nVidia Corporation Patent litigation record

Company 45 cases

45 cases on record naming nVidia Corporation: 5 as claimant, 40 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Profile this company in Eureka
Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

45 cases on record

Cases on record
45
As claimant
5
As respondent
40
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
G06F15/00 · G06F12/02 · G06F9/46 · G06T1/00
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
7:26-cv-00190 MonolithIC 3D Inc. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 11 May 2026 98 d Dismissed without Prejudice
7:26-cv-00115 MonolithIC 3D Inc. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 30 Mar 2026 140 d Dismissed without Prejudice
7:25-cv-00483 Arlington Technologies LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 22 Oct 2025 125 d Closed
7:25-cv-00454 Tesseract Systems LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 7 Oct 2025 63 d Dismissed with Prejudice
7:25-cv-00456 EdgeComm LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 7 Oct 2025 62 d Voluntary dismissal
337-TA-1450 Onesta IP, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant United States International Trade Commission 18 Apr 2025 389 d Case Settled
1:25-cv-00586 Onesta IP, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 17 Apr 2025 354 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:24-cv-01282 Optimorphix, Inc. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 21 Nov 2024 189 d Dismissed with Prejudice
6:23-cv-00547 Patent Armory, Inc. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant W.D. Tex. 31 Jul 2023 129 d Dismissed with Prejudice
4:22-cv-11700 Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Mass. 5 Oct 2022 118 d Consent Judgment
4:22-cv-11388 Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Mass. 26 Aug 2022 158 d Case Dismissed
4:22-cv-10636 Bell Semiconductor, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Mass. 27 Apr 2022 279 d Case Stayed
6:21-cv-00675 Rock Creek Networks, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 25 Jun 2021 202 d Likely Settlement
6:21-cv-00252 Cedar Lane Technologies, Inc. v. nVidia Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 12 Mar 2021 124 d Voluntary dismissal
1:19-cv-02032 Advanced Cluster Systems, Inc. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 28 Oct 2019 1255 d Consent Judgment
6:19-cv-00582 Vantage Micro, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 8 Oct 2019 192 d Voluntary dismissal
1:19-cv-00861 Invensas, Corp. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 8 May 2019 1587 d Dismissed with Prejudice
2019-1483 Polaris Innovations Limited v. nVidia Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 29 Jan 2019 1325 d Closed
2019-1484 Polaris Innovations Limited v. nVidia Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 29 Jan 2019 1325 d Closed
2019-1405 nVidia Corporation v. Polaris Innovations Limited Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 14 Jan 2019 114 d Closed
2019-1407 nVidia Corporation v. Polaris Innovations Limited Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 14 Jan 2019 107 d Closed
1:18-cv-01726 Dynamic Data Technologies, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 1 Nov 2018 239 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-01863 ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 27 Dec 2017 408 d Likely Settlement
1:17-cv-01154 Lucio Development, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant W.D. Tex. 11 Dec 2017 37 d Voluntary dismissal
1:17-cv-01463 Hybrid Audio, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 17 Oct 2017 168 d Likely Settlement
1:17-cv-01370 ZiiLabs Inc., Ltd. v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant D. Del. 2 Oct 2017 494 d Likely Settlement
3:17-cv-03187 Visual Effect Innovations, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant N.D. Cal. 5 Jun 2017 238 d Likely Settlement
1:17-cv-00287 IPA Technologies, Inc. v. nVidia Corporation Defendant D. Del. 20 Mar 2017 367 d Likely Settlement
6:17-cv-00096 Blue Spike, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 17 Feb 2017 320 d Likely Settlement
2:17-cv-00091 Kevique Technology, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 27 Jan 2017 60 d Voluntary dismissal
2:16-cv-01345 Visual Effect Innovations, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 1 Dec 2016 187 d Stayed
6:16-cv-00950 Pico Byte Systems, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 29 Jun 2016 217 d Likely Settlement
2016-2254 Visual Memory, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 28 Jun 2016 413 d Closed
2016-1582 nVidia Corporation v. International Trade Commission Plaintiff Fed. Cir. 17 Feb 2016 84 d Closed
1:15-cv-01177 Advanced Silicon Technologies, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant D. Del. 21 Dec 2015 134 d Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-01602 Sockeye Licensing TX, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 5 Oct 2015 23 d Voluntary dismissal
1:15-cv-00789 Visual Memory, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant D. Del. 8 Sep 2015 862 d Likely Settlement
2:15-cv-00998 Digital Technologies, LLC v. nVidia Corporation Defendant E.D. Tex. 8 Jun 2015 413 d Likely Settlement
5:14-cv-05368 Vantage Point Technology, Inc. v. nVidia Corporation Defendant N.D. Cal. 8 Dec 2014 85 d Likely Settlement
8:14-cv-01689 SOTA Semiconductor, LLC v. Nvidia, Corp. Defendant C.D. Cal. 17 Oct 2014 367 d Likely Settlement
337-TA-932 nVidia Corporation v. Qualcomm, Inc. Plaintiff United States International Trade Commission 10 Oct 2014 430 d Closed
1:14-cv-01127 nVidia Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Plaintiff D. Del. 4 Sep 2014 616 d Voluntary dismissal
2013-1653 BIAX Corporation v. nVidia Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 17 Sep 2013 525 d Closed
2013-1654 BIAX Corporation v. nVidia Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 17 Sep 2013 525 d Closed
2013-1649 BIAX Corporation v. nVidia Corporation Defendant Fed. Cir. 13 Sep 2013 529 d Closed
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming nVidia Corporation in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Nvidia is protecting

Portfolio, claim scope and where its coverage is thin. Every answer cites the records behind it.

Analyse this portfolio
10,000 free credits to start

About this summary. This page summarises the litigation records within the coverage and snapshot dates stated here. Counts describe records in that dataset and do not, by themselves, establish the conduct, litigation success or legal position of any person or organisation.

Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.

No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed. The filing of a claim is not a court finding, and a docket marked “closed” does not by itself establish infringement, validity, settlement or a decision on the merits.

No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.

Third-party names and marks. Party, attorney, judge and company names appear for identification only. Company names may be trademarks of their owners; their appearance does not, by itself, imply affiliation with or endorsement by Patsnap.

Corrections and privacy requests. To report an inaccurate record or attribution, use the “Report an incorrect record” link on this page. For requests concerning your personal information, including, where applicable, the rights to access, rectify, erase, restrict or object to processing, use the “Privacy request” link. We assess requests under applicable law. See our Privacy Policy for details of this processing.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.