER before citation.