Super Micro Computer, Inc. Patent litigation record

Company 7 cases

7 cases on record naming Super Micro Computer, Inc.: 2 as claimant, 5 as respondent. Each row links to that case’s full docket record.

Litigation indexPatsnap Litigation Data··Docket source: PACER

7 cases on record

Cases on record
7
As claimant
2
As respondent
5
Patents held
Not recorded
Core tech
Not recorded
Case no.PartiesRoleCourtFiledDurationOutcome
1:25-cv-00900 FrameTech, LLC v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 18 Jul 2025 139 d Dismissed with Prejudice
1:21-cv-01711 Torus Ventures, LLC v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 3 Dec 2021 273 d Likely Settlement
6:21-cv-01011 Mallard IP, LLC v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Defendant W.D. Tex. 30 Sep 2021 124 d Voluntary dismissal
21-2266 Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Defendant Fed. Cir. 30 Aug 2021 590 d Appeal Dismissed in Part
1:18-cv-01307 Sequoia Technology, LLC v. Super Micro Computer, Inc. Defendant D. Del. 23 Aug 2018 1089 d Judgment on the Merits
5:16-cv-00566 Super Micro Computer, Inc. v. Computer Protection IP, LLC Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 2 Feb 2016 84 d Voluntary dismissal
3:15-cv-04447 Super Micro Computer, Inc. v. Scientific Telecommunications, LLC Plaintiff N.D. Cal. 28 Sep 2015 21 d Voluntary dismissal
Source: Patsnap Litigation Data. Cases naming Super Micro Computer, Inc. in the current snapshot. Run this in Eureka
Patsnap Eureka

See what Super Micro Computer 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.