Federal Circuit Reverses Noninfringement Rulings Against VLSI in Multi-Core Processor Patent Dispute With Intel

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion on April 14, 2026 in VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No. 24-1772, reversing two grants of summary judgment of noninfringement that the Northern District of California had entered in Intel’s favor. Authored by Chief Judge Moore, the decision addresses U.S. Patent No. 8,566,836, which covers methods and apparatuses for selecting processor cores in multi-core systems to execute tasks based on performance parameters.

Background

The ‘836 patent relates to the selection of one or more cores of a multi-core processor to execute a particular task — for example, based on whether the task must be handled by a single core or can be distributed across multiple cores. VLSI Technology, a non-practicing entity that obtained its portfolio from NXP Semiconductors, filed suit against Intel in the Northern District of California asserting that Intel’s processor products infringe the patent.

The district court granted Intel two separate summary judgment victories: one on extraterritoriality grounds and one rejecting VLSI’s doctrine of equivalents (DOE) theory. The court also struck the damages opinions of VLSI’s expert Dr. Sullivan, who had offered NPV (net present value) and VPU (value per user) damages theories.

Federal Circuit Holdings: Reversal on Noninfringement

The Federal Circuit reversed both summary judgment grants and remanded for further proceedings.

On the extraterritoriality ruling, the court held that a pretrial stipulation entered into by the parties established a sufficient U.S. nexus for the infringement claim, and that the district court erred by failing to give that stipulation appropriate weight. The Federal Circuit also found that the district court misanalyzed the “capability” element of the apparatus claims, applying an incorrect framework for determining whether accused products had the requisite ability to perform the claimed functions.

On the doctrine of equivalents, the Federal Circuit held that the district court improperly construed the scope of prosecution disclaimer from the patent’s prosecution history. Prosecution disclaimer estoppel precludes a patent owner from recapturing subject matter surrendered during prosecution, but only to the extent of what was actually surrendered. The court found that the district court extended the disclaimer beyond its proper scope, improperly foreclosing VLSI’s DOE theory for certain apparatus claims.

Damages Expert Exclusion Affirmed

The Federal Circuit did affirm the district court’s decision to strike Dr. Sullivan’s NPV and VPU damages theories, finding no abuse of discretion. The challenged methodologies lacked sufficient probative value and reliability to be placed before a factfinder.

Context: VLSI’s Broader Litigation Campaign Against Intel

VLSI v. Intel has been one of the most closely watched patent disputes in the semiconductor industry. In a related but separate case in the Western District of Texas, a jury delivered a $2.2 billion verdict against Intel in 2021, a judgment that has faced its own appellate proceedings. The April 14, 2026 decision in Case No. 24-1772 is a distinct case involving the ‘836 patent and the Northern District of California proceedings.

By reversing Intel’s summary judgment victories on the ‘836 patent, the Federal Circuit has restored the case for possible trial in the Northern District of California. Intel, which had avoided a full trial on this patent through summary judgment, now faces renewed exposure to a jury determination on infringement and damages.

Significance for Patent Practice

The decision provides important guidance on two recurring issues in patent litigation involving international supply chains and complex claim construction.

On extraterritoriality, the ruling confirms that pretrial stipulations can establish the U.S. nexus necessary to support infringement claims, even where the accused activities have international dimensions. Practitioners defending against infringement allegations in globally distributed product contexts should carefully evaluate how pretrial agreements may affect their extraterritoriality arguments.

On prosecution disclaimer and the doctrine of equivalents, the decision reinforces the principle that courts must define the scope of disclaimer narrowly based on what was actually surrendered during prosecution. Patent applicants and prosecutors should maintain clear records of the intent and rationale behind any amendments or arguments made during prosecution to preserve the broadest possible DOE coverage for issued claims.