Monolithic Power Systems, a semiconductor company, has been pursuing patent infringement claims against Reed Semiconductor Corp. and Chinese companies Nengda Microelectrics (Shenzhen) Co. and Nengda Semiconductor Technology (Shenzhen) Co. across three related cases filed in Delaware federal court between 2023 and 2024. The disputes center on semiconductor technology, with Monolithic seeking damages and likely injunctive relief against the defendants' allegedly infringing products.
Following oral argument held March 11, Judge Murphy issued a comprehensive ruling that partially favored both sides across all three cases. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions for summary judgment in each case, indicating that some claims will proceed to trial while others have been resolved as a matter of law. The mixed nature of the ruling suggests the court found merit in some of Monolithic's patent claims while rejecting others.
The court also rejected all of Monolithic's challenges to defense expert W. Todd Schoettelkotte's testimony under Daubert standards. Judge Murphy denied the plaintiff's motions to strike or limit Schoettelkotte's testimony in all three cases, allowing the defense expert to testify at trial on issues that likely include invalidity, non-infringement, or damages challenges to Monolithic's claims.
The cases have been proceeding on parallel tracks, with defendants in each case filing both summary judgment motions and motions to exclude Monolithic's damages expert testimony. The court's order indicates it also granted in part and denied in part the defendants' challenges to the plaintiff's damages expert, suggesting some aspects of Monolithic's damages theories will be permitted while others have been excluded.
The defendants had argued for complete summary judgment dismissal of Monolithic's claims, while also seeking to exclude both the plaintiff's damages expert and defending their own expert Schoettelkotte from Daubert challenges. The court's split rulings indicate it found the defendants' arguments persuasive on some issues but not others, setting up a trial on the remaining viable claims.
The ruling represents a significant development in these semiconductor patent disputes, which involve both domestic and international defendants. The fact that the court allowed some claims to survive summary judgment while rejecting others suggests the strength of Monolithic's patent portfolio varies across the asserted patents and accused products.
With expert testimony issues now resolved and the scope of claims narrowed by the summary judgment rulings, the cases appear headed toward trial on the remaining infringement and damages issues. The mixed nature of the court's rulings means both sides can claim partial victories while preparing for trial on the surviving claims.