DCT

2:26-cv-00017

Vicor Corp v. Delta Electronics Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00017, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant Delta Electronics, Inc. is a foreign corporation subject to venue in any judicial district, and Defendant Delta Electronics (Americas) Ltd. maintains a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas, within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s power converters, and systems containing them, infringe a patent related to non-isolated power distribution architectures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-efficiency power conversion, a critical component in advanced computing systems like servers and AI accelerators where power density and thermal management are paramount.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-02 U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087 Earliest Priority Date
2025-08-19 U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087 Issue Date
2026-01-09 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087 - *"Power Distribution Architecture with Series-Connected Bus Converter"*

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,395,087, "Power Distribution Architecture with Series-Connected Bus Converter," issued August 19, 2025 (the "’087 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent background describes prior art power distribution systems, such as Intermediate Bus Architecture ("IBA"), which use a bus converter to provide power to downstream regulators (’087 Patent, col. 1:25-44; Compl. ¶26). These systems often use converters that provide galvanic isolation between their input and output, which may be unnecessary in certain architectures and can introduce inefficiencies (’087 Patent, col. 1:32-34; col. 5:26-34). The complaint includes a figure from the patent illustrating this prior art isolated IBA architecture (Compl. p. 10).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a non-isolated, series-connected power converter architecture (’087 Patent, Abstract). In this configuration, the converter's input circuit and a portion of its output circuit are connected in series across the main power source (’087 Patent, col. 2:1-6). This topology results in the input voltage applied to the converter's transformer being the source voltage minus the output voltage, which the patent asserts can improve efficiency and reduce component stress compared to an isolated design (’087 Patent, col. 5:26-34; Compl. ¶25). The complaint provides a functional block diagram from the patent showing this non-isolated arrangement (Compl. p. 11).
  • Technical Importance: This series-connected, non-isolated approach is presented as a method to achieve superior power system density and efficiency, which are critical metrics in high-performance computing applications (Compl. ¶25).
  • Analogy (Optional): Imagine a system of water pipes where a large, high-pressure pipe (the source) needs to supply several smaller, low-pressure pipes (the loads). A traditional "isolated" converter is like using a completely separate pump and turbine system to transfer energy, with some inherent loss. The patented "series-connected" solution is more like placing a small turbine directly in the main high-pressure pipe; the turbine generates power (the output voltage) while the water that passes through it continues on, now at a slightly lower pressure (the input voltage for the converter's transformer). This direct connection avoids the overhead of a fully separate system.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 68, 85, and 89 (Compl. ¶31). Claim 1 is representative of the apparatus claims.
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A bus converter circuit with a first terminal, a second terminal, and a common terminal, configured to convert power.
    • The input and output are "galvanically connected."
    • The circuit uses an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio, K," over a range of input voltages.
    • The input voltage (V1) is greater than the output voltage (V2).
    • The circuit includes a transformer, a plurality of switches, and a controller to operate the switches in a series of operating cycles.
  • The complaint notes it accuses additional dependent claims but does not specify them in the body of the infringement count (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies the Delta S54SS4P180PMDCF power converter, as well as circuit board assemblies and computing systems containing it (Compl. ¶29, ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges the accused product is a power converter used in advanced computing applications (Compl., p. 1). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific technical operation or internal architecture of the accused product, other than to identify it as an infringing device. It is alleged to be part of Delta's "Power Electronics Business," which develops "high efficient, high power density ... DC/DC converters" (Compl. ¶2).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint states that an exemplary claim chart comparing independent claims 1, 68, 85, and 89 to the accused Delta S54SS4P180PMDCF product is attached as Exhibit 2, with supporting materials at Exhibit 3 (Compl. ¶31). However, these exhibits were not provided with the complaint document for this analysis.

In lieu of a claim chart summary, the complaint’s narrative theory of infringement alleges that Delta makes, uses, sells, or imports the accused products, which "directly infringe, literally and/or under the doctrine of the equivalents," at least claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 11, 13–19, 24, 25, 28–39, 41, 43–48, 60, 68–71, 73, 74, 76, 77, 80–83, and 94 of the ’087 Patent (Compl. ¶31). The core of the infringement allegation appears to be that the accused Delta power converters practice the non-isolated, series-connected architecture claimed in the ’087 Patent (Compl. ¶25, ¶29).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the accused Delta power converter's architecture falls within the scope of a "bus converter circuit" where the "input and output are galvanically connected," as required by claim 1. The dispute may turn on the precise electrical relationship between the input and output terminals of the accused device.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely require evidence of the internal operation of the accused product. A key question is whether the accused converter operates with an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio," or if its voltage transformation behavior is variable in a way that distinguishes it from the claimed invention.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "galvanically connected" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is foundational to the patent's asserted novelty, distinguishing the invention from prior art converters that provide galvanic isolation (’087 Patent, col. 1:32-34, col. 5:26-30). The infringement case depends on demonstrating that the accused product shares this non-isolated characteristic. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a whole class of converter designs can be captured by the claim.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not explicitly define the term. A party could argue for its plain and ordinary meaning in electrical engineering, which generally refers to any direct, conductive path for current to flow between two points.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue the term must be interpreted in the specific context of the "series-connected" architecture shown in embodiments like Figure 2, where the input and output circuits are arranged in a specific topology across the source voltage (’087 Patent, col. 4:46-52). This would limit the claim's scope to converters with that particular arrangement.

  • The Term: "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio" (from Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the primary function of the claimed "bus converter," which is described as acting like a "DC Transformer" with a fixed gain (’087 Patent, col. 3:51-53). The dispute will likely center on the degree of variation permitted by the word "essentially."

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background section, when describing prior art, notes that a bus converter "may adjust its output slightly during predetermined operating conditions to provide in-rush current limiting" or for "partial regulation" (’087 Patent, col. 1:35-40). A party might argue this context, incorporated into the patent, suggests that "essentially fixed" accommodates minor, purposeful variations.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly refers to the converter having an "essentially fixed voltage gain" and uses equations based on a fixed ratio KDC (’087 Patent, col. 4:65-66, col. 5:4-5). An argument could be made that the term requires a ratio that does not substantively change as a function of load or input voltage during normal operation, distinguishing it from a variable regulator.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement, stating Delta knowingly and intentionally encourages infringement by its customers and end users through "marketing and technical support" and by providing instructions on how to use the accused products in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶32). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on Delta supplying components that are a material part of the claimed inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially made for an infringing use (Compl. ¶33).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that "No later than as of the filing and service of this Complaint, Delta has had knowledge of the '087 Patent and the infringing nature of the accused Delta products" (Compl. ¶32). This forms the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of architectural scope: Does the accused Delta power converter's design embody the specific "galvanically connected" and "series-connected" topology that the ’087 Patent presents as its key departure from isolated prior art converters?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: What technical evidence will demonstrate whether the accused product operates with an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio" as claimed, or if its voltage conversion behavior is sufficiently variable to place it outside the claim scope?
  • A third question concerns intent for indirect infringement: Beyond selling the accused converters, what specific actions, such as providing schematics, application notes, or technical support, did Delta allegedly take that would constitute actively inducing its customers to build and use infringing systems?