Federal Circuit Reverses Noninfringement Rulings in VLSI v. Intel, Reviving Patent Claims on Extraterritoriality and Equivalents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision on April 14, 2026, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation (No. 24-1772). The opinion, written by Chief Judge Moore, addressed two distinct noninfringement theories — extraterritoriality applied to method claims, and the application of the doctrine of equivalents to apparatus claims — and reversed the district court on both grounds.

VLSI Technology LLC, a patent holding entity backed by Fortress Investment, has been prosecuting multiple patent infringement suits against Intel relating to semiconductor power management technologies. The litigation landscape between the two parties is extensive: in 2021, a Texas jury awarded approximately $2.175 billion against Intel in a related case, though that verdict has been subject to its own separate procedural history. The present appeal, No. 24-1772, concerns a different set of asserted claims arising from VLSI’s patents on voltage and power management circuitry in semiconductor chips.

Disney vs MiniMax AI

On the extraterritoriality issue, the district court had granted Intel’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on the method claims, reasoning that the claimed method steps were practiced outside the United States and therefore fell beyond the reach of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The key complication was a pretrial stipulation in which Intel had conceded a U.S. nexus. The CAFC reviewed the interpretation of that stipulation de novo, treating it as a contract question, and concluded that Intel’s concession of U.S. nexus did not eliminate VLSI’s burden to demonstrate that Intel’s accused products and activities satisfied the claims’ non-geographic, technical requirements. On that basis, the CAFC reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

On the apparatus claims, Intel had sought summary judgment on the ground that the accused products did not perform the “measuring” limitations recited in the asserted claims. The CAFC found that VLSI had submitted evidence raising a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether an automatic test equipment (ATE) tester is necessary for the accused products to perform the measuring functions. That evidence alone was sufficient to preclude summary judgment, and the CAFC reversed accordingly. The district court had separately granted summary judgment that Intel’s apparatus claim 10 and its dependent claims were not infringed under the doctrine of equivalents (DOE); the CAFC also addressed this ruling and included it among the issues remanded for further proceedings.

The significance of the extraterritoriality holding lies in the CAFC’s instruction on how pretrial stipulations relating to U.S. nexus should be read. A defendant’s concession that accused activities have a U.S. nexus, the court held, does not by itself transform otherwise foreign activity into domestic activity for purposes of establishing infringement. Practitioners on both sides of patent litigation should note that the scope of any stipulation regarding geographic nexus must be drafted with precision, as a broad concession intended to simplify one issue may inadvertently complicate others. The de novo review standard applied to the stipulation’s interpretation also underscores that appellate correction is available where district courts read such agreements incorrectly.

The apparatus claim reversal reflects the CAFC’s consistent reluctance to affirm summary judgment of noninfringement where the patent owner has submitted competent evidence creating a factual dispute. The court’s analysis reinforces that in semiconductor patent cases — where infringement may depend on how a chip performs its functions under testing conditions as well as in ordinary operation — evidence regarding the role of test equipment in performing claimed steps is a legitimate and potentially decisive factual consideration. Patent owners asserting claims with functional limitations tied to measurement or testing should be aware that ATE evidence can be used to raise a genuine dispute even where the accused device’s ordinary operation does not straightforwardly meet the claim limitations.

From a broader litigation strategy perspective, the CAFC’s decision means that VLSI’s claims have been partially revived after the district court had largely resolved the case in Intel’s favor at the summary judgment stage. The case will return to the district court, where trial on the merits — including a potential jury determination on infringement and damages — remains a possibility. Intel faces renewed litigation risk on the remanded claims, and the size of any eventual damages award, if infringement is found, will depend on the scope of the claims and Intel’s revenues from the accused products.

For semiconductor companies and their patent counsel, this decision reinforces several practical points. First, concessions made in pretrial stipulations regarding jurisdictional or geographic nexus carry consequences beyond the specific issues they were intended to address, and must be drafted accordingly. Second, functional claim limitations relating to testing and measurement present genuine infringement risks that cannot be dismissed at summary judgment merely because the accused product’s normal operation does not obviously meet those limitations. Third, the doctrine of equivalents remains a live theory in patent litigation, and its application to specific claim elements must be analyzed with care at the district court level before a ruling is entered.

The VLSI v. Intel litigation has been one of the most closely watched patent disputes in the semiconductor industry over the past several years, reflecting the broader rise of patent assertion activity in the sector. This April 2026 reversal marks a significant development in ongoing proceedings and will be cited as precedent in future Federal Circuit cases addressing extraterritoriality and the evidentiary standards for summary judgment of noninfringement.