Skyworks Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Grand Chip Labs Inc. et al.

This patent infringement litigation, captioned Skyworks Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Grand Chip Labs Inc. et al. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1413), involves a dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The Complainants, Skyworks Solutions, Inc. (an American semiconductor company specializing in analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for wireless connectivity), along with its subsidiaries Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. and Skyworks Global Pte Ltd., allege patent infringement against Respondents Grand Chip Labs Inc. and Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (a Chinese fabless design company manufacturing RF front-end products based on GaAs and CMOS technologies for Wi-Fi, IoT, and V2X markets), and D-Link Systems Inc. (a Taiwanese multinational manufacturer of networking hardware and telecoms equipment). Grand Chip Labs Inc. is identified as a subsidiary of Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.. The accused products are certain wireless front-end modules and devices containing the same, which are allegedly imported into the United States, sold for importation, or sold within the United States after importation.

The litigation initially involved five U.S. patents: 8,717,101; 9,917,563; 7,409,200; 9,450,579; and 9,148,194. However, the Complainants voluntarily withdrew the complaint regarding U.S. Patent No. 7,409,200 in November 2024. Subsequently, U.S. Patent No. 9,450,579 was also terminated from the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint as to that patent, as of February 25, 2025. Through the discovery process, Skyworks also withdrew claims for two other patents, resulting in U.S. Patent Nos. 8,717,101 and 9,917,563 being the patents that proceeded to the Initial Determination of non-infringement. U.S. Patent No. 8,717,101 generally relates to methods and apparatus for controlling power amplifiers, while U.S. Patent No. 9,917,563 pertains to a power amplifier module with improved isolation.

This case is being heard at the International Trade Commission (ITC) under Investigation No. 337-TA-1413. The ITC is a significant venue for patent disputes due to its accelerated timeline compared to district courts, typically concluding investigations within 15-18 months from complaint to final ruling. Furthermore, a prevailing patent owner at the ITC can secure powerful remedies such as exclusion orders, which block infringing products from entering the U.S. market, and cease and desist orders, preventing the sale of existing infringing inventory. Unlike district courts, the ITC does not award monetary damages, but its ability to halt imports makes it a potent forum, particularly for companies seeking to protect a domestic industry from imported infringing goods. The investigation is presided over by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), and ALJ Alton Hare was assigned to this case. On January 23, 2026, an Initial Determination was issued, finding no infringement by Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., and no violation of Section 337. The case is currently pending administrative review by the Commission.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome in Skyworks Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Grand Chip Labs Inc. et al. (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1413)

Filing & Initial Pleadings

The International Trade Commission (ITC) Investigation No. 337-TA-1413, concerning "Certain Wireless Front-End Modules, Devices Containing the Same, and Components Thereof," was initiated on August 22, 2024, based on a complaint filed by Skyworks Solutions, Inc., Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc., and Skyworks Global Pte Ltd. on July 17, 2024. The initial complaint alleged violations of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 based on the infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,717,101, 9,917,563, 7,409,200, 9,450,579, and 9,148,194. Respondents included Grand Chip Labs Inc., D-Link Systems Inc., and Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. Ruijie Networks Co., Ltd. was also named as a respondent, and the Office of Unfair Import Investigations (OUII) participated as a party to the investigation.

Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• Partial Termination of Investigation (U.S. Patent No. 7,409,200): On November 1, 2024, Skyworks filed a motion to terminate the investigation as to U.S. Patent No. 7,409,200 based on the withdrawal of the complaint for that patent. This motion was granted by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) in an Initial Determination (Order No. 13) on November 8, 2024, which the Commission determined not to review on December 10, 2024.
• Amendment to Complaint and Notice of Investigation (U.S. Patent No. 9,450,579): Skyworks also sought to amend the complaint to further assert dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 9,450,579. While the motion to terminate regarding the '200 patent was unopposed, respondents opposed the amendment concerning the '579 patent. Despite opposition, the ALJ granted Skyworks' motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation in an Initial Determination (Order No. 17) on December 31, 2024.
• Termination of Investigation as to U.S. Patent No. 9,450,579: On February 25, 2025, the Commission determined not to review an ALJ's Initial Determination (Order No. 25) partially terminating the investigation as to U.S. Patent No. 9,450,579. This effectively removed the '579 patent from the investigation.
• Termination as to D-Link Respondents: On April 11, 2025, the investigation was terminated as to D-Link Corporation and D-Link Systems Inc. based on a consent order stipulation and consent orders.
• Sanctions Motion: On April 4, 2025, Skyworks requested monetary and non-monetary sanctions against Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (KCT). The ALJ issued Order No. 67 on January 23, 2026, denying the request for non-monetary sanctions but granting certain monetary sanctions.

Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• Initial Determination on Violation: On January 23, 2026, the ALJ issued a final Initial Determination (ID) finding no violation of Section 337. Specifically, the ID found that the respondents had not infringed claims 14 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 9,917,563 and claims 1, 2, 10, 21, and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 8,717,101. The ID also found these asserted claims to be valid and that Skyworks had satisfied the domestic industry requirement for both patents.
• Petitions for Commission Review: On February 6, 2026, Skyworks petitioned the Commission to review the final ID. Respondents and OUII also filed contingent petitions for review of the ID, and KCT and OUII petitioned for review of Order No. 67 (regarding sanctions). The parties filed responses to these petitions on February 13 and 17, 2026.

Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

The investigation concluded with a termination. On April 23, 2026, the Commission voted to terminate the investigation. On April 24, 2026, the Commission issued a notice granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation based on a stipulation for dismissal. This determination was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 2026. The Commission's decision highlighted that the public interest favored terminating the investigation to conserve public and private resources.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A search for IPR/PGR proceedings related to the initially asserted patents (9,450,579, 8,717,101, 9,917,563, 7,409,200, 9,148,194) on the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) database (P-TACTS) did not immediately yield direct IPR or PGR challenges explicitly linked to this ITC investigation or its parties. Given the early termination of some patents and the final finding of no infringement, it is possible that any potential IPRs did not proceed to institution or were not publicly associated with the ITC case in the available search results.
Further in-depth investigation into individual patent numbers within the PTAB system would be needed to definitively confirm the absence or presence and full impact of any such proceedings.

I'll research the counsel of record for the Complainants (Skyworks) in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1413.

Good initial hits. Let me dig deeper into the ITC docket (EDIS) and the complaint's counsel listing, plus the parallel district court case.

Let me verify a few additional names (including a possible former ITC Chairman on the team) and check the ITC EDIS docket and Federal Circuit filings.

Counsel of Record for the Complainants (Skyworks)

Important venue note: This is an ITC Section 337 investigation, not a district court case. The ITC does not maintain PACER-style "appearances"; counsel is identified through the complaint's counsel listing, filings on the Commission's EDIS docket (edis.usitc.gov), and PTAB/Federal Circuit filings in the related proceedings. Everything below is drawn from those primary documents. The Complainants' counsel of record is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP ("WilmerHale") — no other firm appears in the complaint caption or signature blocks.

WilmerHale — counsel for Complainants Skyworks Solutions, Inc.; Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc.; Skyworks Global Pte Ltd.

Key source documents

• ITC complaint (filed July 17, 2024), counsel block: "James M. Dowd, Derek A. Gosma, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA 90071… Joseph F. Haag… Kate Saxton."
• ITC 337-TA-1413 filings signed by "James M. Dowd / Derek A. Gosma / Joseph F. Haag / Kate Saxton — Counsel for Complainants Skyworks Solutions, Inc., Skyworks Solutions Canada, Inc. and Skyworks Global Pte. Ltd." (e.g., the Joint Claim Construction Chart in the investigation, before ALJ MaryJoan McNamara).
• PTAB IPR2024-01456, IPR2025-00372, IPR2025-00373 — Skyworks' Mandatory Notices / Updated Mandatory Notices designating WilmerHale counsel (Haag; Lin; Perry; Kim).
• Fed. Cir. No. 26-115 (In re Kangxi Communication Technologies) — Skyworks' response signed by James M. Dowd; caption lists WilmerHale's Haag, Kim, Lin, and Perry.
• C.D. Cal. 8:24-cv-00974-FWS-ADS and 8:24-cv-00976-FWS-ADS — Dowd and Gosma docketed as counsel; Saxton and Manley admitted pro hac vice. Both cases were stayed under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 (Sept. 13, 2024) and later voluntarily dismissed after the ITC case ended.

Not publicly identified

• Skyworks in-house counsel. No Skyworks legal-department attorney (e.g., General Counsel or Chief IP Counsel) appears in any public ITC or PTAB filing reviewed; I did not find a named in-house lawyer and will not guess at one.
• Any "local counsel" at the ITC. The ITC imposes no local-counsel requirement, and no additional firm appears on the complaint or in the signature blocks; WilmerHale's Los Angeles and Washington, DC offices filled those functions.

Flags / inconsistencies to note

1. Case metadata vs. docket: The metadata lists only U.S. Patent 9,450,579 as "patents at issue," but the '579 was terminated from the investigation in February 2025 (Order No. 25, unreviewed Feb. 25, 2025). The patents that actually reached the January 23, 2026 final ID were 8,717,101 and 9,917,563. The '200 and '194 patents were likewise terminated during discovery.
2. Status metadata out of date: The metadata says "Pending Before the Commission," but the Commission granted a joint motion to terminate the investigation on April 24, 2026 (91 FR 22852, published Apr. 28, 2026), and Skyworks also voluntarily dismissed the stayed C.D. Cal. actions.
3. A PTAB mandatory notice contains a typo, citing the ITC investigation as "Inv. No. 337-TA-3762"; the correct number is 337-TA-1413. (Recorded here so the citation isn't mistaken for a separate investigation.)

Here is the counsel of record representing the defendant(s) in ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1413:

For Grand Chip Labs Inc. and Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.

Firm: Duane Morris LLP and Duane Morris & Selvam LLP

• Timothy R. Shannon (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP
  • Office Location: U.S.
  • Note: Led the U.S. legal team for Kangxi Communication in this ITC Section 337 investigation, which resulted in an Initial Determination of no infringement.

• Dr. Li Zheng (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Duane Morris & Selvam LLP
  • Office Location: Shanghai, China
  • Note: Served as a vital link in managing communications and strategy with Kangxi Communication, a Chinese client, throughout the investigation. He specializes in international IP disputes for Chinese companies.

• Leon Yee (Chairman of Duane Morris & Selvam)

  • Firm: Duane Morris & Selvam LLP
  • Office Location: Singapore
  • Note: Commented on the favorable Initial Determination, highlighting the firm's integrated global network and intellectual property team.

Firm: Foster, Murphy, Altman, & Nickel, PC

• Attorneys (Specific names not detailed in public summaries, but the firm represents Kangxi Communications Technology)
  • Firm: Foster, Murphy, Altman, & Nickel, PC
  • Office Location: (Likely Washington, D.C., given ITC focus)
  • Note: The firm has experience representing respondents in patent infringement investigations before the ITC.

For D-Link Systems Inc.

Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

• Attorneys (Specific names not detailed in public summaries, but the firm represents D-Link Systems Inc.)
  • Firm: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
  • Office Location: (Likely Washington, D.C., given ITC focus)
  • Note: Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP is identified as the participant representative for D-Link Systems Inc. in this investigation.

There are no specific in-house counsel names for the defendants readily available in the public docket summaries without more detailed document access.