ImberaTek LLC v. OnePlus Technology Shenzhen Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: ImberaTek LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: McAndrews, Held & Malloy, Ltd.; Patton, Tidwell & Culbertson, LLP
• Case Identification: ImberaTek LLC v. OnePlus Technology (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd., 2:26-cv-00146, E.D. Tex., 02/23/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant is a foreign entity not resident in the United States, which permits suit in any judicial district. The complaint further alleges that Defendant has purposefully availed itself of the forum by marketing, selling, and distributing products within the Eastern District of Texas and has previously consented to jurisdiction in the district in prior litigation.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's mobile phones and tablets, which contain specific power management integrated circuits (PMICs), infringe four U.S. patents related to semiconductor packaging and manufacturing techniques.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on the physical construction and interconnection methods within semiconductor packages, a foundational technology for miniaturizing and improving the performance of electronic components in consumer devices.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a multi-year history of pre-suit communications, beginning with a letter from Plaintiff on January 27, 2021, which purportedly provided notice of the patent portfolio. Plaintiff further alleges it sent detailed claim charts to Defendant on June 5, 2024, and that its communications were met with prolonged silence, which forms the basis for its willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,107,324 - "Circuit Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same," issued August 11, 2015

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses challenges in creating reliable electrical connections within circuit modules that embed semiconductor components Compl. ¶15 A specific problem arises when connecting aluminum contact areas on a semiconductor chip to copper conductors on a circuit board, as the direct contact between these metals is brittle and unreliable ʼ324 Patent, col. 2:1-6
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specific multi-layer structure for the "contact elements" that bridge the chip and the board. It introduces an "intermediate layer" containing a "third metal" (different from the component's metal and the conductor's metal) on the surface of the component's contact terminal ʼ324 Patent, abstract This intermediate layer acts as a compatible interface. A key structural feature is that the contact surface area between this intermediate layer and the terminal is smaller than the total surface area of the terminal itself ʼ324 Patent, abstract ʼ324 Patent, FIG. 25
• Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for reliably integrating standard aluminum-based semiconductor components into higher-density copper-based circuit boards without requiring specialized bump-formation processes on the semiconductor itself ʼ324 Patent, col. 2:7-14

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 17 Compl. ¶37 The essential elements of claim 17 include:
  • A conductor layer with at least two layers of metal.
  • A first insulator layer covering the conductors.
  • At least one second insulator layer on the first insulator layer.
  • At least one component embedded inside the second insulator layer, with contact terminals containing a first metal.
  • Contact elements connecting the component terminals to the conductors, which comprise:
    • An intermediate layer on the contact terminal's surface, containing a third metal.
    • A contact surface area (ACONT 1) between the intermediate layer and the terminal that is less than the surface area (APAD) of the terminal.
  • At least one layer of a second metal in the conductors.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ʼ324 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,487,194 - "Circuit Board Including An Embedded Component," issued July 16, 2013

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background identifies a need for new circuit board designs with reliable, high-quality electrical contacts for embedded components ʼ194 Patent, col. 1:48-52 It notes that prior art methods using conductive adhesives have suboptimal electrical properties, and creating robust contacts is critical for performance ʼ194 Patent, col. 1:41-47
• The Patented Solution: The invention describes a circuit board structure where a single contact area (or pad) on an embedded component is connected to the external conductor layer via "a plurality of individual contact elements" ʼ194 Patent, abstract This creates a redundant connection scheme. By using multiple smaller contacts for one larger pad, the design improves the probability of a successful and reliable electrical connection, even in the presence of minor manufacturing misalignments ʼ194 Patent, col. 8:51-col. 9:14
• Technical Importance: This redundancy-based contact strategy offered a way to increase manufacturing yield and connection reliability for embedded components without requiring sub-micron alignment precision, making the process more robust for mass production ʼ194 Patent, col. 8:34-50

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶58 The essential elements of claim 1 include:
  • A conductor-pattern layer.
  • An insulating-material layer supporting the conductor-pattern layer.
  • At least one component inside the insulating layer, having a plurality of contact areas.
  • A set of contact elements electrically connecting the conductor-pattern layer and the component's contact areas.
  • The key limitation: "wherein the set of contact elements comprise a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area in said plurality of contact areas."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for the ʼ194 Patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,817,485 - "Single-Layer Component Package," issued August 26, 2014

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,817,485, "Single-Layer Component Package," issued August 26, 2014 Compl. ¶17
• Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a simplified semiconductor package architecture. The invention is a "single-layer component package" where a semiconductor chip is embedded in an insulating material and connected by "solid contact bumps" (e.g., copper pillars) to a conductive layer, distinguished by the limitation that this layer "is the only conductive-pattern layer within the single-layer component package" ʼ485 Patent, abstract ʼ485 Patent, claim 20 This structure aims to reduce complexity and manufacturing cost compared to multi-layer packages ʼ485 Patent, col. 2:59-62
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 20 Compl. ¶75
• Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the accused PMICs embody this single-layer package structure, with a single conductive-pattern layer and solderless copper contact bumps connecting it to the semiconductor chip Compl. ¶¶78-82

U.S. Patent No. 9,883,587 - "Circuit Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same," issued January 30, 2018

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,883,587, "Circuit Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same," issued January 30, 2018 Compl. ¶19
• Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the ʼ324 Patent, this patent targets a similar technical problem: reliably connecting embedded components with aluminum contacts to external conductors. The claimed circuit module includes contact elements with an "intermediate layer of at least one metal other than alumin[i]um" placed on the component's contact surfaces, followed by a layer of copper ʼ587 Patent, abstract The invention extends this layered approach to the "conductor pattern" itself, which also comprises a similar intermediate metal layer and a copper layer, creating a consistent metallurgical system ʼ587 Patent, claim 1
• Asserted Claims: At least independent claim 1 Compl. ¶92
• Accused Features: The accused PMICs are alleged to contain the claimed multi-metal layered structure for both the contact elements and the conductor patterns, using an intermediate metal like titanium to interface between aluminum contacts and copper conductors Compl. ¶¶96-98

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a wide range of OnePlus mobile phones and tablets, including the 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 series phones, Nord series phones, and Open and Pad devices Compl. ¶21 The infringement allegations center on specific Power Management Integrated Circuits (PMICs) contained within these devices, such as the PM8550BHS, PM8350, and others Compl. ¶21

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused PMICs as components within the System-on-a-Chip (SoC) of the accused consumer electronic devices Compl. ¶22 For example, the PM8550BHS is alleged to be part of the SoC in the OnePlus 11 5G phone Compl. ¶22 These PMICs are fundamental components that manage power distribution within the devices. The complaint provides visual evidence, such as a screenshot from a retailer's website, to allege that these products are widely available for purchase in the United States, including within the judicial district Compl. p. 5 The screenshot shows OnePlus products available for pickup at a Best Buy location in Longview, Texas Compl. p. 5

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'324 Infringement Allegations

'194 Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Evidentiary Questions: For all asserted patents, the infringement allegations rely heavily on analyses of product cross-sections and exemplary claim charts, which are referenced as exhibits but not included with the complaint document Compl. ¶40 Compl. ¶61 Compl. ¶78 Compl. ¶95 A primary point of contention will be an evidentiary one: does the physical micro-architecture of the accused PMICs, as revealed through discovery, actually map to the specific layered and structural limitations of the asserted claims?
• Scope Questions: The case may raise questions regarding the scope of claim terms. For the ʼ194 Patent, a potential issue is the definition of "a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area." The dispute may turn on whether the accused connection structure-whatever its form-can be properly characterized as multiple "individual" elements, as opposed to a single, non-uniform, or perforated contact structure. For the ʼ324 and ʼ587 Patents, the definition and composition of the "intermediate layer" will be critical, as its presence and material properties are central to the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ʼ324 Patent

• The Term: "intermediate layer" (from claim 17)
• Context and Importance: This term is the technological core of claim 17, describing the solution to the problem of connecting dissimilar metals. The infringement analysis will depend on whether a layer within the accused PMICs meets the definition of this term, both structurally (being "on the surface of the contact terminal") and compositionally (containing a "third metal").
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify the thickness, method of formation, or precise function of the layer, beyond its location and composition. This may support a construction that encompasses any layer of a third metal situated between the component terminal and the subsequent conductive structures.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description of the related ʼ587 Patent (a continuation) state this layer is intended to "prevent the copper from diffusing into the aluminium" and "improve the adhesion" ʼ587 Patent, col. 2:35-39 A party could argue these stated functions should inform a narrower, more functional definition of the term.

For the ʼ194 Patent

• The Term: "a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area" (from claim 1)
• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the unique, redundant contact structure that is central to the patent's novelty. Infringement of claim 1 hinges on whether the accused products employ a structure that falls within the scope of this phrase. Practitioners may focus on this term because it presents a clear potential point of non-infringement if the accused devices use a different connection architecture.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim requires only that there be more than one "individual" element. This could be argued to cover any configuration that provides multiple, distinct electrical paths to a single pad, regardless of their specific shape or formation process.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's figures (e.g.,FIGS. 11-14) consistently depict these "individual contact elements" as physically separate, distinct, and typically circular vias or pillars. This could support an argument that the term is limited to such discrete structures and does not read on, for example, a single, larger contact with multiple branches or a mesh-like structure.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by actively promoting the sale and use of the accused products through marketing materials, technical specifications, and user manuals Compl. ¶51 Compl. ¶69 Compl. ¶85 Compl. ¶102 It further alleges contributory infringement, stating the accused PMICs are material components of the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known to be especially made for use in an infringing manner Compl. ¶52 Compl. ¶70 Compl. ¶86 Compl. ¶103
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's purported knowledge of the Asserted Patents since at least January 27, 2021 Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶30 The basis for this allegation is a detailed history of alleged pre-suit communications, including notice letters and the provision of "exemplary claim charts," to which Defendant allegedly failed to substantively respond Compl. ¶¶25-29 Compl. ¶50 Compl. ¶68 Compl. ¶84 Compl. ¶101

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

The resolution of this case will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

1. A core issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Will the internal micro-architectures of the accused PMICs, once examined in discovery, actually embody the specific multi-layer metallurgical structures and multi-element contact geometries required by the asserted claims, or will there be a technical mismatch between the patent claims and the accused products?
2. A key legal question will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area" (from the ʼ194 Patent) be construed broadly to cover any redundant connection scheme, or is its meaning limited by the specification's figures to physically discrete, separate conductive pillars, potentially placing some alternative contact designs outside its scope?