DCT

2:26-cv-00018

Vicor Corporation v. Luxshare Precision Industry Co., Ltd.

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00018, E.D. Tex., 01/09/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants are foreign corporations not resident in the United States and are therefore subject to venue in any judicial district. The complaint also alleges that Defendants conduct business and place accused products into the stream of commerce in Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ power converter modules infringe a patent related to a series-connected power distribution architecture designed to improve efficiency and power density.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns high-performance DC-DC power converters critical for advanced computing applications, such as server motherboards and artificial intelligence accelerators in datacenters.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2013-07-02 ’087 Patent Priority Date
2025-08-19 ’087 Patent Issue Date
2025-10-01 Defendant allegedly advertised accused products at U.S. summit
2026-01-09 Complaint Filing Date

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

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

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the need for improved efficiency and power density in power distribution systems, such as the Intermediate Bus Architecture ("IBA") used in modern electronics (’087 Patent, col. 1:26-34; Compl. ¶24). Conventional architectures often use isolated converters, which can introduce inefficiencies.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a non-isolated, "series-connected" power converter architecture (’087 Patent, col. 2:1-6). In this design, the input and output circuits of a DC transformer are connected in series across the main power source, as illustrated in the patent's Figure 2 (’087 Patent, col. 5:10-13). This configuration eliminates a stage of galvanic isolation, which may increase efficiency and reduce component stress by lowering the voltage applied to the converter's internal components (’087 Patent, col. 6:25-30).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture offers a method to increase power system density and efficiency, which are critical design constraints for high-performance computing systems and datacenters (Compl. ¶1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claims 1, 68, 85, and 89 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
    • A bus converter circuit with a first terminal, a second terminal, and a common terminal.
    • The circuit is configured to convert power from a first voltage (V1) at an input to a second, lower voltage (V2) at an output.
    • The input and output are "galvanically connected."
    • The circuit operates with an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio, K" (K=V2/V1).
    • The circuit includes a transformer, a plurality of switches, and a controller.
  • The complaint also asserts numerous dependent claims, reserving the right to pursue them (Compl. ¶31).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The Luxshare LX6310 and MetaPWR MT6310 power converter modules (Accused Products) (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges these are identical products marketed under different names (Compl. ¶6, ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as "high-power-density power module[s]" and DC-DC power conversion modules (Compl. ¶4, ¶5).
  • They are marketed for use in advanced computing applications, including enterprise-level solutions for datacenters and artificial intelligence systems (Compl. ¶1, ¶2). The complaint alleges that Defendants distribute and sell these products within the United States for such purposes (Compl. ¶7). The complaint includes several figures from the '087 Patent to illustrate the patented technology. The complaint provides a functional block diagram from the patent, contrasting the patented Non-Isolated Intermediate Bus Architecture with prior art (Compl. p. 10; ¶25).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products directly infringe claims of the ’087 Patent, including independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶31). The complaint states that a non-limiting claim chart comparing the asserted claims to the Accused Products is attached as Exhibit 2; however, this exhibit was not included with the publicly filed complaint (Compl. ¶31). The complaint's narrative alleges that the '087 Patent generally claims a "Non-Isolated Intermediate Bus Architecture" and that the Accused Products are power converter modules made in accordance with the patent (Compl. ¶24, ¶28). The specific mapping of claim elements to the functionality of the Accused Products is contained within the unprovided exhibit.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question may be whether the Accused Products, as sold or implemented by customers, constitute a "bus converter circuit" where the "input and output are galvanically connected" in the specific series-connected manner required by the claims. The definition of the overall circuit and the nature of its internal and external connections will be a focus.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely require evidence establishing that the Accused Products operate with an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio," as the complaint does not provide technical data on this point.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "bus converter circuit"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the infringing apparatus. The construction of this term will determine whether the Accused Product, either alone or as part of a larger power system, falls within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will shape whether the specific series-connected architecture described in the patent is a required feature.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is a generally understood term of art. The claims define it as a circuit that includes a transformer, switches, and a controller to convert power between two voltages (’087 Patent, col. 9:41-col. 10:31). A party may argue for a plain and ordinary meaning consistent with this general structure.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently describes the "bus converter" in the context of the series-connected topology shown in Figures 2, 5, 6, and 7 (’087 Patent, col. 4:46-50, col. 5:10-13). A party may argue that the term is implicitly limited to this non-isolated, series-connected architecture, which the patent presents as the core of the invention.

The Term: "galvanically connected"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art converters that may have provided galvanic isolation. Infringement of claim 1 requires a direct electrical connection between the input and output. The dispute will turn on whether the Accused Products have this feature.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain meaning suggests any conductive path between the input and output, as opposed to isolation via magnetic or optical coupling.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explains that this feature is a direct result of the series-connection topology, stating that "Connecting the input and output of the DC Transformer 25 in series eliminates galvanic isolation" (’087 Patent, col. 6:25-28). A party could argue that "galvanically connected" should be construed in light of this specific architecture, where the input voltage to the converter's transformer is the source voltage minus the output voltage.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges inducement, stating that Defendants encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner through marketing and technical support materials (Compl. ¶33). It alleges Defendants do so with knowledge and intent for customers to commit the infringing acts (Compl. ¶33).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants have knowledge of the ’087 Patent and the infringing nature of the Accused Products "No later than as of the filing and service of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶33). The prayer for relief seeks a declaration that infringement has been willful "at least from the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. p. 14, ¶C), basing the willfulness claim on post-suit conduct.

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

  • A core issue will be one of architectural equivalence: does the accused LX6310/MT6310 power module, when implemented in a power system, create the specific "series-connected" and "galvanically connected" bus converter architecture that is central to the teachings of the ’087 patent and required by its claims?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of operational functionality: what technical evidence exists to demonstrate that the accused products operate with an "essentially fixed voltage transformation ratio," a specific functional limitation recited in the asserted independent claims?