In VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 2024-1772 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 14, 2026), the Federal Circuit reversed in part a summary judgment of noninfringement, giving new life to VLSI’s nearly nine-year infringement dispute against Intel.
VLSI sued Intel for infringement of eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836 related to selecting cores of a multicore processor to execute a particular task. The district court granted Intel summary judgment of noninfringement, concluding that certain claimed functions were practiced only outside the United States and rejecting VLSI’s doctrine-of-equivalents theories. The Federal Circuit reversed.
On extraterritoriality, the Court concluded that the district court’s summary judgment ruling was inconsistent with the parties’ pretrial stipulation, in which Intel had agreed that, for accused products determined to meet the claimed technical requirements, “seventy percent (70%) thereof will be deemed to have a United States nexus.” The Federal Circuit rejected Intel’s argument that the stipulation was merely an accounting mechanism to simplify damages because the stipulation explicitly stated it applied to nexus “as required by each subsection of 35 U.S.C. § 271 and for determining any patent infringement damages.” To the Court, the specific connector “and” mattered: it showed that the stipulated nexus applied both for infringement as well as damages.
The Federal Circuit also reversed the rejection of VLSI’s doctrine-of-equivalents theory for the asserted apparatus claims, which relied on prosecution disclaimer to specify the timing of claimed operations. The Federal Circuit concluded that the prosecution statements, which included a “see, e.g.” connector tying claims to certain functionality, did not amount to a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. Rather, “see, e.g.,” made the relevant language “less than clear” and more consistent with an example “without limiting the [claim] scope.”
The Court also affirmed the district court’s striking of one of VLSI’s damage experts, finding no abuse of discretion.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
