MPI Corp v. Technoprobe Spa

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: MPI Corp (Taiwan)
  • Defendant: Technoprobe Spa. (Italy)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00305, E.D. Tex., 09/08/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as the Defendant is not a resident of the U.S. and has purposefully directed activities toward Texas, including selling the accused products to customers within the district such as Texas Instruments Incorporated.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s integrated-circuit testing probe cards infringe two U.S. patents related to the mechanical structure and electrical protection of probe card assemblies.
• Technical Context: The technology involves wafer-level probe cards, which are sophisticated interfaces used to electrically test individual semiconductor dies on a wafer before they are cut and packaged, a critical step in semiconductor manufacturing.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of U.S. Patent No. 9,423,424, having cited its publication during the prosecution of one of Defendant’s own patents. The complaint also references a parallel patent dispute initiated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in Taiwan concerning a counterpart patent, suggesting an ongoing competitive and legal conflict between the two companies.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-11	'424 Patent Priority Date
2013-01-28	'272 Patent Priority Date
2016-08-23	'424 Patent Issue Date
2017-11-21	'272 Patent Issue Date
2023-01-01	'424 Accused Products (HiP Architecture) Disclosed (approx. date based on "in 2023")
2024-01-01	'272 Accused Products (Phantom line) Disclosed (approx. date based on "in 2024")
2026-09-08	Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,423,424 - "Current-Diverting Guide Plate For Probe Module And Probe Module Using The Same"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As semiconductor dies become smaller and more densely packed, the probe needles used to test them must also shrink in diameter. The complaint notes that these smaller needles are susceptible to failure or "burn out" when subjected to unexpected excessive electrical current during testing (Compl. ¶26; ’424 Patent, col. 1:49-54).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a probe module incorporating a special guide plate with a "current-diverting circuit trace" on its surface. This trace is electrically connected to conductive layers lining the through-holes that guide the probes. This structure creates an alternate path to safely divert excessive current away from the fragile probe needles, protecting them from damage ’424 Patent, abstract ’424 Patent, col. 2:3-17
• Technical Importance: This solution enables the use of finer, more delicate probes required for testing modern high-density chips without the high risk of failure from electrical overstress, thereby improving testing reliability and uptime ’424 Patent, col. 1:44-54

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on infringement of at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶36
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A probe module comprising an upper guide plate and a lower guide plate.
  • The lower guide plate includes a "current-diverting circuit trace" on its first surface.
  • A plurality of probes slidably inserted through holes in both plates.
  • At least two probes are electrically connected with the current-diverting circuit trace.
  • The lower guide plate further comprises a plurality of "conducting layers" at the periphery wall of the through-holes, which are electrically connected with the current-diverting circuit trace.
• The complaint does not specify any asserted dependent claims but reserves the right to modify its allegations Compl. ¶50

U.S. Patent No. 9,823,272 - "Wafer Testing Probe Card"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The complaint states that existing probe cards suffer from "significant drawbacks in probe life and reliability" Compl. ¶31 Conventional film-based probe cards can be costly because the entire card may need to be discarded if even a single probe fails (’272 Patent, col. 1:24-29).
• The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a modular probe card architecture. It consists of a main printed circuit board (PCB), a flexible circuit board, and a separate "elastic piece" sandwiched between them. A probe unit with individual, replaceable probes passes through a probe head on the PCB. When the probes contact a wafer, the upward force is absorbed by the elastic piece, which presses the probes against the flexible circuit board to ensure electrical contact. This decouples the mechanical force-absorption function from the electrical signal path ’272 Patent, abstract ’272 Patent, col. 2:30-36 A key aspect is that the elastic piece is physically separate from the probes, with the flexible circuit board positioned between them ’272 Patent, col. 10:59-65
• Technical Importance: This design allows for the individual replacement of damaged probes, reducing maintenance costs, and enables the use of shorter, more rigid probes, which improves high-frequency testing performance ’272 Patent, col. 1:47-56

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint focuses on infringement of at least Claim 1 Compl. ¶39
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 are:
  • A wafer testing probe card comprising a printed circuit board, a flexible circuit board, an elastic piece, and a probe unit.
  • The elastic piece is disposed within an "accommodation space" defined by the printed and flexible circuit boards.
  • The probe unit has a probe head fixed on the PCB and a plurality of probes passing through it.
  • The probes make direct contact with the lower surface of the flexible circuit board, supported by the elastic piece.
  • The elastic piece absorbs forces transmitted from the probes via 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 does not specify any asserted dependent claims but reserves the right to do so Compl. ¶116

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies two product lines from Defendant Technoprobe S.p.A.:

• The "HiP Architecture" probe card line(s), designated as the "'424 Accused Products" Compl. ¶35
• The "Phantom" probe card line(s), designated as the "'272 Accused Products" Compl. ¶38

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are integrated circuit testing devices sold and offered for sale in the United States Compl. ¶3 Compl. ¶100 Compl. ¶115
• The "HiP Architecture" products were disclosed at a 2023 conference and are described as a "High-Speed Probe Card Architecture for High-End Devices" Compl. ¶35 The complaint includes a diagram of the HiP Architecture showing a layered structure with a "HEAD" and indications for "GND" (ground) and "PWR" (power), suggesting a focus on power management Compl. p. 9
• The "Phantom" products were disclosed at a 2024 conference Compl. ¶38 Visuals in the complaint depict the "Phantom PH" (Probe Head) as a component mounted on a "Standard Board" (PCB), consistent with a probe card assembly Compl. p. 10

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'424 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the '424 Accused Products meet every limitation of Claim 1 Compl. ¶36 The infringement theory appears to map the components of the accused "HiP Architecture" to the elements of the claim. A diagram from Defendant's 2023 presentation is provided as evidence Compl. ¶35

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A probe module comprising: an upper guide plate... a lower guide plate...	The accused "HiP Architecture" is a probe module that allegedly contains an upper and lower guide plate structure, represented by the "STIFFENER" and "HEAD" components shown in the diagram.	¶35; ¶36	col. 6:8-16
a current-diverting circuit trace disposed on the first surface of the plate body of the lower guide plate	The accused product's architecture for "High-End Devices" allegedly includes circuitry for power handling, represented by the "GND PWR" pathways, which is alleged to function as the claimed trace.	¶35; ¶36	col. 6:17-20
a plurality of probes each slidably inserted through... through holes...	The vertical structures shown extending from the "HEAD" in the diagram are alleged to be probes that are slidably inserted through the accused product's guide plate assembly.	¶35; ¶36	col. 6:21-31
wherein at least two of the probes are electrically connected with the current-diverting circuit trace of the lower guide plates	The power and ground distribution network ("GND PWR") in the accused product is alleged to be electrically connected to multiple probes to manage current flow.	¶35; ¶36	col. 6:32-35
wherein the lower guide plate further comprises a plurality of conducting layers each provided at a periphery wall of one of the through holes... and electrically connected with the current-diverting circuit trace...	The complaint makes a conclusory allegation that the accused product's through-holes contain the claimed conducting layers that connect to the alleged current-diverting trace.	¶36	col. 6:36-44

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Question: A primary dispute may center on the term "current-diverting circuit trace". The court will need to determine if a standard power or ground plane within a probe card, as may be present in the accused "HiP Architecture," constitutes a "circuit trace" specifically for "diverting" current as taught by the patent, or if the claim requires a more specific structure, such as the branched layout shown in the patent's figures.
  • Technical Question: The complaint's allegation regarding the "plurality of conducting layers" at the periphery of the through-holes is conclusory. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused products actually contain this specific microstructure and, if so, whether it is electrically connected to the power/ground planes in the manner required by the claim.

'272 Patent Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the '272 Accused Products meet every limitation of Claim 1 Compl. ¶39 The infringement theory relies on mapping the structure of the "Phantom" probe card line to the claimed assembly. The complaint provides product images as evidence Compl. ¶38 Compl. p. 10

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A wafer testing probe card, comprising: a printed circuit board; a flexible circuit board...	The accused "Phantom" products are alleged to be comprised of a "Standard Board" (the PCB) and a "PH Phantom" assembly that includes a flexible circuit board.	¶38; ¶39	col. 9:59-64
an elastic piece disposed within the accommodation space defined collectively by the printed circuit board and the flexible circuit board	The complaint alleges the accused product contains an elastic component between the PCB and the flexible circuit board to provide restorative force, though this component is not explicitly labeled in the provided diagrams.	¶39	col. 10:1-5
a probe unit, comprising: a probe head fixed on the printed circuit board and having a plurality of through holes; and a plurality of probes...	The "Phantom PH" is alleged to be the claimed probe head, which is fixed to the "Standard Board" and contains the probes shown in the diagrams.	¶38; ¶39	col. 10:6-12
wherein... the elastic piece absorbs the forces of the probes transmitted through the flexible circuit board	The complaint alleges that when the probes make contact, the force is transferred through the flexible circuit and absorbed by the alleged elastic piece.	¶39	col. 10:20-23
and 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.	It is alleged that the accused product's architecture maintains physical separation between the probes and the elastic piece, with the flexible circuit positioned in between, satisfying this key negative limitation.	¶39	col. 10:24-28

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Technical Question: The existence and function of the "elastic piece" will likely be a central point of dispute. The court will need to examine evidence of the accused product's internal construction to determine if a discrete component corresponding to the claimed "elastic piece" exists, or if compliance and force absorption are achieved through a different, integrated design.
  • Scope Question: The analysis will turn on whether the accused product meets the negative limitation requiring the elastic piece to be "incapable of contacting the probes." Evidence showing any potential for contact could be a basis for a non-infringement argument.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'424 Patent

• The Term: "current-diverting circuit trace"
• Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the '424 patent. Its construction will determine whether a conventional power or ground plane can be considered an infringing structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the Defendant is likely to argue that its standard power distribution architecture is not the specific "trace" claimed.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the trace's function as "diverting an electric current flowing through the probes" ’424 Patent, col. 2:15-17 Plaintiff could argue that any conductive path on the guide plate that serves this function falls within the scope of the term.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly discloses an embodiment where the trace has "a plurality of straight primary branches 52 and a plurality of U-shaped secondary branches 54" ’424 Patent, col. 3:52-54 Defendant may argue that the term should be limited to this specific branched topology, distinguishing it from a solid, undifferentiated power plane.

'272 Patent

• The Term: "elastic piece"
• Context and Importance: The identity and separateness of the "elastic piece" are foundational to the claimed invention. The infringement case hinges on finding a corresponding component in the accused product that is distinct from both the probes and the flexible circuit board.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract broadly describes it as being "disposed between the printed circuit board and the flexible circuit board." The specification states it can be fixed to the PCB with an adhesive ’272 Patent, col. 2:61-63, suggesting it is a distinct layer or component. Plaintiff may argue any compliant material fulfilling this structural role qualifies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim requires the elastic piece to be "physically spaced from each other [the probes] by the flexible circuit board" (’272 Patent, col. 10:24-26). Defendant may argue this requires three structurally separate and distinct layers (probe plane, flexible circuit, elastic piece) and that any design where the "elastic" function is integrated into the flexible board itself would not meet this limitation.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by its U.S. affiliate and customers. The alleged inducing acts include creating advertisements, maintaining distribution channels, and providing instructions or manuals for the accused products Compl. ¶47 Compl. ¶108
• Willful Infringement:
  • For the '424 Patent, the complaint alleges pre-suit knowledge based on two key facts: (1) Defendant allegedly cited the '424 patent's underlying publication as prior art during its own patent prosecution, suggesting awareness of the technology Compl. ¶43; and (2) Defendant's representatives allegedly attended a conference presentation where the '424 patent was explicitly highlighted in a slide discussing probe card technology Compl. ¶¶44-45 This slide is included as a visual in the complaint Compl. p. 11
  • For the '272 Patent, the willfulness allegation is based on knowledge "at least as early as the filing date of MPI's Complaint" Compl. ¶48, which primarily supports a claim for post-suit willfulness.

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

1. A Structural Identity Question: For the '424 patent, a core issue will be whether the accused "HiP Architecture" contains the specific "current-diverting circuit trace" and associated "conducting layers" as claimed. The case may turn on if Defendant's standard power and ground distribution system can be proven to be structurally and functionally equivalent to the specific protective circuit described in the patent.
2. A Component Correspondence Question: For the '272 patent, the dispute will likely focus on the existence and arrangement of the "elastic piece." The central evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to demonstrate that the accused "Phantom" products contain a discrete elastic component that is physically separated from the probes by a flexible circuit board, as strictly required by the claim language.
3. A Pre-Suit Knowledge Question: The complaint's allegations that Defendant cited the '424 patent's publication and attended a presentation where it was featured Compl. ¶43 Compl. ¶¶44-45 raise a significant question of pre-suit willfulness. If proven, this evidence could substantially increase Defendant's potential liability for enhanced damages related to the '424 patent.