The parties and the patents
The case is Nex-X Silicon LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00411 (W.D. Tex.). The complaint describes Nex-X as a Texas limited liability company based in Austin, Texas, and AMD as a Delaware corporation based in Santa Clara, California. It says the inventions of all four patents were conceived by employees of Freescale Semiconductor, which merged with NXP Semiconductors in 2015, and that Nex-X owns all right, title, and interest in them. The patents are U.S. Patents 8,624,627 (Method and Device for Low Power Control, issued January 7, 2014), 8,856,587 (Control of Interrupt Generation for Cache, issued October 7, 2014), 8,966,232 (Data Processing System Operable in Single and Multi-Thread Modes and Having Multiple Caches and Method of Operation, issued February 24, 2015), and 9,229,884 (Virtualized Instruction Extensions for System Partitioning, issued January 5, 2016).
What the asserted claims cover
Claim 1 of the '627 patent covers a device comprising a logic core of an integrated circuit die, with multiple logic modules including a first logic module that operates in one of several indicated power states; a periphery region of the die defined by input/output pads that abut an edge of the die and provide a signal interface between the logic modules and the outside of the die; and a power control module, residing within the periphery region, that controls the first logic module's transitions between power states. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 against Ryzen 5 5000 Series (Zen 3) processors.
Claim 1 of the '587 patent covers a method, in a data processing device with a processor unit coupled to a cache, for responding to an access to a cache line when an error is detected in information stored at that line. Under a first lockout policy, the system generates an interrupt and sets a lockout indicator for the cache line; under a second policy, it responds without generating the interrupt but still sets the indicator. A later access to the same line is then prevented from being satisfied by that line while the indicator is set. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 against EPYC 9005 Series (Zen 5) processors.
Claim 1 of the '232 patent covers a data processing system whose processing unit includes first and second load/store units, the second configured to operate independently of the first in single and multi-thread modes, and first and second store buffers, each coupled to both units. In multi-thread mode, each store buffer serves its own thread; in single-thread mode, both store buffers are used for the single thread. The complaint asserts at least claim 1 against EPYC processors, though it names the EPYC 9004 Series (Zen 4) in paragraph 54 and the EPYC 9005 Series (Zen 5) in paragraph 57.
Claim 18 of the '884 patent covers a data processing system with a partitioned interrupt controller and a processor coupled to it. The processor executes an interrupt control instruction to encode a data payload with a command and a logical partition identifier associated with a first interrupt request, and to perform a secure store of that payload, using a memory-mapped secure store operation, to a storage address at "the partitioned resource," with the storage address retrieved from a dedicated address register at the processor. The complaint asserts at least claim 18 against EPYC 9004 Series (Zen 4) processors.
The lawsuit
The complaint says claim charts accompany it as Exhibits 5 through 8, one for each patent; the docket lists them as filed attachments, but they are not in the free public copy. It pleads direct infringement and induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(b) and (c), and it alleges that AMD has known of each patent since at least service of the complaint. It does not plead willfulness. For venue under 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), it identifies five AMD places of business in the district, all in Austin, Texas. The prayer asks for a declaration of infringement, damages adequate to compensate Nex-X but in no event less than a reasonable royalty, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, disbursements, and fees under 35 U.S.C. 285, and a permanent injunction.
What to watch next
Watch for AMD's response, including any motion to transfer within the district or to another district, and for any petitions for inter partes review of the four patents. The case can end at any time by settlement or dismissal.