DCT

7:26-cv-00005

Vicor Corp v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 7:26-cv-00005, W.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on several grounds, including that some defendants are foreign corporations subject to venue in any judicial district, and that defendants conduct substantial business in the district, have committed acts of infringement in the district, and have established a regular and established place of business in Texas through employees, service centers, and planned manufacturing facilities.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' power converter modules, and the high-performance computing systems that contain them, infringe a patent related to a non-isolated, series-connected power distribution architecture.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves high-efficiency DC-DC power conversion, which is critical for powering energy-intensive components like CPUs and GPUs in modern data centers and artificial intelligence hardware.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not reference any prior litigation, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-01-01 Quanta Computer Inc. launches Quanta Cloud Technology subsidiary.
2013-07-02 Earliest Priority Date for '087 Patent.
2025-01-10 Tom's Hardware article showing accused product on AMD MI325X board is published.
2025-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087 is issued.
2025-10-13 Quanta Cloud Technology press release regarding servers using AMD Instinct MI350X GPUs.
2026-01-01 Wiwynn Corporation plans to begin building a new manufacturing facility in Texas.
2026-01-09 Complaint filed.

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087, "Power Distribution Architecture with Series-Connected Bus Converter," issued August 19, 2025.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art Intermediate Bus Architectures (IBA) where a bus converter steps down a voltage for downstream regulators Compl. ¶51 '087 Patent, col. 1:21-31 Such architectures face challenges in achieving maximum power density and efficiency, particularly as computing loads become more demanding.
  • The Patented Solution: The patent proposes a non-isolated power converter architecture where the input and output circuits are "galvanically connected" in series across the power source '087 Patent, col. 2:61-63 In this "series-connected" topology, the input voltage to the converter itself is the source voltage minus the converter's output voltage '087 Patent, FIG. 2 '087 Patent, col. 5:10-15 This arrangement allows the converter to process only a fraction of the total power delivered to the load, which may increase efficiency and reduce thermal stress on components '087 Patent, col. 7:35-41 The complaint includes a patent figure illustrating this series-connected functional block diagram Compl. p. 19, middle image
  • Technical Importance: This architectural approach aims to deliver significant efficiency gains in power conversion, a critical factor in the design of high-performance, high-density computing systems like data centers and AI accelerators where power consumption and heat dissipation are major operational costs and constraints.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1 (apparatus), 68 (method), 85 (method of powering a processor), and 89 (computer apparatus) ('56).
  • The essential elements of asserted independent claim 1 include:
    • A bus converter circuit with first, second, and common terminals, configured to convert power between a first voltage (V1) and a second voltage (V2).
    • The input and output are "galvanically connected."
    • The circuit operates with an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio, K."
    • The circuit includes a transformer, a plurality of switches, and a controller operating the switches in a cycle with two power transfer intervals of "essentially equal durations."
    • During these intervals, different sets of switches are ON, forming distinct first and second "series circuits."
    • The circuit is configured to perform Zero-Voltage Switching (ZVS) for both the first and second sets of switches.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert numerous dependent claims ('56).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The primary accused product is the Monolithic Power Systems (MPS) "MPC12109-F-54-1000-0380" power module ('54). The complaint also accuses circuit board assemblies and computing systems containing this module, such as servers manufactured by Wistron and Quanta that incorporate AMD MI3XX series GPU boards ('61-'62; '67).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The MPC12109 is described as a "High-Efficiency, Non-isolated, Fixed 4:1 Ratio, 1000W Digital DC/DC Power Module" designed for applications in data centers and high-end computing systems Compl. Ex. 2, p. 3
  • The complaint alleges these modules are incorporated into advanced AI accelerator hardware. A photograph provided in the complaint shows the accused MPC12109 module on an AMD MI325X board, highlighting its use in high-performance computing hardware Compl. p. 23, top image Another photograph shows the module as part of the larger GPU board assembly Compl. p. 23, bottom image

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the MPS MPC12109 module, and systems incorporating it, meet every limitation of the asserted claims. An exemplary claim chart is provided as Exhibit 2, which includes technical documents and oscilloscope waveforms as evidence.

'087 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a bus converter circuit having a first terminal, a second terminal, and a common terminal... The accused MPC12109 is a bus converter circuit with input (VIN), output (VOUT), and ground (GND) terminals that serve as the first, second, and common terminals. ¶56; ¶62 col. 3:45-51
wherein the input and output are galvanically connected; The accused product is a "Non-Isolated" converter, and infringement charts allege the input and output are galvanically connected in the manner claimed. ¶56 col. 2:61-63
wherein over a range of input voltages the bus converter circuit uses an essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio, K... The accused product is marketed as a "Fixed 4:1 Ratio" converter, which is alleged to be an "essentially fixed" ratio. ¶56 col. 3:32-35
wherein the bus converter circuit includes (i) a transformer... (ii) a plurality of switches, and (iii) a controller... Circuit diagrams for the accused product show a transformer, a plurality of FET switches, and a digital LLC controller. ¶56 col. 6:35-51
wherein each converter operating cycle includes a first and a second power transfer interval, the first and second power transfer intervals having essentially equal durations... Oscilloscope waveforms allegedly show the accused product operates with two power transfer intervals of essentially equal duration within each switching cycle. ¶56 col. 6:45-51
wherein the bus converter circuit is configured during the first power transfer interval (a) to form a first series circuit... The complaint alleges that during operation, the accused product's internal components form the claimed first series circuit. ¶56 col. 5:10-24
wherein the bus converter circuit is configured to, before the first power transfer interval, reduce a voltage across a first ZVS switch prior to turning the first ZVS switch ON... Oscilloscope waveforms of the accused product's gate-to-source voltage (Vgs) and drain-to-source voltage (Vds) are provided as evidence of Zero-Voltage Switching (ZVS) operation. ¶56 col. 9:25-39
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The case may focus on whether the accused "Non-isolated" MPS module, when operating within a larger system like a GPU board, creates the specific "series-connected" and "galvanically connected" circuit topology required by the patent. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's architecture is merely non-isolated in a general sense or if it matches the patent's specific series-connected arrangement where "VIN = V_source - N * V_out".
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question is whether the accused product's operation fully aligns with the functional requirements of the claims. For example, while the complaint provides oscilloscope waveforms purporting to show ZVS operation Compl. Ex. 2, pp. 33-34, the precise conditions under which this data was captured and its consistency across the product's operating range may be scrutinized.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "galvanically connected"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to the patent's claimed departure from traditional isolated converters. The infringement theory relies on the accused "Non-isolated" module meeting this limitation. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the accused product's non-isolated design falls within the specific series-connected topology of the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: Parties may argue that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning, covering any architecture where a direct conductive path exists between the input and output, which the "Non-isolated" accused product allegedly possesses.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes a specific arrangement where "the primary and secondary transformer windings are galvanically connected in series" '087 Patent, col. 2:61-63 to achieve the "VIN = Vs - N*Vo" relationship '087 Patent, FIG. 2 '087 Patent, col. 5:10-15 A party could argue the term is implicitly limited to this specific series-connected topology.

  • The Term: "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio, K"

  • Context and Importance: The patent claims a converter with an "essentially fixed" ratio, akin to a "DC Transformer." The accused product is marketed as having a "Fixed 4:1 Ratio." The dispute will center on how much, if any, variation is permitted by the term "essentially fixed."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background notes that a prior art bus converter "may adjust its output slightly," suggesting that some minor adjustment is contemplated within the field and does not destroy the "essentially fixed" nature of the ratio '087 Patent, col. 1:36-39
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term distinguishes the invention from fully regulated converters. The detailed description refers to the converter having a "substantially fixed voltage transformation ratio KDC" '087 Patent, col. 2:12-13, and the core efficiency benefit derives from this fixed-ratio operation. A party may argue that any active regulation negates the "essentially fixed" character.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement by providing marketing materials and technical support that instruct customers and end-users on how to use the accused modules in an infringing manner Compl. ¶57 Compl. ¶63 Compl. ¶68 It further alleges contributory infringement, asserting the accused modules are a material part of the invention, are especially made for an infringing use, and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use Compl. ¶58 Compl. ¶64 Compl. ¶69
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendants have had knowledge of the '087 Patent and the infringing nature of their products "No later than as of the filing and service of this Complaint" Compl. ¶57 The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that infringement has been willful and deliberate from at least the filing of the complaint Compl. Prayer ¶C

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

  • A core issue will be one of topological scope: Can the term "galvanically connected", as used in the patent, be construed to read on the accused "Non-isolated" module's architecture? This will likely require a detailed analysis of whether the accused product, in operation, creates the specific series-connected circuit structure that is central to the patent's claimed efficiency improvements.
  • A second central question will be one of operational proof: Does the evidentiary record, including the technical documentation and oscilloscope data presented in the complaint, definitively establish that the accused product performs the specific, multi-part functions required by the claims, such as Zero-Voltage Switching (ZVS) and maintaining an "essentially fixed" voltage ratio, across its full range of operating conditions?
Loading Complaint