Mago Barca IP Sues SK hynix in Texas on Five Former TSMC Patents, Accusing HBM3 and DDR4 Memory.

The parties and the patents

The case is Mago Barca IP LLC v. SK hynix Inc., No. 2:26-cv-00916 (E.D. Tex.), in the Marshall Division. The complaint describes Mago Barca as a Texas company in Plano and SK hynix Inc. as a Korean corporation, and says the patents were developed by inventors affiliated with TSMC. The asserted patents are U.S. Patents 9,177,914 and 9,530,690 (Metal Pad Structure Over TSV to Reduce Shorting of Upper Metal Layer), 9,984,971 (Methods of Forming Metal Pad Structures Over TSVs to Reduce Shorting of Upper Metal Layers), 11,410,877 (Source/Drain Contact Spacers and Methods of Forming Same), and 8,334,170 (Method for Stacking Devices). All five are among the eight patents in SK hynix Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, No. 3:26-cv-11609 (N.D. Cal.).

What the patents cover

Claim 1 of the '914 patent covers a semiconductor die for bonding with another die, with a through substrate via (TSV) and a slotted metal pad formed directly over it, where the pad's top surface area is larger than the TSV's, the pad has metal bars in one direction, and the slots between the bars are filled with dielectric to form dielectric bars. Claim 1 of the '971 patent covers a semiconductor device including a die for bonding with another die, with a TSV and a pad directly over it made of metal bars and dielectric bars that extend in the same direction and alternate in the region directly over the TSV. Claim 1 of the '690 patent covers a method of forming interconnect structures over a TSV by forming connected openings in a dielectric layer that expose portions of the TSV, lining them with a diffusion barrier, filling them with a conductive layer, and planarizing to form a slotted metal pad without significant dishing near its center.

Claim 1 of the '877 patent covers an integrated circuit device with a gate structure over a substrate, a source/drain feature next to the gate structure, and a source/drain contact over that feature that extends through an interlayer dielectric and a contact etch stop layer, and a contact spacer between the contact and the interlayer dielectric, with part of the etch stop layer between the spacer and the source/drain feature so the spacer does not touch it. Claim 1 of the '170 patent covers a method for fabricating a semiconductor device from three stacked devices, each with a TSV structure. A first coating material covers the first device's TSV, the second device's conductive bumps are positioned within that first coating, a second coating material covers the second device's TSV, the third device is placed over the second coating, and the first and second coating materials are pre-treated and then cured in the same process.

What the complaint alleges

The complaint asserts claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 15, and 17 of the '914 patent, claims 1 to 4, 7, and 9 of the '971 patent, and claims 1, 2, 4, 7, and 9 of the '877 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), and claims 1 to 3 of the '690 patent and claims 1, 3, and 4 of the '170 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(g), which reaches importing, selling, or using products made abroad by a patented process. For those two patents it also pleads direct infringement under 271(a) to the extent SK hynix performs any claimed process in the United States. It names at least the H5UG7HMD83X020R HBM3 SDRAM, and other SK hynix HBM products it says are materially similar, for the TSV and stacking patents, and at least the H5AN8G8NJJR-VKC DDR4 SDRAM and the HMA84GR7DJR4N-XN DDR4 module containing H5AN8G4NDJRXNC DDR4 SDRAM devices for the '877 patent, and says it relied on reverse engineering of representative products.

The complaint says Mago Barca gave SK hynix written notice on June 11, 2025, identifying the '690, '971, '170, and '877 patents, and notice on the '914 patent on May 7, 2026 (SK hynix's California complaint dates that letter May 6, 2026). Each count alleges willfulness based on that notice.

Relief requested

Mago Barca asks for damages of at least a reasonable royalty and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, pre- and post-judgment interest and costs, an accounting and supplemental damages, and an ongoing royalty. It does not ask for an injunction. Mago Barca demands a jury trial. Venue is pleaded under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(3) because SK hynix Inc. is not a United States resident.

What it means

Suits on the same patents were filed the same day in Texas and California, so watch for early motions over which court should go first. The Texas complaint names only the Korean parent, while the California case includes SK hynix America Inc. and Longhorn IP.

What to watch next

Watch for motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay in either court, SK hynix's response to the willfulness counts, and any inter partes review petitions on the five patents.