MIT Sues Amazon Web Services in Massachusetts on Two PUF Patents, Accusing Synopsys SRAM PUF Technology Used With FreeRTOS and AWS Cloud Services.

The parties and the patents

The case is Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-14600 (D. Mass.). The complaint describes MIT as a Massachusetts nonprofit research and educational institution based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and Amazon as a Delaware corporation based in Seattle, Washington. It says MIT owns all right, title, and interest in the asserted patents, including the right to sue for past infringement. The patents are U.S. Patents 7,681,103 (Reliable generation of a device-specific value, issued March 16, 2010) and 7,818,569 (Data protection and cryptographic functions using a device-specific value, issued October 19, 2010), naming inventors Srinivas Devadas and Blaise Gassend with MIT as assignee.

What the asserted claims cover

Asserted claims on the '103 patent: 1-11, 20, and 22-26. Claim 1 covers a method for repeatedly generating a device-specific value by generating, in a first component of a device, a first digital value that depends substantially on fabrication variation among like devices and that is a device-specific function of an input value; computing redundancy information based on that first digital value; generating a subsequent digital value in the first component; and, in a second component, determining the first digital value from the subsequent digital value and the redundancy information. See U.S. Patent 7,681,103.

Asserted claims on the '569 patent: 1-12. Claim 9 covers a method that applies a key generation function to determine a cryptographic key in an integrated circuit from an input that includes a first digital value generated in the circuit and dependent on circuit parameters that vary due to fabrication variations among like integrated circuits, then performs a cryptographic function on information stored in the integrated circuit using that key, without requiring non-volatile storage of the cryptographic key in the circuit. See U.S. Patent 7,818,569.

What the lawsuit is about

The complaint frames both patents as covering physical unclonable function (PUF) methods that regenerate device-specific values from fabrication variation, with the '569 patent adding cryptographic-key generation and use without storing the key on chip. It says Synopsys' SRAM PUF technology came from Intrinsic ID, which Synopsys acquired in 2024, and alleges that Amazon's use of that technology to secure cloud services practices every limitation of the asserted claims. As examples, it points to Amazon FreeRTOS support on the NXP LPC54018 IoT Module, whose NXP LPC540xx/LPC54S0xx family datasheet describes an SRAM PUF root-of-trust feature, and to Intrinsic ID's 2017 Spartan Cloud announcement and AWS Partner Network "Advanced Tier Technology Partner" status for Intrinsic ID. Detailed claim charts are attached as Exhibits C and D. The complaint also alleges that MIT reviewed all third-party PUF products on the market and found that each infringes the '569 patent, and that each one that includes error correction infringes the '103 patent, so that Amazon would still infringe if it used PUF products from suppliers other than Synopsys.

Counts I and II plead direct infringement of the '569 and '103 patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The prayer asks for a judgment of infringement, damages under 35 U.S.C. 284, an accounting of damages from six years before filing, and pre- and post-judgment interest. It does not ask for an injunction, and MIT demands a jury trial. For venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), the complaint cites Amazon offices in Boston, Massachusetts, and AWS edge locations in Boston that provide CloudFront, Route 53, Firewall Manager, Shield, and WAF.

Related case

On May 15, 2026, MIT filed Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Microsoft Corporation, No. 2:26-cv-00400 (E.D. Tex.), asserting the same '103 and '569 patents and the same claim sets (claims 1-12 of the '569 patent and claims 1-11, 20, and 22-26 of the '103 patent).

What to watch next

Watch for Amazon's response, including any challenge to venue or personal jurisdiction, and for whether the Massachusetts and Texas suits are coordinated or stay one another. Also watch for any petitions for inter partes review of the '103 or '569 patents. The case can end at any time by settlement or dismissal.