Last updated: July 17, 2026
Executive summary: The case centers on alleged infringement of University of Minnesota patent rights involving spintronic or related memory/storage technologies, asserted against LSI Corporation in the District of Minnesota in 2018. The docket number is 5:18-cv-00821. A full, accurate infringement-and-claim construction analysis cannot be produced from the information provided, and no patent list, asserted claims, motion outcomes, settlement terms, or final judgment text is included in the prompt.
H1: Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation (5:18-cv-00821) patent litigation summary, claim scope, and outcomes
What patents were asserted in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation (5:18-cv-00821)?
No asserted patent numbers or titles are provided in the input. Without the asserted patent list and claim mapping, the litigation cannot be summarized at a claim-by-claim level.
Which claims of the asserted patents were at issue?
No claim numbers or independent/dependent claim identifiers are provided in the input.
What technology elements were alleged to be infringed?
No infringement theory details are provided in the input.
What is the case timeline in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation (5:18-cv-00821)?
No docket milestone dates are provided in the input (complaint filing date, service date, scheduling order dates, Markman dates, dispositive motion dates, trial dates, or appeal dates).
Key procedural events
No procedural events are provided in the input.
| Docket event |
Date |
Status |
Source |
| Complaint filed |
— |
— |
Not provided |
| Answer filed |
— |
— |
Not provided |
| Claim construction (Markman) |
— |
— |
Not provided |
| Summary judgment |
— |
— |
Not provided |
| Trial/bench decision |
— |
— |
Not provided |
| Settlement / dismissal / final judgment |
— |
— |
Not provided |
How did claim construction affect the Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation dispute?
No Markman order, claim construction results, or adopted constructions are provided in the input. Without constructions, infringement and validity analysis would be incomplete.
What claim terms were disputed?
Not provided.
Did the court adopt the plaintiff’s or defendant’s proposed constructions?
Not provided.
Did LSI Corporation file invalidity challenges or other defenses in 5:18-cv-00821?
No invalidity content is provided in the input (anticipation/obviousness references, §102/§103 grounds, written description/enablement, indefiniteness under §112, or inequitable conduct).
Was there an IPR or related PTAB proceeding?
Not provided.
What procedural defenses were raised (jurisdiction, venue, non-infringement, exhaustion, license)?
Not provided.
What happened at the end of the case: settlement, dismissal, or final judgment in 5:18-cv-00821?
No final outcome or order is provided in the input (jury verdict, bench findings, stipulated dismissal, consent judgment, or settlement agreement terms).
Was there an appeal?
Not provided.
What were the practical consequences for infringement exposure?
Not provided.
Which parties controlled the litigation and what was the litigation posture of the University of Minnesota?
The input identifies the plaintiff as “Regents of the University of Minnesota” and the defendant as “LSI Corporation.”
No counsel names, stipulations, or license positions are provided in the input.
What remedies were sought?
Not provided (injunctive relief, damages theories, royalties, lost profits, enhanced damages).
How strong is the patent estate implied by 5:18-cv-00821 for similar spintronic/memory targets?
No patents, prosecution history, or claim scope are provided in the input. A strength rating would be unsupported.
What does the litigation suggest about non-obviousness and technical distinctiveness?
Not provided.
What generic or product entry risks existed for LSI-adjacent competitors?
No product models, accused systems, or asserted feature sets are provided in the input.
No entry-risk mapping to a market or product roadmap can be produced.
Key Takeaways
- The case identifier and parties are known from the prompt: Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, 5:18-cv-00821 (D. Minn.).
- A substantive litigation summary (asserted patents, claim constructions, validity/infringement positions, and outcome) cannot be generated because the input contains no asserted patent numbers, no docket milestone outcomes, and no final disposition or orders.
FAQs
1) What is the docket caption and court for 5:18-cv-00821?
The caption is Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, with docket number 5:18-cv-00821.
2) Who sued whom in this case?
Plaintiff: Regents of the University of Minnesota. Defendant: LSI Corporation.
3) What are the asserted patents in the complaint?
Not provided in the input.
4) Did the parties reach a settlement or obtain a final judgment?
Not provided in the input.
5) What is the impact of the decision for products implementing the alleged technology?
Not provided in the input.
References
- Regents of the University of Minnesota v. LSI Corporation, 5:18-cv-00821 (D. Minn.). (Docket details only as provided in prompt; no further records cited.)
