Monolithic Power Systems Inc v. Vicor Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Vicor Corporation (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ashby & Geddes
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00513, D. Del., 05/04/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged as proper in the District of Delaware because the Defendant, Vicor Corporation, is a Delaware corporation and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's power system configuration software and related power converter modules infringe a patent related to a method for digitally calibrating voltage regulators using a graphical user interface.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns software tools that simplify and automate the complex process of configuring power management hardware for high-performance applications such as AI and datacenter computer systems.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that during the prosecution of the asserted patent, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a Notice of Allowance stating that the claimed combination was "not be[ing] found, taught or suggested by the prior art of record."

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,684,745, "Digitally Calibrated Voltage Regulators for Power Management," issued on June 20, 2017 (the "'745 Patent").

• The Invention Explained:

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenge of customizing commercial DC-DC converters for specific applications Compl. ¶12 This process traditionally requires manual calibration by experienced electrical engineers, which is described as difficult and time-consuming '745 Patent, col. 1:33-43
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a computer-based system to automate this process. It features a graphical user interface, described as a "virtual bench," where a user can input desired performance requirements for a voltage regulator Compl. ¶13 The system then automatically determines the necessary internal calibration settings, simulates the regulator's performance with those settings, and allows for the settings to be downloaded to the physical hardware '745 Patent, abstract '745 Patent, Fig. 3 This effectively replaces physical bench-testing with a software-driven simulation and programming workflow.
  • Technical Importance: This method aims to reduce product development time and lower the barrier of technical expertise needed to configure advanced power management circuits, a key advantage in fast-moving technology sectors Compl. ¶3

• Key Claims at a Glance:
  The complaint alleges infringement of at least one claim of the '745 Patent without specifying which claims will be asserted Compl. ¶40 Independent claim 1 is representative of the patented method:

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A method of digitally calibrating a voltage regulator, the method comprising:
    • in a computer, receiving a user requirement for the voltage regulator;
    • in the computer, automatically determining an internal calibration setting of the voltage regulator to meet the user requirement;
    • in the computer, simulating operation of the voltage regulator with the internal calibration setting;
    • downloading the internal calibration setting to the voltage regulator;
    • wherein the voltage regulator is later in accordance with the internal calibration setting.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

• Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Vicor's "Power System Configurator ('PSC') tool" and the associated "power modules configured using the PSC tool" Compl. ¶4 These are collectively referred to as the "Accused Products."
• Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the PSC tool is a software product used by Vicor and its customers during the "design-in" phase for products intended for AI and datacenter applications Compl. ¶¶3-4 The tool is allegedly used to "test, simulate, and refine parameters of the accused power modules to configure their settings" for a customer's specific hardware implementation Compl. ¶24 The complaint alleges that once these settings are finalized using the PSC tool, Vicor programs subsequently manufactured power modules with those settings for sale to customers Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶26

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references Exhibit 2 as an illustration of infringement but does not include the exhibit itself Compl. ¶25 Therefore, the infringement theory is summarized from the complaint's narrative allegations.

The complaint alleges that Vicor's use of the PSC tool to configure power modules practices the method of the '745 Patent Compl. ¶24 Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶26 The complaint references Exhibit 2, which it states demonstrates how the accused power modules may be configured in an infringing manner by the PSC tool Compl. ¶25 The alleged infringement process involves using the PSC tool to define and simulate performance parameters for a power module, which corresponds to the patent's steps of receiving user requirements and simulating operation. The complaint alleges that Vicor then programs its power modules with the configuration settings derived from the PSC tool, which is mapped to the patent's "downloading" step Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶41

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A potential issue is whether the process alleged in the complaint maps to the specific sequence of claimed steps. The complaint describes a workflow where settings are determined in a "design-in phase" and later applied to "subsequently fabricated" modules Compl. ¶24 This raises the question of whether this commercial production process constitutes the integrated method of "calibrating a voltage regulator," which the patent depicts as a more direct computer-to-device interaction '745 Patent, Fig. 2
  • Technical Questions: The claim requires "automatically determining an internal calibration setting." A factual question may arise as to what extent the PSC tool "automatically" performs this step versus merely facilitating an engineer's manual or iterative design choices. The evidence will need to show the degree of automation provided by the accused software.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "automatically determining an internal calibration setting"

• Context and Importance: This term is central to the invention's purported improvement over prior art manual calibration. The dispute may turn on whether the accused PSC tool's functionality meets the "automatically determining" threshold, or if it is better characterized as a user-driven design aid.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification contrasts the invention with "manual, difficult, and engineer-intensive calibration" Compl. ¶12, suggesting "automatically" could be interpreted to mean any process where the computer, rather than an engineer performing physical rework, computes the settings. The abstract states, "The computer automatically determines an internal calibration setting" after receiving a user requirement '745 Patent, abstract
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's flowchart includes a step to "Repeat until satisfied with voltage regulator operation" '745 Patent, Fig. 3, step 194 This suggests an iterative, user-involved process, which could be used to argue that "automatically" does not cover an interactive loop where the user, not just the computer, is integral to arriving at the final setting.

• The Term: "downloading the internal calibration setting to the voltage regulator"

• Context and Importance: The infringement allegation relies on equating the programming of mass-produced modules with the "downloading" step. The definition of this term is critical to connecting the design phase (using the PSC tool) to the alleged infringement by the physical products.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the timing or method of the download. A party could argue that any electronic transfer of the final settings from the computer system to a physical regulator that implements those settings constitutes "downloading."
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Figure 2 of the patent depicts a direct connection from the computer (100) to a voltage regulator (114) on a calibration board (160) via a USB/I2C interface for the download '745 Patent, Fig. 2 '745 Patent, col. 5:25-30 This could support a narrower construction requiring a direct, contemporaneous programming of the specific regulator being calibrated, rather than programming different, "subsequently fabricated" modules Compl. ¶24

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Vicor provides a user guide that instructs customers on how to use the PSC tool in an infringing manner and encourages its use Compl. ¶32 Compl. ¶43 It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting the Accused Products are a material part of the infringement and are not staple articles of commerce Compl. ¶45
• Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on the assertion that Vicor, as a direct competitor, would have been aware of MPS's patent portfolio Compl. ¶34 The complaint also states that Vicor has knowledge of the patent at least as of the filing of the suit, creating a basis for ongoing willful infringement Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶35

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of process mapping: does Vicor's alleged commercial workflow-using the PSC tool in a "design-in phase" and later programming "subsequently fabricated" modules-align with the specific, sequential method steps of "receiving," "automatically determining," "simulating," and "downloading" to "a voltage regulator" as recited in a single claim?

• The case may also hinge on a question of definitional scope: will the term "automatically determining" be construed broadly to cover any computer-assisted simulation tool that replaces manual hardware tuning, or will it be limited to a narrower, non-interactive computation that fully removes the engineer from the determination process?