CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc. — Entry #62: RESPONSE in Opposition to [57] Miscellaneous Objection, by CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG   Document 62   Filed 09/08/26   Page 1 of 10


                  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                        MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION

CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES,
LLC,                                   Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG

Plaintiff,

v.                                     JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,

Defendant.


                 PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
                     RULE 72(a) OBJECTIONS (DKT. 57)


       Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG                          Document 62               Filed 09/08/26              Page 2 of 10


                                                  TABLE OF CONTENTS


I.         INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II.        LEGAL STANDARD......................................................................................................... 2
III.       JUDGE GILLILAND’S DENIAL OF THE STRIKE WAS NEITHER CLEARLY
           ERRONEOUS NOR CONTRARY TO LAW .................................................................... 3
      A.   CPT showed the uncharted products are reasonably similar to the charted exemplars. ..... 3
      B.   ST would require CPT to prove its groupings before discovery. ....................................... 4
      C.   The list corrections do not undermine the reasonably similar groupings. .......................... 4
      D.   None of ST’s cases required a strike, and remand is unnecessary...................................... 5
IV.        CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5


                                                                     i


      Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG                              Document 62                Filed 09/08/26               Page 3 of 10


                                                 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

                                                                                                                                     Page(s)

Cases

Coast Runner, Inc. v. Kickstarter, PBC,
   No. 7:25-cv-00396-DC-RCG, Dkt. No. 107 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2026) ..............................2, 3

IGT v. Zynga Inc.,
   No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) ....................................2, 3, 4

Intell. Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp.,
    No. 6:19-cv-00628-ADA, Dkt. No. 31 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2020) ..........................................5

Laborfest LLC v. City of San Antonio,
   No. 5:19-cv-00060-JKP, Dkt. No. 91 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2021) ............................................3

SVV Tech. Innovations, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
   No. 6:20-cv-00139-ADA, Dkt. No. 35 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020) ............................................5

Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics N.V.,
    No. 6:21-cv-00727-ADA, 2023 WL 11995494 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2023) ............................5

WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co.,
  No. 6:20-CV-00952-ADA, 2022 WL 174517 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) ................................5

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) .................................................................................................................2

Other Authorities

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 .............................................................................................................................5

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ....................................................................................................................2, 5


                                                                       ii


     Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG            Document 62        Filed 09/08/26      Page 4 of 10


       Plaintiff Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC (“CPT”) respectfully submits this response

to the objections (Dkt. 57, the “Objections” or “Obj.”) of Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.

(“ST”) to Judge Gilliland’s August 17, 2026 order denying ST’s request to strike the uncharted

accused products (the “Order,” Dkt. 50).1

I.     INTRODUCTION
       The asserted patents claim structures inside ST’s semiconductor packages: lead frames,

power and ground bars, mold locks, and the sensor gel, diaphragm, and lid. None of these

patented structures are visible from the outside of a finished package. As a practical matter, there

are two ways to see inside an ST package: (1) destroy a publicly available physical unit, or (2)

analyze ST’s internal design and assembly documents. Dkt. 50 at 2. CPT took the path available

to it before discovery. It tore down and X-rayed one exemplar for each asserted patent and

charted every claim element. Obj. at 3. From the outset, CPT also accused products ST markets

within the same package families, on the good-faith belief that they share the exemplars’ internal

structures. Dkt. 50 at 2. When ST demanded a complete product-by-product list, CPT supplied

one, built from ST’s own catalog. When ST demanded a more explicit representativeness

explanation, CPT revised the list and made that basis explicit, patent by patent.

       ST then asked Judge Gilliland to strike every accused product CPT did not physically

deconstruct—before fact discovery has opened, and before ST has produced the internal

documents that can confirm or disprove CPT’s disclosed groupings. Judge Gilliland reviewed the

parties’ joint submission, found a hearing unnecessary, and declined. Dkt. 50 at 1. A companion

order denied CPT’s request for early production of those internal documents “without prejudice

to seeking the information once fact discovery opens.” Dkt. 49 at 1. Together, the two orders left

the groupings to be tested in fact discovery.


1
  On September 3, 2026, the Court granted ST’s motion to stay this action pending ex parte
reexamination. Dkt. 59. The Court thereafter administratively closed the case, while confirming
that the stay remains in full force and effect. Dkt. 60. CPT nevertheless files this response out of
an abundance of caution because its response to ST’s Objections would otherwise have been due
September 8, 2026.


                                                 1


        Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG          Document 62       Filed 09/08/26      Page 5 of 10


          The question under Rule 72(a) is narrow: was it clearly erroneous or contrary to law to

allow CPT to test its disclosed product groupings in fact discovery rather than strike them at the

outset? At this preliminary stage, CPT needed only to show that the uncharted products are

“reasonably similar” to the charted exemplars, a materially lower bar than the one governing

final contentions. IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 at 4 (W.D. Tex. Mar.

1, 2022). CPT did exactly that: its teardown charts, its package-family groupings, and its patent-

by-patent identification of the shared internal features amply supported letting the groupings

proceed to discovery. ST’s Objections acknowledge that they raise the same arguments ST made

in the joint chart. Obj. at 1. Judge Gilliland reviewed those arguments and rejected them. Dkt. 50

at 1.

          ST’s Objections rest on the false premise that the Order shifted to ST the burden of

establishing whether CPT’s product groupings are proper. It did not. The Order simply permits

CPT to test its preliminary showing in fact discovery rather than requiring CPT to prove its

groupings conclusively before discovery begins. Nothing in ST’s cited cases requires otherwise,

much less supports striking accused products at this stage. Nor is remand necessary: the joint

chart incorporated into the Order identifies the disputed groupings and the basis on which they

were permitted to proceed. The Objections should be overruled.

II.       LEGAL STANDARD
          The Order is a nondispositive pretrial ruling reviewed under Rule 72(a). “Factual findings

are reviewed for clear error while legal conclusions are reviewed under the contrary to law

standard”; “[d]e novo review applies to the contrary to law standard.” Coast Runner, Inc. v.

Kickstarter, PBC, No. 7:25-cv-00396-DC-RCG, Dkt. No. 107 at 6 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2026);

see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).

          Clear-error review is “highly deferential”: an order stands unless the reviewing court is

left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Coast Runner,

Dkt. No. 107 at 6. A district court may not reverse merely because it would have decided the


                                                  2


       Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG          Document 62       Filed 09/08/26     Page 6 of 10


matter differently. Laborfest LLC v. City of San Antonio, No. 5:19-cv-00060-JKP, Dkt. No. 91 at

2–3 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2021). Once the law is correctly applied, the remaining range of case-

management choices is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. ST cannot show that Judge

Gilliland’s ruling fell outside those bounds.

III.     JUDGE GILLILAND’S DENIAL OF THE STRIKE WAS NEITHER CLEARLY
         ERRONEOUS NOR CONTRARY TO LAW

         A.    CPT showed the uncharted products are reasonably similar to the charted
               exemplars.
         On February 12, 2026, CPT served preliminary infringement contentions charting one

exemplary product for each asserted patent: STL220N6F7 for U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299,

SPC582B60E1 for U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646, STM32G071CB for U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189,

SR5E1E7 for U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351, and LPS28DFW for U.S. Patent No. 10,151,658. Obj.

at 3. As both parties described those charts to Judge Gilliland, they relied on physical teardowns,

including annotated reverse-engineering photographs, X-ray images, and cross-sectional views.

Dkt. 50 at 2; Obj. at 3. From the outset, the contentions referred to additional accused products

beyond those five, and at ST’s request the March 27, 2026 supplement named them individually:

by family, part number, and package. See Obj. at 3; Dkt. 50 at 2.

         When ST then demanded a more explicit statement of representativeness, the June 16,

2026 supplement clarified the groupings CPT had previously provided at ST’s request: for each
patent, it identified the accused products and the internal feature they allegedly share with the

charted exemplar, based on CPT’s reverse engineering of the exemplars and ST’s published

package and datasheet documentation, on information and belief. Ex. A to the Objections (“Ex.

A”) (Dkt. 57-1) at 12, 14–15, 17, 19, 22, 25–26. Having charted the claimed structures in the

exemplars, CPT grouped the accused products by package type and product line based on the

package-level structures relevant to the asserted claims. Id. at 14–26. That is all the preliminary

stage requires: uncharted products need only be “reasonably similar” to those specifically

charted. IGT, Dkt. No. 61 at 4.


                                                3


    Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG            Document 62        Filed 09/08/26     Page 7 of 10


       B.       ST would require CPT to prove its groupings before discovery.
       ST faults CPT for not confirming, before discovery, that every product in each family

shares the accused internal structure. Obj. at 7–9. That would require CPT to prove before

discovery the very internal similarities that discovery is needed to test. Seeing inside a package

means destroying it or reading ST’s internal design and assembly documents, so ST would have

CPT buy and tear down hundreds of parts to answer a question ST can answer from its own files,

files ST has opposed producing before fact discovery. Dkt. 50 at 2–3; see also Dkt. 49 at 1. And

the statement ST quotes as a concession was CPT’s complaint about ST’s deficient production,

not an admission: ST’s public documents “do not show the internal package structures at all.”

Ex. A at 5–6.

       IGT says the same thing: “even if [the defendant] is correct that products are not fairly

represented, Plaintiff is still entitled to discovery to verify it when such information is not

publicly available.” IGT, Dkt. 61 at 5. That discovery is defined and waiting. CPT’s June 16,

2026 letter mapped each accused package group to the ST design and assembly documents that

will verify the groupings, and the companion order preserves CPT’s right to seek them once fact

discovery opens. Ex. A at 9–10; Dkt. 49 at 1. ST has offered nothing on the merits: no

declaration and no technical document, “only attorney argument and pin counts.” Dkt. 50 at 3.

Striking the products now would not cure anything; it would cut off the verification IGT permits.

       C.       The list corrections do not undermine the reasonably similar groupings.
       The list ST attacks is the list ST demanded. When ST insisted on part numbers, CPT built

the list from ST’s own datasheets and part-numbering conventions—a good-faith effort to map a

sprawling catalog that ST alone controls. Obj. at 3; Dkt. 50 at 2; Ex. A at 2–3. The corrections do

not undermine those groupings. Whether a predicted part number exists, or carries a different pin

count, is something ST could confirm from its own catalog, and ST took weeks to do so. Dkt. 50

at 3. CPT dropped each part promptly once ST identified it: more than 70 entries, all before

Judge Gilliland ruled. Ex. A at 12, 14, 19, 21–22, 24–25; Dkt. 50 at 3. The list was about naming

products. Whether the remaining products contain the claimed internal features is a different


                                                4


      Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG           Document 62       Filed 09/08/26      Page 8 of 10


question, one the catalogs never answered, and one CPT will answer with ST’s documents in fact

discovery; if a product lacks the feature, CPT will narrow its contentions.

        D.     None of ST’s cases required a strike, and remand is unnecessary.
        None of ST’s cases required the wholesale strike ST seeks here. See Intell. Tech LLC v.

Zebra Techs. Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00628-ADA, Dkt. No. 31 at 1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2020)

(ordering supplemental charts and a representativeness analysis rather than striking products);

WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., No. 6:20-CV-00952-ADA, 2022 WL

174517, at *2–3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) (denying motion to strike and directing further detail

to imminent final contentions); SVV Tech. Innovations, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:20-cv-

00139-ADA, Dkt. No. 35 at 2–3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020) (declining plaintiff’s proposed

representative-product scheduling procedure; no products stricken).

        Remand is unnecessary. ST does not contend that a hearing or detailed findings were

required. Obj. at 5, 10. Its argument is only that the record does not permit meaningful review. It

does. The joint chart attached to the Order presents the dispute, the evidence, and both sides’

requested relief, and it is before this Court just as it was before Judge Gilliland. Dkt. 50 at 1–4.

Purdue reinforces the procedural point: there, ST likewise sought Rule 72 review of Judge

Gilliland’s denial of a motion to strike infringement contentions, and Judge Albright overruled

the objections without remanding. Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics N.V., No. 6:21-cv-

00727-ADA, 2023 WL 11995494 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2023).

IV.     CONCLUSION
        For the foregoing reasons, CPT respectfully requests that the Court overrule ST’s Rule

72(a) Objections (Dkt. 57).


                                                 5


    Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG   Document 62     Filed 09/08/26   Page 9 of 10


Dated: September 8, 2026         Respectfully submitted,

                                 /s/ Natalie Lieber
                                 Garland Stephens (Texas Bar No. 24053910)
                                 garland@bluepeak.law
                                 Robert Magee (pro hac vice)
                                 robert@bluepeak.law
                                 Justin Constant (pro hac vice)
                                 justin@bluepeak.law
                                 Richard Koehl (Texas Bar No. 24115754)
                                 richard@bluepeak.law
                                 Kate Falkenstien (pro hac vice)
                                 kate@bluepeak.law
                                 Heng Gong (New York Bar No. 4930509)
                                 heng@bluepeak.law
                                 Natalie Lieber (New York Bar No. 4672762)
                                 lieber@bluepeak.law
                                 Ameet Modi (pro hac vice)
                                 modi@bluepeak.law
                                 BLUE PEAK LAW GROUP LLP
                                 3139 West Holcombe Blvd.
                                 PMB 8160
                                 Houston, TX 77025
                                 Telephone: (281) 972-3036

                                 Of Counsel:
                                 Mark D. Siegmund (Texas Bar No. 24117055)
                                 msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com
                                 CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC
                                 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor
                                 Waco, TX 76710
                                 Telephone: (254) 732-2242
                                 Fax: (866) 627-3509

                                 William D. Ellerman (Texas Bar No. 24007151)
                                 wellerman@cjsjlaw.com
                                 CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC
                                 One Glen Lakes Tower
                                 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105
                                 Dallas, TX 75231
                                 Telephone: (254) 732-2242
                                 Fax: (866) 627-3509

                                 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHIP
                                 PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC


                                     6


   Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG          Document 62       Filed 09/08/26    Page 10 of 10


                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

       A true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Rule 72(a) Objections

(Dkt. 57) was served via CM/ECF to all counsel of record on September 8, 2026.


                                                                /s/ Natalie Lieber
                                                                Natalie Lieber


                                              7