The October 16 notice
GlobalFoundries moved on August 31, 2026 to add dependent claims 8-12 and 19 of the '983 patent, and the respondents did not oppose. On September 14, 2026, the presiding administrative law judge issued an initial determination, Order No. 8, granting the motion under 19 CFR 210.14(b), finding good cause because GlobalFoundries obtained information during discovery that it did not know before, and finding that the added claims will not prejudice the public interest or the rights of any party. No party petitioned for review. The Commission voted on October 13, 2026 not to review the initial determination, so the complaint and notice of investigation now assert the added claims. The notice appears at 91 FR 65775.
The investigation
GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. of Malta, New York filed its section 337 complaint on March 26, 2026 and asked for a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and a bond during the Presidential review period. The Commission instituted the investigation by notice published April 30, 2026, 91 FR 23305, to decide whether there is a violation of section 337(a)(1)(B), 19 U.S.C. 1337, by reason of infringement of claims 1, 5-12, and 15-19 of U.S. Patent 8,330,235; claims 1-7, 13-18, and 20 of the '983 patent; claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent 9,093,425; claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent 9,865,546; claims 1-12, 14, and 16-18 of U.S. Patent 10,062,748; and claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent 10,707,167, and whether a domestic industry exists. The eight respondents are Tower Semiconductor Ltd. of Migdal Haemek, Israel; Tower Partners Semiconductor Co., Ltd. of Toyama, Japan; Tower Semiconductor Italy S.R.L. of Milano, Italy; Tower US Holdings, Inc., Tower Semiconductor Newport Beach, Inc., and Newport Fab LLC, each of Newport Beach, California; Tower Semiconductor San Antonio, Inc. of San Antonio, Texas; and Tower NPB Holdings, Inc. of San Jose, California. The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not a party.
What the added claims cover
U.S. Patent 8,507,983 is titled High Voltage Device. Claim 1, already in the investigation, covers a device with a gate electrode over a gate dielectric in an active device region; a doped channel well beside a first edge of the gate, with the channel well's edge beneath the gate so that the gate edge and the channel edge define a channel that is displaced from a first heavily doped region; and a doped drift well beside the second edge of the gate. Claim 7 adds a channel length controlled by ion implantation. The added claims 8 through 12 all depend from claim 7, claims 9 and 11 through claims 8 and 10: claim 8 requires a tilt angle implant, claim 9 a tilt angle of about 1 to 45 degrees, claim 10 multiple tilt angle implants rotated about the plane of the substrate, claim 11 a tilt angle of about 1 to 45 degrees for those implants, and claim 12 a quad tilt angle implant rotated about the substrate plane. Added claim 19 depends from claim 18, which depends from independent claim 13; claim 13 adds a drift isolation region in the doped drift well to the elements of claim 1, claim 18 adds a channel length controlled by ion implantation, and claim 19 requires a tilt angle implant, multiple tilt angle implants, or a quad tilt angle implant. Claims 7, 13, and 18 were among the claims named at institution.
The parallel Texas cases
GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. filed a district court case on the same six patents the same day, GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. v. Tower Semiconductor Ltd., No. 7:26-cv-00109 (W.D. Tex.), against seven of the Tower respondents. On May 18, 2026, the court granted the defendants' unopposed motion to stay that case under 28 U.S.C. 1659 pending the ITC investigation, and on June 25, 2026 it administratively closed the case. A second complaint filed March 26, 2026, No. 7:26-cv-00108 (W.D. Tex.), by GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc. and GlobalFoundries Singapore Pte. Ltd. against the same seven Tower entities, asserts five other patents, U.S. Patents 11,476,244, 8,283,193, 11,658,177, 7,566,653, and 9,269,666, which the complaint describes as distinct from and unrelated to the ITC patents.
What to watch next
Watch for the evidentiary hearing and target date set in the investigation, and for further motions to add or withdraw claims as discovery continues. Watch also for any Patent Trial and Appeal Board petitions on the six asserted patents. The investigation can end at any time, including by settlement or withdrawal of the complaint.