Case Background
VLSI Technology LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Intel Corporation on April 11, 2019, in the Western District of Texas. VLSI owned three patents relevant to this case: U.S. Patent No. 8,156,357 (the '357 Patent), covering voltage-based memory size scaling in a data processing system; U.S. Patent No. 7,523,373 (the '373 Patent), covering a minimum memory operating voltage technique; and U.S. Patent No. 7,725,759 (the '759 Patent), covering a system and method of managing clock speed in an electronic device. VLSI alleged that Intel infringed these patents through its Ivy Bridge and Skylake processor lines, which used dynamic cache shrink technology, non-volatile memory for storing SRAM minimum voltages, and Hardware-Controlled Performance States (HWP or "Speed Shift") technology.
Cause
VLSI accused Intel of infringing the three asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making, using, selling, and importing Intel processors that practiced the patented methods without authorization. VLSI also alleged induced and contributory infringement, claiming Intel provided documentation and guidance that encouraged customers to use the infringing products.
Injury
VLSI claimed that Intel's infringing acts and practices caused and continued to cause immediate and irreparable harm to VLSI. VLSI further alleged that Intel's infringement had been willful, pointing to Intel's corporate policy discouraging engineers from reviewing outside patents, which VLSI argued amounted to willful blindness given Intel's prior litigation history involving patents previously assigned to NXP that named several of the same inventors as the asserted patents.
Damages Sought
VLSI asked the Court for a finding that Intel had infringed and continued to infringe each asserted patent, that the infringement was willful, and that Intel pay damages sufficient to compensate VLSI, along with prejudgment and post-judgment interest under 35 U.S.C. § 284. VLSI also sought enhanced damages, supplemental damages with an accounting, an injunction against further infringement or ongoing royalties in lieu of an injunction, and a declaration that the case was exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling VLSI to attorneys' fees and costs. VLSI demanded a jury trial on all triable issues.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff: VLSI Technology LLC
· Counsel for Plaintiff: J. Mark Mann | G. Blake Thompson | Andy Tindel of Mann | Tindel | Thompson | Craig D. Cherry signed the original complaint. Morgan Chu | Benjamin W. Hattenbach | Christopher Abernethy | Amy E. Proctor | Dominik Slusarczyk | Charlotte J. Wen appeared as additional counsel on VLSI's later-filed answer to Intel's counterclaims. According to the docket, VLSI's currently active counsel includes Cherry Johnson Siegmund James | Alan J. Heinrich | Babak Redjaian | Benjamin Monnin | Elizabeth C. Tuan | Ian Robert Washburn | Iian D. Jablon | Jordan Nafekh | Keith Orso | Michael David Harbour | Benjamin W. Hattenbach | Charlotte J. Wen | Grant Willis Gabriel | Justin A. Koo
Defendant: Intel Corporation
· Counsel for Defendant: Arthur W. Coviello | Felicia H. Ellsworth | James M. Lyons | Jeffrey A. Dennhardt | Jordan L. Hirsch | Joseph J. Mueller | Joshua L. Stern | Mark D. Selwyn | Mary V. Sooter | Amanda L. Major | Dominic E. Massa | Jonathan A. Cox | Kate Saxton | Louis W. Tompros | Steven J. Horn | Thomas G. Saunders | William F. Lee | J. Stephen Ravel | Harry Lee Gillam
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
VLSI's complaint laid out its infringement theory through a detailed, claim-by-claim comparison between the patent language and Intel's publicly available technical documentation. For the '357 Patent, VLSI relied on Intel presentations describing the "Dynamic Cache Shrink Feature" in Ivy Bridge processors, which reduced the last-level cache from 16 active ways down to as few as 2 ways to lower the minimum operating voltage, then expanded the cache back to 16 ways when the system detected higher activity. For the '373 Patent, VLSI pointed to Intel documentation showing that Ivy Bridge processors stored minimum operating voltage values for different cache configurations in a non-volatile manner and used separate power planes for the processor cores and the last-level cache. For the '759 Patent, VLSI cited Intel's Skylake processors, which used Hardware-Controlled Performance States to let a Package Control Unit monitor workload change across cores and adjust clock frequency accordingly, a capability VLSI traced back through Intel's Sandy Bridge architecture as well.
Intel filed an answer denying VLSI's infringement allegations and asserted counterclaims seeking declaratory judgments of non-infringement and invalidity for each of the asserted patents across three related actions, numbered 6:19-cv-254, 6:19-cv-255, and 6:19-cv-256, which were consolidated with 6:19-cv-254 as the lead case. Intel's counterclaims covered not only the '357, '373, and '759 Patents but also additional patents, including the '522, '187, '485, '025, and '983 Patents, indicating the underlying dispute involved a broader set of VLSI patents beyond those named in this particular complaint.
Claims
VLSI brought three claims of patent infringement, one for each asserted patent, alleging direct infringement, induced infringement, and contributory infringement for each. VLSI asked the Court to find Intel's infringement willful and to declare the case exceptional under Section 285.
Defense
VLSI answered Intel's counterclaims by denying nearly all of Intel's factual allegations while admitting certain jurisdictional and procedural points, such as that the Court had subject matter and personal jurisdiction and that venue was proper. VLSI asserted a single defense to Intel's counterclaims, arguing that Intel had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, while reserving the right to raise additional defenses as they became apparent during litigation.
Jury Verdict
The jury reached its verdict on May 29, 2025. The jury answered a single question presented on the verdict form: whether Intel proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, at any point after November 20, 2012, Fortress Investment Group controlled both VLSI Technology LLC and Finjan LLC (formerly known as Finjan, Inc.). The jury checked "Yes," finding in favor of Intel Corporation on this question. The verdict form specified that a "Yes" answer indicated a finding for Intel, while a "No" answer would have indicated a finding for VLSI. The jury foreperson signed and dated the verdict form on May 29, 2025, and the Court filed the verdict the same day.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
