DCT

2:26-cv-00305

MPI Corp v. Technoprobe Spa

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00305, E.D. Tex., 04/17/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper on the basis that Defendant is not a resident of the United States. The complaint also alleges personal jurisdiction based on Defendant's sales, offers for sale, and product support to customers within the district, such as Texas Instruments Incorporated.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's integrated-circuit testing cards infringe two U.S. patents related to the design and construction of probe cards and their components.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns probe cards, which are sophisticated interfaces used in the semiconductor industry to test individual dies on a silicon wafer before they are cut and packaged, a critical step for quality control and yield management.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 9,423,424 because Defendant cited the patent's publication during the prosecution of one of its own "similar" patents. The complaint also notes that Plaintiff marks its products pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §287 via a virtual patent marking website.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-01-11 Earliest Priority Date for '424 Patent
2013-01-28 Earliest Priority Date for '272 Patent
2016-08-23 '424 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-21 '272 Patent Issue Date
Fall 2022 Alleged first sale/offer for sale of '424 Accused Products in the U.S.
2023 Defendant discloses 'HiP Architecture' at SWTest Conference
2024 Defendant discloses 'Phantom' probe card line at SWTest Asia Conference
2026-04-17 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,424

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,423,424 ("Current-Diverting Guide Plate For Probe Module And Probe Module Using The Same"), issued August 23, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As semiconductor dies become more complex and contact pads shrink, the testing probes used to contact them must also become smaller in diameter Compl. ¶23 These smaller probes are susceptible to being damaged or destroyed by unexpected "instantaneous overcurrent" during testing '424 Patent, col. 2:49-54
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a probe module guide plate that incorporates a "current-diverting circuit trace" on its surface '424 Patent, abstract This trace is electrically connected to the probes passing through the guide plate. If an excessive current event occurs, the trace provides an alternate path for the current, thereby protecting the delicate probe needles from burnout '424 Patent, col. 2:32-36 '424 Patent, Fig. 4
  • Technical Importance: This solution allows for the use of finer probes required for testing modern, high-density integrated circuits, enhancing reliability and preventing costly testing delays caused by probe failure '424 Patent, col. 2:43-54

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶25
  • The key elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An upper guide plate and a lower guide plate.
    • The lower guide plate includes a "current-diverting circuit trace" disposed on its first surface.
    • A plurality of probes slidably inserted through both plates.
    • At least two probes are electrically connected with the current-diverting circuit trace.
    • The lower guide plate also has "a plurality of conducting layers" on the periphery wall of the through-holes, which are electrically connected to the current-diverting circuit trace.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims, but standard litigation practice suggests this is possible.

U.S. Patent No. 9,823,272

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,823,272 ("Wafer Testing Probe Card"), issued November 21, 2017.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint states that existing probe cards suffered from poor probe life and reliability Compl. ¶28 The patent elaborates that with prior art film probe cards, if a single probe was damaged, the entire expensive card might have to be discarded, leading to inefficiency and high costs '272 Patent, col. 1:23-29
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a modular probe card assembly. It features a printed circuit board (PCB), a flexible circuit board, a probe unit with individual probes, and an "elastic piece" disposed between the PCB and the flexible circuit board '272 Patent, abstract When the probes press against a wafer, they push back on the flexible circuit board, and the elastic piece absorbs the compressive force '272 Patent, col. 3:17-19 Crucially, the probes themselves do not touch the elastic piece; they are separated by the flexible circuit board '272 Patent, claim 1
  • Technical Importance: This design allows for individually replaceable probes, reducing repair costs and downtime '272 Patent, col. 1:45-47 By separating the force-absorption function (elastic piece) from the signal-carrying function (probes), the design enables shorter, more rigid probes, which can improve high-frequency testing performance '272 Patent, col. 3:20-30

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 Compl. ¶30
  • The key elements of Claim 1 include:
    • A printed circuit board and a flexible circuit board defining an "accommodation space."
    • An "elastic piece" disposed within that accommodation space.
    • A probe unit with a probe head and a plurality of probes passing through it.
    • As the probes move, the elastic piece absorbs forces transmitted through the flexible circuit board.
    • A negative limitation: "the elastic piece and the probes are physically spaced from each other by the flexible circuit board such that the elastic piece is incapable of contacting the probes."
  • The complaint reserves the right to supplement or amend its allegations regarding infringement of the '272 Patent Compl. ¶63

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint accuses two product lines of infringement:
    • Defendant's "HiP Architecture probe card line(s)" are accused of infringing the '424 Patent Compl. ¶32
    • Defendant's "Phantom probe card line(s)" are accused of infringing the '272 Patent Compl. ¶35
  • Functionality and Market Context:
    • The complaint identifies the accused products as integrated circuit testing devices used in wafer probing Compl. ¶¶2 Compl. ¶14
    • The "HiP Architecture" is presented as being for "High-End Devices," and a diagram shows a structure with a "Stiffener," "Space Transformer," and "Head," with connections for ground (GND) and power (PWR) Compl. ¶32 Compl. p. 9
    • The "Phantom probe card line" is described as a "Dominant solution in the PC market," and a corresponding diagram shows a structure including a PCB and a "PH Phantom" probe head Compl. ¶35 Compl. p. 9

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products meet every limitation of at least Claim 1 of each asserted patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents Compl. ¶34 Compl. ¶37 However, for both patents, the complaint states that a detailed claim chart mapping is provided in an external exhibit (Exhibits 3 and 4) that was not included with the public filing Compl. ¶33 Compl. ¶36 In lieu of a chart, the infringement theory is summarized below based on the complaint's narrative and visual evidence.

The complaint includes a diagram of the accused "HiP Architecture," which shows a "HEAD" component with "GND" and "PWR" paths, that Plaintiff presumably alleges performs the function of the claimed current-diverting guide plate Compl. p. 9 For the '272 Patent, the complaint provides a structural diagram and photos of the accused "Phantom" products, which Plaintiff alleges embody the claimed probe card structure Compl. p. 9 Compl. p. 10

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • '424 Patent: A likely point of contention will be whether the standard ground and power distribution planes or traces within the accused "HiP Architecture" can be considered a "current-diverting circuit trace" as that term is used in the patent. The defense may argue that the claim requires a specific structure dedicated to diverting overcurrent, distinct from a conventional power or ground plane. The question for the court may be whether the term is defined by its structure (as shown in '424 Patent, Fig. 4) or its function (the ability to divert current).
    • '272 Patent: The infringement analysis will likely focus on identifying an "elastic piece" within the accused "Phantom" products and verifying its physical relationship to the probes. A central dispute may arise over the negative limitation requiring the elastic piece to be "incapable of contacting the probes." The court will have to determine if the accused products have such a structure and if the flexible circuit board acts as the specific separator required by the claim language.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term 1 ('424 Patent): "current-diverting circuit trace"

    • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '424 Patent. Its construction will determine whether conventional power/grounding structures in an accused device can be found to infringe, or if a more specialized structure is required.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the invention's objective in functional terms, stating it "provides a current-diverting path for the electric current" to prevent damage '424 Patent, col. 2:32-36 This language could support an interpretation where any conductive path that achieves this function qualifies.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's preferred embodiment details "primary branches" and "secondary branches" forming the trace '424 Patent, col. 3:51-62 Figure 4 shows a specific, grid-like layout. This could support an argument that the term is limited to a structure specifically designed and laid out for current diversion, not a general-purpose ground or power plane.

  • Term 2 ('272 Patent): "an elastic piece... physically spaced from [the probes] by the flexible circuit board such that the elastic piece is incapable of contacting the probes"

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the unique mechanical arrangement of the probe card. Proving infringement requires demonstrating not only the presence of an elastic element but also its specific, non-contacting relationship with the probes, as mediated by the flexible circuit.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The claim language itself is quite specific. The phrase "by the flexible circuit board" suggests the flexible circuit must be the intervening component that ensures the physical separation. Figure 1 of the patent clearly illustrates this arrangement, showing the elastic piece (130) above the flexible circuit board (120), while the probes (160) are below it, making direct contact impossible '272 Patent, Fig. 1 Practitioners may focus on whether this exact layering is required or if other arrangements that prevent contact would suffice.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement for both patents. It claims Defendant encourages infringement by creating advertisements, maintaining distribution channels, and providing instructions or manuals for the accused products to customers in the U.S. Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶46
  • Willful Infringement:
    • '424 Patent: The complaint makes a specific allegation of pre-suit knowledge, stating that Defendant cited the '424 Patent's publication (US 2014/0197860) during the prosecution of its own patent Compl. ¶26 Compl. ¶40 Further, it alleges Defendant's representatives attended a 2024 conference where a slide explicitly referenced the '424 Patent Compl. ¶¶41-42 Compl. p. 11
    • '272 Patent: The willfulness allegation is based on knowledge "at least as early as the filing date of this Complaint" Compl. ¶45, which would only support a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

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

This case appears to present several distinct technical and legal questions for the court to resolve. The outcome may depend on the answers to the following:

  1. A core issue for the '424 Patent will be one of claim scope: Can the term "current-diverting circuit trace", which is described in the patent with a specific branched structure, be construed to read on the conventional ground and power delivery systems allegedly present in the accused "HiP Architecture"?

  2. A key evidentiary question for the '272 Patent will be one of structural presence and relation: Does the accused "Phantom" probe card contain an "elastic piece" that is physically separated from the probes "by the flexible circuit board," as required by the specific negative limitation in Claim 1?

  3. A central question for damages will be willfulness: Does Defendant's alleged citation of the '424 patent publication during its own patent prosecution, years before this suit was filed, constitute the kind of pre-suit knowledge that would support a finding of willful infringement and potential treble damages?

Loading Complaint