Judge Gilstrap Keeps Advanced Integrated Circuit Process's Patent Case Against TSMC in Marshall.

The case and the motion

The suit against TSMC is Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-00623, a member case under the lead case Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC v. United Microelectronics Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00730 (E.D. Tex.). The order says the plaintiff accuses TSMC of infringing seven semiconductor patents. TSMC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and, in the alternative, to transfer, and it later withdrew the personal jurisdiction portion. The order describes the plaintiff as located in Allen, Texas, TSMC as a Taiwanese corporation, and its U.S. subsidiary, TSMC North America, as located in the Northern District of California and not a party.

The threshold ruling

Under In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004), the first question is whether the case could have been filed in the proposed district, and the order says that inquiry at least requires the defendant to show the transferee forum would have personal jurisdiction over it, citing In re Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd., No. 2023-111 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2023). The court noted that TSMC's motion called the Northern District a proper venue but also said TSMC "maintains it is not subject to general or specific personal jurisdiction . . . anywhere in the United States in this matter," and that the motion contends Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) does not apply. The court held that TSMC, consistent with those representations, had failed to establish that the Northern District would have personal jurisdiction over it, and said that given this failure it need not consider the convenience factors.

The convenience factors

The court reviewed the factors anyway. It found that ease of access to sources of proof and the practical problems factor weigh against transfer, that compulsory process and court congestion weigh slightly against transfer, that the cost of attendance for willing witnesses weighs slightly in favor, that local interest is neutral, and that familiarity with the governing law and conflicts of law are inapplicable or neutral. On practical problems, the court noted that the parties agreed to repeated extensions and did not complete briefing until March 2026, and it said that such a significant delay "reflects a quasi-abandonment of this Motion."

What to watch next

Watch whether TSMC asks the Federal Circuit for mandamus review of the denial. The case can end at any time by settlement or dismissal.