Xilinx, Inc. et al. v. Sentient Sensors, LLC

Case Overview & Background

Parties. This matter — IPR2023-00195 before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — is an inter partes review, not a standalone infringement suit, but it is the validity counter-attack to the parallel infringement litigation that frames the dispute. The petitioners/appellees are Xilinx, Inc. (San Jose–based FPGA pioneer and, since 2022, an AMD company), Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (Santa Clara CPU/GPU/adaptive-SoC maker), and ATI Technologies ULC (AMD's Canadian graphics subsidiary) — all large operating semiconductor companies, represented by Fish & Richardson. The patent owner/appellant is Sentient Sensors, LLC of Albuquerque, New Mexico, a small entity controlled by sole inventor Kenneth Blemel; its mandatory notices identify Management Sciences Inc. (MSI) as a real party in interest (IPR2023-00195, Paper 4/27). Sentient presents itself as a small business whose products the patent protects, but its actual litigation pattern is classic patent-assertion-entity behavior: Blemel-related entities have asserted the same '177 patent against National Instruments (as Blemel Technologies, E.D. Tex./W.D. Tex.), Microsemi (E.D. Tex.), Cypress Semiconductor (D. Del. 19-1868-MN), and Xilinx (D. Del. 22-cv-00173), with the earlier cases ending in dismissal. The IPR record confirms Sentient put Xilinx on written notice as early as December 2016 and alleged willful infringement (PTAB Ex. 1020, Complaint ¶¶ 16–17).

Patent, accused technology, and posture. The sole patent is U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177, "Multi-Chip Module Smart Controller," issued Aug. 30, 2005 to Blemel from App. No. 10/28,556 (filed Dec. 19, 2001). In one line: it claims an instrument controller (an Air Force/CRADA-era "Advanced Instrument Controller" for space and military monitoring) built around a processor with embedded boot memory and dual oscillators coupled to an FPGA whose gate array runs independent processes in parallel with the processor, plus multiple analog-to-digital converters digitizing at selectable bit depths. In the parallel D. Del. infringement suit, Sentient alleged Xilinx directly infringed at least claim 1 by selling programmable system-on-chip products — the complaint names "at least the Zynq 7000" family (the ARM-core-plus-FPGA SoC line squarely embodying the claimed processor-plus-programmable-logic architecture), though the retrieved complaint excerpt truncates the full product list (PTAB Ex. 1020 ¶ 24). Procedurally: the IPR petition was filed Feb. 3, 2023 (Paper 2, with Dr. Stanley Shanfield's declaration); the Board instituted Sept. 20, 2023 (Paper 12) on § 103 grounds combining the Lyke '399 AIC patent with Dehkordi, Frantz, and Faura (plus Krasner, Christian, and Steele for dependent claims); after a Patent Owner Response (Paper 18, Peck decl.), Reply (Paper 21), Sur-reply (Paper 24), and oral hearing on June 26, 2024 (Paper 35, before a panel including Judge Zado), the Board issued its Final Written Decision on Sept. 18, 2024, finding all 15 challenged claims (claims 1–5, 10–15, and 17–20) unpatentable as obvious (see the FWD copy at bannerwitcoff.com; PTACTS hearing materials). Sentient appealed to the Federal Circuit (No. 2025-1058); on April 10, 2026, a per curiam panel of Judges Chen, Cunningham, and Stark affirmed under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential), ending the appeal (CAFC judgment PDF; Law360, Apr. 10, 2026). Venue note: the PTAB proceeding is statutory (35 U.S.C. §§ 311–319), not venue-based, but the companion infringement case, Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN, is in the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika — the same judge who construed terms of the '177 patent in the earlier Cypress case (19-1868-MN, claim-construction order of Jan. 28, 2021, PTAB Ex. 1012) — making Delaware's well-developed patent docket and that prior construction record consequential; that case was listed as "active" in the Board's decision, and I could not verify its post-affirmance docket status from the sources retrieved.

Why the case is notable. This is a textbook example of coordinated, multi-forum NPE defense in the semiconductor space: after Sentient's serial assertions against NI, Microsemi, Cypress, and Xilinx, the Xilinx/AMD/ATI group used IPR to invalidate the asserted patent while the Delaware case was pending, and the Board's broad obviousness holding — that the FPGA-plus-processor "independent parallel processes" architecture was a known combination of off-the-shelf parts disclosed in the Air Force's own Lyke AIC patent and contemporary academic/industry literature — withstood Sentient's claim-construction fight over "independent processes" on appeal. The Rule 36 affirmance (the first Federal Circuit merits decision, dated 2026, in this dispute) is significant because it leaves the PTAB's FWD as the operative analysis and effectively strips Sentient of its infringement case against Xilinx's Zynq and related programmable-logic products — an outcome watched in the FPGA/adaptive-computing market given the breadth of Sentient's allegations about FPGA-based "system on a chip" controllers. The case also highlights the government-heritage angle: Sentient touted that the '177 patent arose from Air Force–funded work at Kirtland AFB (initially tied to the SDI/"Star Wars" program) under a CRADA — a pedigree that did not save its claims from a straightforward obviousness combination (Complaint ¶¶ 13–14; Patent Owner's June 26, 2024 hearing presentation).

Key sources: IPR2023-00195 papers (Petition Paper 2; Inst. Dec. Paper 12, Sept. 20, 2023; FWD, Sept. 18, 2024 — copy at bannerwitcoff.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/IPR2023-00195.pdf); PTACTS hearing transcript/demonstratives (Judge Zado, June 26, 2024); Federal Circuit judgment, Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 2025-1058 (Apr. 10, 2026, Chen/Cunningham/Stark, R. 36 aff'g) (cafc.uscourts.gov; Justia); Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., 1:22-cv-00173-MN (D. Del., Judge Noreika, filed Feb. 8, 2022) (Justia docket); Sentient Sensors v. Cypress Semiconductor, 19-1868-MN (D. Del. claim-construction rulings); complaint excerpt (PTAB Ex. 1020, ¶¶ 13–24); Law360 Delaware brief (Apr. 10, 2026); ScaleJuris summary of the Rule 36 affirmance. Note: the full list of accused Xilinx products beyond "Zynq 7000," the PTAB panel composition beyond Judge Zado, and the current status of the stayed/parallel D. Del. case were not fully verified in the retrieved sources.

Key Legal Developments — Xilinx/AMD/ATI v. Sentient Sensors (U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177)

Scope note

The case metadata identifies the PTAB proceeding IPR2023-00195 (Xilinx, Inc.; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; ATI Technologies ULC v. Sentient Sensors, LLC). The underlying patent-infringement litigation is Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN (D. Del.), before Judge Maryellen Noreika, which is the district-court case the PTAB decision directly affected. That D. Del. case is also a "related matter" listed in the IPR papers. The '177 patent was previously asserted in Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., No. 19-1868-MN (D. Del.), which produced the claim-construction rulings later cited in the IPR.

Source caveat: Docket entries below for the D. Del. case are drawn from a PACER docket snapshot filed as an IPR exhibit (retrieved 2023-01-14), Justia's docket (retrieved 2022-04-01), PTAB papers, and the Federal Circuit's published judgment. Post-November-2022 district-court entries (formal stay order, any further scheduling, and final termination) could not be verified from the available sources; where unverified, I say so explicitly.

---

I. District court litigation: Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN (D. Del.)

Filing and initial pleadings

• 2022-02-08 — Sentient Sensors filed its Complaint for Patent Infringement (jury demand) against Xilinx, Inc., asserting U.S. Patent No. 6,938,177 (the "'177 patent," "Multi-Chip Module Smart Controller") (D.I. 1; summons issued D.I. 4). The case was assigned to Judge Maryellen Noreika on 2022-02-16.
• 2022-02-09 — Summons returned executed on Xilinx (D.I. 5); answer due 2022-03-02.
• 2022-03-03 — Stipulation extending Xilinx's answer deadline to 2022-04-01 (D.I. 8); entry of appearances by Richards, Layton & Finger (F. Cottrell, A. Ewing), later replaced/joined by Fish & Richardson and Robins Kaplan (pro hac admissions 2022-03-09 through 2022-05-12 for Fahrenkrog, Tremblay, Pheng, Jones, Shneidman, Hoffman).
• 2022-04-01 — Xilinx filed a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim (D.I. 10) with opening brief (D.I. 11), plus a Rule 7.1 disclosure identifying Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. as an affiliate (D.I. 12) — significant because AMD's acquisition of Xilinx closed in February 2022, the same month suit was filed (this likely underpinned the dismissal theory, e.g., pleading deficiency relating to the corporate/acquired-entity structure). Sentient's pro hac counsel (Flattmann, Cochran, Shanahan — King & Spalding/Cahill) appeared in May 2022.
• 2022-10-26 — Motion hearing; Xilinx's Motion to Dismiss (D.I. 10) was DENIED, with the court ordering that the transcript serve as the ruling (Minute Entry, D.I. 26).
• 2022-11-09 — Xilinx filed its Answer to the complaint with jury demand (D.I. 28). The same day the Court ordered the parties to confer on scheduling-order dates (D.I. 29).

Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss (2022-04-01 → denied 2022-10-26): Xilinx's Rule 12(b)(6) motion was denied from the bench; no written opinion — the transcript is the ruling (D.I. 26).
• Stay pending IPR: Xilinx, AMD, and ATI filed the IPR petition on 2023-02-03 (see Part III). Sentient Sensors' PTAB mandatory notices dated 2024-05-03 describe the D. Del. case as "stayed." The PTAB's Final Written Decision (2024-09-18) recites the parties' related-matter disclosure describing the D. Del. case as "(active)" — consistent with it having been filed and later stayed. I could not verify from available sources the exact date or text of the formal stay order in the D. Del. case, but the weight of the record indicates the case was stayed during the IPR. No motions for transfer, JMOL, or fees in the district court were identified in the sources reviewed.

Claim construction (Markman)

• The D. Del. Xilinx case did not reach its own Markman ruling in the records I could verify (the case was stayed during the IPR). However, claim construction for the '177 patent was litigated in the related Cypress case (No. 19-1868-MN, D. Del.), and that ruling was imported into the IPR record:
  • 2021-01-28 — Judge Noreika's Claim Construction Order (D.I. 89) in Sentient Sensors v. Cypress, construing the disputed terms of the '177 patent, including rejecting Sentient's proposals to import limitations into "embedded" (no "on-chip" requirement), "two internal oscillators" (no independence/one-clock-per-operation requirement), and "power converter" (plain meaning — no requirement that it "convert electrical power" as such); the order also addressed "instrument controller." This order was filed in the IPR as Ex. 1012.
  • 2021-05-17 — Cypress's motion for reargument of the "instrument controller" construction was denied (Memorandum Order, C.A. No. 19-1868, D. Del.).
  • 2021-06-24 — Cypress's O2 Micro motion to revisit/expand the "embedded" construction was denied; the Court noted Cypress had changed its non-infringement theory late and struck its summary-judgment motion in part on that basis.
  • The Cypress case was later terminated by joint motion to dismiss with prejudice (per the related-matters list in the IPR Final Written Decision).

Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• The verified docket does not show completed merits discovery in the D. Del. case; the case was stayed for the IPR before trial-level discovery. The strategically significant "discovery-type" developments occurred in the IPR:
  • Expert reports: Sentient submitted the Declaration of John Peck (Ex. 2020) with its Patent Owner Response; petitioners submitted the original and Supplemental Declarations of Dr. Stanley Shanfield (Ex. 1002, Ex. 1050). The supplemental Shanfield declaration was used to establish that the outcome did not turn on the disputed level of ordinary skill.
  • The transcript of the 2024-06-26 oral hearing (Paper 35) reflects the disputed issues: claim construction of "process"/"independent processes in parallel" and whether the prior-art FPGAs ran independent processes in parallel with the processor.

Trial, verdict, post-trial motions

• No district-court trial occurred. The infringement action was stayed in favor of the IPR, and no verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion in the D. Del. case was identified in the sources reviewed.

---

II. Parallel PTAB IPR: IPR2023-00195 — and its effect on the litigation

• 2023-02-03 — Xilinx, AMD, and ATI Technologies ULC filed the IPR petition (Paper 2) challenging claims of the '177 patent on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Lyke (U.S. Patent No. 6,148,399), Dehkordi, Frantz, and Faura (Ground 1: claims 1, 4; Ground 2: claim 2, +Krasner; Ground 3: claim 3, +Christian; Ground 4: claims 5, 10-11, 13-14, 15, 17, 19, 20, +Steele; Ground 5: claims 12, 18, +Christian). The petition incorporated the D. Del. complaint (Ex. 1020), the D. Del. docket (Ex. 1021), and the Cypress claim-construction order (Ex. 1012).
• 2023-06-23 — Sentient Sensors filed its Patent Owner Preliminary Response (Paper 6) with exhibits.
• 2023-09-20 — The Board instituted inter partes review on all challenged claims (Institution Decision, Paper 12).
• 2023/2024 merits phase — Sentient filed its Patent Owner Response (Paper 18) with the Peck declaration; petitioners filed a Reply (Paper 21) with the supplemental Shanfield declaration; Sentient filed a Sur-Reply (Paper 24). Patent Owner's real-party-in-interest disclosures identified Management Sciences Inc. as co-RPI (Paper 4; Paper 27).
• 2024-06-26 — Oral hearing before the Board (Paper 35 transcript). The dispute centered on (a) claim construction of "process" and "independent processes" — Sentient urging a narrow "computational process programmed into the FPGA gates, without computational assistance" construction; petitioners urging plain meaning — and (b) whether the Board should treat Patent Owner's "clock and control" independence arguments as abandoned.
• 2024-09-18 — Final Written Decision: the Board found all challenged claims (claims 1-5 and 10-20) unpatentable as obvious under § 103, adopting the broad plain-meaning constructions and concluding that the cited prior art (e.g., Lyke in view of Dehkordi) disclosed FPGAs running processes independently and in parallel with the processor (Paper 40; IPR terminated/decision date per PTAB records).
• Effect on the district litigation: with the asserted claims held unpatentable and the D. Del. case stayed, Sentient's infringement case lost its predicate; under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), Sentient (as IPR patent owner) is estopped from asserting in the D. Del. case any ground of invalidity it raised or reasonably could have raised — and, more fundamentally, the asserted claims had been cancelled/had their unpatentability finally determined. The final disposition of the D. Del. case (e.g., stipulated dismissal or judgment) is not documented in the sources I could access and should be confirmed on PACER.

---

III. Appeal — Federal Circuit (present posture)

• ~November 2024 — Sentient Sensors appealed the Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, docketed as Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 2025-1058 (appeal from PTAB No. IPR2023-00195). Andrew Cochran (Cahill Gordon & Reindel) argued for appellant Sentient; Jeffrey Shneidman (Fish & Richardson) argued for appellees Xilinx, AMD, and ATI, joined by Kenneth Darby and David Hoffman (Fish & Richardson, Austin) and John Dragseth (Minneapolis).
• 2026-04-08 — Federal Circuit oral argument before a panel of Judges Chen, Cunningham, and Stark (audio posted).
• 2026-04-10 — The Federal Circuit entered a per curiam judgment AFFIRMING the PTAB's obviousness determination under Fed. Cir. R. 36 (nonprecedential summary affirmance; "See Fed. Cir. R. 36"). Law360 reported the same day that the Federal Circuit "won't revive claims in a Sentient Sensors military instruments monitoring patent."

---

Bottom line / outcome

• District court: Sentient's 2022-02-08 infringement suit against Xilinx (D. Del.) survived Xilinx's motion to dismiss (denied 2022-10-26) but was then stayed pending the IPR; no trial occurred.
• PTAB: Final Written Decision of 2024-09-18 held claims 1-5 and 10-20 of the '177 patent unpatentable as obvious.
• Federal Circuit: Affirmed summarily on 2026-04-10 (No. 2025-1058, Rule 36).
• Net result: Sentient Sensors lost validity on all asserted claims at the PTAB, lost the appeal, and the stayed Delaware infringement action (which depended on those claims) has no viable path to recovery — though the final docket entry formally closing the D. Del. case was not independently verified and should be checked against PACER (Case 1:22-cv-00173-MN).

Unverified items to confirm on PACER: (1) the exact date/order staying the D. Del. case pending IPR; (2) any post-FWD proceedings in the district court; (3) the formal termination/disposition entry of Case 1:22-cv-00173-MN.

Preliminary note on terminology

This docket is IPR2023-00195, an inter partes review — there is no "plaintiff" or "defendant" in the PTAB caption; the parties are Petitioners (Xilinx, AMD, ATI Technologies ULC) and Patent Owner (Sentient Sensors, LLC). The case metadata appears to carry over the underlying infringement caption labels, so I cover both readings:

• If "plaintiff(s)" means the first-named/asserting parties in this case record (Xilinx, AMD, ATI — the IPR Petitioners and Federal Circuit Appellees): counsel is Fish & Richardson P.C., as identified in the PTAB mandatory notices and the CAFC judgment.
• If "plaintiff" means the patentee in the actual infringement suit (Sentient Sensors, LLC in the companion Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN, D. Del.): counsel of record is Farnan LLP (local) with Cahill Gordon & Reindel and Ellenoff Grossman & Schole (pro hac/lead).

What follows is counsel of record on both sides, with roles as verifiable from the PTAB record, the Delaware docket, and the Federal Circuit judgment. Nothing is sealed; no appearance issue.

---

Petitioners / Appellees — Xilinx, AMD, ATI Technologies ULC (Fish & Richardson P.C.)

PTAB / IPR2023-00195 mandatory notices and Board orders list the registered practitioners as David Hoffman, Kenneth Darby, and Craig Deutsch (emails hoffman@fr.com, kdarby@fr.com, deutsch@fr.com) (PTACTS public petition docs; PTAB Order granting pro hac vice admission, Paper 22). The IPR petition (Paper 2) identified Shneidman as back-up counsel; the Board granted his pro hac vice admission on or about March 2024 (Paper 20 motion, Ex. 1049 declaration, Paper 22 order by APJ Zado).

Notable experience: Hoffman, Darby, Shneidman, and Dragseth are all veteran Fish & Richardson patent litigators who regularly handle semiconductor/PTAB work; the same Fish team carried the § 103 win through the Board's FWD (Sept. 18, 2024) to the Rule 36 affirmance (Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1058, Apr. 10, 2026 — argued by Shneidman).

Earlier/other D. Del. appearances for Xilinx (1:22-cv-00173), per the docket:

• Robins Kaplan LLP pro hac vice team for Xilinx: Aaron R. Fahrenkrog, Emily J. Tremblay, Mary Pheng, William R. Jones (added Mar. 9–28, 2022).
• Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. (Delaware local counsel): Frederick L. Cottrell III and Alexandra M. Ewing — terminated Apr. 26, 2022, when Fish's Wilmington office (Mabey) took over local duties.
• No in-house counsel of record for AMD/Xilinx was identifiable from the retrieved docket entries.

---

Plaintiff / Patent Owner — Sentient Sensors, LLC (in the underlying infringement case and as IPR Patent Owner)

In the D. Del. infringement suit (plaintiff):

• Brian E. Farnan — Lead local counsel (Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., Wilmington, DE).
• Michael J. Farnan — Local counsel (Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE). The Farnans are go-to Delaware patent-plaintiff local counsel; Michael Farnan effected service and filed the complaint on Feb. 8–9, 2022.
• Pro hac vice counsel (per the D. Del. docket): Gerald J. Flattmann Jr. (Cahill Gordon & Reindel, NY), Andrew J. Cochran (then-email acochran@kslaw.com; now Cahill, NY), John C. Stellabotte (Ellenoff Grossman & Schole, NY), and Scott H. Kaliko (Ellenoff Grossman & Schole / Kaliko & Associates).

In IPR2023-00195 (Patent Owner):

• Michael Shanahan (Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, email mshanahan@egsllp.com) — original Patent Owner counsel of record per PTACTS/IPverse; his profile also associates him with Kaliko & Associates/YK Law LLP. His current firm affiliation is not fully verified.
• On May 3, 2024, Sentient filed a Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel (Paper 25) and updated mandatory notices (Paper 27), making Gerald J. Flattmann Jr. (Reg. No. 37,324) Lead Counsel, with Andrew J. Cochran (Reg. No. 69,620) and John C. Stellabotte (Reg. No. 47,969) as Back-up Counsel — all based in New York (Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, 32 Old Slip; Stellabotte at Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, 1345 Sixth Ave.).

On appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 2025-1058): Andrew J. Cochran (Cahill) argued for appellant Sentient; Gerald J. Flattmann Jr. also appeared on the brief (CAFC judgment PDF, Apr. 10, 2026).

Notable experience: Flattmann and Cochran are New York IP litigators at Cahill; Stellabotte is a registered patent attorney at Ellenoff Grossman & Schole; the Farnans are among the most frequent patent-plaintiff local counsel in the District of Delaware. I did not find verified notable-past-case details beyond this dispute in the sources retrieved, so none are asserted.

---

Source grounding and caveats

• PTAB counsel lists and PO substitution: PTACTS public petition documents (mandatory notices dated May 3, 2024; pro hac vice order, Paper 22); Patexia IPR2023-00195 document log (Papers 20, 25–27, 30); ipverse.greyb.com case page.
• CAFC counsel: Sentient Sensors LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 25-1058, judgment (cafc.uscourts.gov PDF, Apr. 10, 2026).
• D. Del. counsel: Justia docket for 1:22-cv-00173 (entries 1–12, retrieved Apr. 1, 2022); PTACTS 1:22cv173 docket excerpt.
• Caveats: (1) The full current appearance list in the stayed/dismissed D. Del. case could not be verified post-2022 from retrieved sources; (2) Craig Deutsch's office and Michael Shanahan's current firm were not confirmed; (3) I found no evidence of separately identified in-house counsel of record for any party in the public filings retrieved.

A threshold point on framing

IPR2023-00195 is a PTAB inter partes review — there is no "defendant" in the technical sense; the parties are petitioner (Xilinx/AMD/ATI) and patent owner (Sentient Sensors, LLC, which the case metadata lists as "Defendant"). The underlying patent infringement case is Sentient Sensors, LLC v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00173-MN (D. Del., Judge Noreika), where Xilinx, Inc. is the actual defendant (AMD and ATI were not defendants there — they joined only as IPR co-petitioners and CAFC appellees). I cover both readings below, with the metadata-designated "defendant" first.

1. Counsel for Sentient Sensors, LLC (patent owner/respondent — "Defendant" per case metadata)

PTAB IPR2023-00195 — original designation (Apr. 2023):

• Michael E. Shanahan — lead counsel (Reg. No. 43,914), then of Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY (also listed in filings with YK Law LLP; he appears to have moved firms during the litigation). Backup: Gerald Flattmann. Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices dated Apr. 3, 2023 (PTACTS, Paper 4), which list Shanahan as lead with the EGS 1345 Sixth Ave. address and mshanahan@egsllp.com.

PTAB IPR2023-00195 — substituted counsel (May 2024 through FWD and appeal):

• Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. — lead counsel (Reg. No. 37,324), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY (32 Old Slip).
• Andrew J. Cochran — backup counsel (Reg. No. 69,620), Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, New York, NY.
• John C. Stellabotte — backup counsel (Reg. No. 47,969), then Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP, New York, NY (the FWD's counsel footer shows jstellabotte@proskauer.com, suggesting a later move to Proskauer by Sept. 2024 — flagging for verification).
• Source: Patent Owner's Motion to Substitute Lead Counsel (Paper 25), Power of Attorney (Paper 26), and Updated Mandatory Notices (Paper 27), all dated May 3, 2024 (PTACTS).

Federal Circuit appeal (No. 2025-1058):

• Andrew J. Cochran argued for appellant Sentient; Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. also of record — both Cahill Gordon & Reindel, New York, NY. Source: CAFC Rule 36 judgment, Apr. 10, 2026 (cafc.uscourts.gov; Justia).

Parallel D. Del. infringement case (Sentient as plaintiff):

• Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan — Delaware local/lead counsel, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE (docket attorney list, 1:22-cv-00173; retrieval Jan. 14, 2023 via PTACTS).
• Pro hac vice: Gerald J. Flattmann, Jr. (Cahill), Andrew J. Cochran (docket email acochran@kslaw.com — King & Spalding at the time of that docket snapshot), John C. Stellabotte and Scott H. Kaliko (Ellenoff Grossman & Schole). Source: PTACTS D.Del. docket listing for 1:22cv173.

2. Counsel for the actual defendant in the infringement suit — Xilinx, Inc. (D. Del. 1:22-cv-00173-MN)

Current/principal counsel (Fish & Richardson P.C.):

• Warren K. Mabey, Jr. — Delaware lead counsel of record, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE (222 Delaware Ave.). Listed as lead attorney for Xilinx on the D.Del. docket retrieved Jan. 14, 2023 (PTACTS).
• David M. Hoffman — pro hac vice (Fish & Richardson, Austin, TX; Reg. No. 54,174). Signed the IPR petition as lead petitioner counsel and was Xilinx's principal PTAB counsel.
• Jeffrey A. Shneidman — pro hac vice (Fish & Richardson, Boston, MA); argued the CAFC appeal for the Xilinx/AMD/ATI appellees.
• Kenneth Wayne Darby, Jr. and Craig A. Deutsch (Fish & Richardson; service-list signatories throughout the IPR); John A. Dragseth (Fish & Richardson, Minneapolis, MN) appeared on the CAFC brief. Sources: Fed. Cir. judgment 25-1058 (Apr. 10, 2026); IPR Papers 21/25 service lists; FWD (Sept. 18, 2024).

Earlier counsel of record (Feb.–Apr. 2022, later terminated/withdrawn):

• Frederick L. Cottrell III and Alexandra M. Ewing — Richards, Layton & Finger, Wilmington, DE (Delaware counsel; terminated Apr. 26, 2022 per docket).
• Aaron R. Fahrenkrog, Emily J. Tremblay, Mary Pheng, William R. Jones — pro hac vice, then of Robbins Kaplan LLP (admitted Mar. 2022, D.Del. docket entries 9–11; emails @robinskaplan.com). They were on the docket as of the Jan. 2023 snapshot; whether they formally withdrew after Fish & Richardson took over is not shown in the retrieved entries.

Caveats

• The D. Del. case was stayed pending the IPR (Sentient's IPR mandatory notices describe 1:22-cv-00173 as "stayed"), and I could not retrieve post-Jan. 2023 D.Del. docket entries or confirm current counsel-of-record status after the Apr. 10, 2026 CAFC affirmance (e.g., whether the stay was lifted and the case dismissed). If a dismissal/stipulation has since been filed, the docket would show corresponding withdrawal appearances.
• No in-house counsel for Xilinx or Sentient was identified in the retrieved sources; the IPR's mandatory notices do not designate in-house counsel.
• Xilinx's Delaware local counsel at Fish (Mabey) plus the Robbins Kaplan attorneys' overlapping appearances in the Jan. 2023 snapshot reflect a mid-2022 firm transition; exact withdrawal docket entries for the Robbins Kaplan team were not verified.

Bottom line: If the question targets the metadata "Defendant" (Sentient Sensors), its counsel of record are Flattmann (Cahill, lead), Cochran (Cahill), and Stellabotte (EGS/Proskauer) before the Board, with Farnan LLP as its Delaware counsel in the infringement suit. If it targets the true infringement-case defendant, Xilinx is represented by Fish & Richardson (Mabey, Hoffman, Shneidman, Darby, Deutsch/Drag Seth), after earlier appearances by Richards Layton & Finger and Robbins Kaplan.