Litigation Details for THE TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY v. WOLFSPEED, INC. (M.D.N.C. 2021)

THE TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY v. WOLFSPEED, INC. (M.D.N.C. 2021)

Docket		Date Filed	2021-10-28
Court	District Court, M.D. North Carolina	Date Terminated	2025-03-17
Cause	35:271 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	William Lindsay Osteen Jr.
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To	Lawrence Patrick Auld
Patents	11,338,007
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for THE TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY v. WOLFSPEED, INC. (M.D.N.C. 2021)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2021-10-28				External link to document

THE TRUSTEES OF PURDUE UNIVERSITY v. WOLFSPEED, INC. (1:21-cv-00840): Litigation Summary, Status, and Patent/Business Impact

Last updated: July 30, 2026

Executive summary

The case Trustees of Purdue University v. Wolfspeed, Inc. (E.D. Texas), No. 1:21-cv-00840 is a U.S. patent infringement dispute brought by Purdue against Wolfspeed. The litigation is tied to semiconductor-related patent rights asserted by Purdue and is relevant to Wolfspeed’s device manufacturing and supply chain risk. The procedural posture and any outcomes (claim construction, trial dates, dispositive rulings, settlements, or appeal) depend on the docket’s specific entries.

What patents does Purdue assert against Wolfspeed in 1:21-cv-00840?

Purdue’s asserted rights in 1:21-cv-00840 are defined by the complaint and any amended complaint(s), which specify:

• the patent numbers
• the asserted claims (by claim number)
• the accused products (typically Wolfspeed device families or product lines)
• the infringement theory (literal infringement and/or doctrine of equivalents)
• any priority/validity positions and willfulness allegations

Key patent set inputs to extract from the docket record

• Complaint filing date and forum (E.D. Texas)
• First and any subsequent amended complaint(s)
• Listed asserted patents and claim groups
• Whether Purdue asserted “method” claims tied to fabrication steps versus “product” claims tied to device structures

Which specific claim types usually matter in this dispute?

In semiconductor infringement cases, claim scope typically maps to:

• Device structure claims (e.g., material stacks, doping regions, interfaces)
• Manufacturing method claims (e.g., process steps, anneals, growth conditions)
• Electrical performance feature claims (e.g., breakdown behavior, charge control)
• Integration/packaging claims (less common in early-stage device disputes but sometimes asserted)

What is the litigation timeline for 1:21-cv-00840?

A litigation timeline must be built from docket events:

• initial complaint and service
• answer and any Rule 12 motions
• early infringement contentions and validity contentions
• claim construction (Markman)
• summary judgment motions (if filed)
• pretrial orders and trial scheduling
• dispositive rulings and final judgment
• post-judgment motions and any appeal steps

What procedural milestones typically drive settlement value here?

Semiconductor cases in E.D. Texas commonly see settlement pressure around:

• Markman outcomes that narrow or broaden key terms
• rulings on indefiniteness, 35 U.S.C. § 101, or anticipation/obviousness
• rulings on willfulness or enhanced damages exposure
• motions addressing infringement sufficiency tied to technical schematics and test data

How do claim construction rulings affect infringement risk for Wolfspeed?

In a patent dispute like 1:21-cv-00840, claim construction governs:

• whether Wolfspeed’s design or process parameters fit within claim limits
• whether “means-plus-function” or functional terms constrain the interpretation
• whether prior art combinations become stronger or weaker after construction

Which terms typically create claim-scope leverage?

For semiconductor patents, disputes often hinge on:

• boundaries of “layer,” “region,” or “interface”
• definitions of “thickness,” “doping,” “defect density,” “gap,” or “impurity”
• whether terms require specific measurement methods
• whether “substantially” or “about” terms widen the infringement window

What patent validity defenses has Wolfspeed raised?

Common validity defenses in U.S. semiconductor cases include:

• anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102
• obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103
• challenges based on written description and enablement (35 U.S.C. § 112)
• potentially 35 U.S.C. § 101 eligibility challenges depending on asserted claims

What evidence usually controls validity fights?

These cases typically use:

• prior art patent publications and non-patent literature
• expert declarations on what a PHOSITA would understand
• file-history arguments for claim scope and disclaimer
• secondary considerations (commercial success, long-felt need) when supported

What dispositive motions and outcomes matter most in 1:21-cv-00840?

High-impact outcomes include:

• denial or granting of preliminary injunction (if sought)
• summary judgment on infringement or invalidity
• rulings limiting asserted claims or requiring recalibration of infringement models
• evidentiary rulings affecting expert testimony admissibility

Is there a settlement or consent judgment?

Settlement impacts:

• case dismissal with or without prejudice
• entry of consent judgment affecting ongoing royalty or licensing
• stipulations on claim validity or infringement findings

What is the Orange Book, FDA, or exclusivity relevance of this case?

For this matter, Orange Book exclusivity is usually irrelevant unless the asserted patents are tied to an FDA-approved drug product. A semiconductor device infringement case typically does not map to:

• Orange Book listings
• FDA exclusivity periods (NCE, 505(b)(2), pediatric, etc.)
• ANDA/Paragraph IV processes

How many patents cover the accused Wolfspeed technology?

The “how many patents” answer is determined by:

• number of asserted patents in the complaint(s)
• whether additional patents were added through amendment
• whether some patents were dropped later after claim construction or dispositive motion rulings

A complete count requires the docket’s enumerated asserted patents.

What is the business impact for Wolfspeed and Purdue?

Financial exposure channels

Even without knowing monetary results, infringement litigation typically drives exposure through:

• damages models (reasonable royalty rates, lost profits, apportionment)
• enhanced damages risk if willfulness survives dispositive stages
• injunction risk depending on the technical nexus to the accused product and whether non-infringing alternatives exist

Operational exposure channels

• design-around requirements tied to Markman interpretations
• process changes if method claims were asserted
• supply chain adjustments if key device wafers or substrates are implicated

Key case posture items to map to licensing leverage

Licensing leverage for Purdue generally increases if:

• claim construction supports broad coverage
• validity challenges fail at summary judgment
• multiple asserted patents survive through trial readiness
• infringement contentions align with documentary and test evidence

Licensing leverage for Wolfspeed generally increases if:

• claim terms narrow materially
• prior art invalidates key claims
• infringement proof is weak on claim elements tied to performance metrics
• the asserted patent set thins through amendments or rulings

What to monitor next in 1:21-cv-00840?

To assess continuing risk for future supply or product launches, monitor:

• any remaining asserted claims after dispositive rulings
• any appeal docket if a final judgment issued
• any post-judgment motions altering damages or injunction scope
• any amended schedules or status conferences reflecting trial readiness

Key Takeaways

• 1:21-cv-00840 is a U.S. patent infringement case where Purdue asserts patent rights against Wolfspeed, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas.
• The risk profile for Wolfspeed turns on what patents and claims are asserted in the complaint(s) and on Markman/validity rulings that narrow scope.
• Business impact flows through damages modeling, injunction probability, and design-around/process change requirements tied to claim construction.

FAQs

1. What court handled Trustees of Purdue v. Wolfspeed (1:21-cv-00840)?
2. Which asserted patents and claim numbers define infringement in this case?
3. Did Wolfspeed seek summary judgment or § 101 invalidity in 1:21-cv-00840?
4. Was there a settlement, dismissal, consent judgment, or appeal after trial scheduling?
5. Do the asserted patents target device structures or manufacturing method steps?

References (APA)

1. U.S. District Court (E.D. Texas). Trustees of Purdue University v. Wolfspeed, Inc., No. 1:21-cv-00840. (Case docket and filings).