Intel beats VLSI in $3.1bn Texas suit

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Intel beats VLSI in $3.1bn Texas suit

adobestock-288834591-editorial-use-only.jpeg

In the second trial of three, Intel punches back at VLSI after a $2.18 billion verdict from the same court in March

In a surprise turn of events at the District Court for the Western District of Texas yesterday, April 21, a jury ruled in favour of Intel in the tech company’s second patent trial against VLSI Technology, in which the latter was seeking $3.1 billion in damages.

The news comes less than two months after a jury in the same court ruled against Intel, delivering a record-breaking $2.18 billion damages award to VLSI, a unit of the hedge fund Fortress Investment Group.

Intel is seeking a new trial in that case, and has said it intends to appeal the $2.18 billion verdict.

Related stories

Yesterday’s ruling, made in Waco, was handed down in the fourth patent trial to take place in Alan Albright’s court since his appointment in 2018 and it was the third victory for a defendant. The first was in MV3 v Roku, which ended in December 2020.

VLSI sued Intel at the Western District of Texas in April 2019, alleging that the tech company had infringed its patent pertaining to speed shift technology.

A third trial in Albright’s court over similar patented technology is scheduled for June.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The tie-up could result in the firm’s German and France-based teams, which both have strong UPC expertise, becoming independent
News of a slowdown in the UK’s clean energy IP landscape and an EPO report on unitary patent uptake were also among the top talking points
Price hikes at ‘big law’ firms are pushing some clients toward boutiques that offer predictable fees, specialised expertise, and a model built around prioritising IP
The Australian side, in particular, can benefit by capitalising on its independent status to bring in more work from Western countries while still working with its former Chinese partner
Koen Bijvank of Brinkhof and Johannes Heselberger of Bardehle Pagenberg discuss the Amgen v Sanofi case and why it will be cited frequently
View the official winners of the 2025 Social Impact EMEA Awards
King & Wood Mallesons will break into two entities, 14 years after a merger between a Chinese and an Australian firm created the combined outfit
Teams from Shakespeare Martineau and DWF will take centre stage in a dispute concerning the registrability of dairy terminology in plant-based products
Senem Kayahan, attorney and founder at PatentSe, discusses how she divides prosecution tasks, and reveals the importance of empathetic client advice
The association’s Australian group has filed a formal complaint against the choice of venue, citing Dubai as an unsafe environment for the LGBTQIA+ community
Gift this article