Austin Jury Awards $9.2M to Carter Arnett Client Katana Silicon Technologies, LLC in Patent Infringement Case Against GlobalFoundries

Carter Arnett attorneys, Scott Breedlove, Omer Salik, Bill Pedersen, Alexis Ritzer, and Howard Lim, won a patent trial in Austin, Texas for Katana Silicon Technologies, LLC. On July 18, 2025, after nine hours of deliberation, the jury returned a $9.2 million verdict in favor of Katana. The jury found that GlobalFoundries, a leading semiconductor manufacturer, infringed Katana’s patent covering a specific type of semiconductor device and awarded reasonable royalty damages for the infringement.

This litigation began in the Western District of Texas federal court in February 2022. It included GlobalFoundries petitioning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) for inter partes review (IPR) of the patent and later requesting the Patent and Trademark Office to reconsider the patent in an ex parte reexamination. Carter Arnett’s patent litigation team defeated the IPR petition on the merits, and the ex parte reexamination likewise concluded in favor of Katana.

With Katana’s patented technology thrice confirmed and multiple rounds of expert discovery completed, the case proceeded to trial with jury selection on July 11 and opening statement in the trial on July 14. The jury trial lasted four days and featured five of our patent litigators and trial lawyers: Scott, Omer, Bill, Alexis, and Howard. Paralegal Billie Jean Tijerina and intern Cameron Tijerina made the wheels turn, consistently and tirelessly.

Katana’s Founder and Manager, Khaled Fekih-Romdhane, praised the team: “I am so proud of the effort and skill of the Carter Arnett trial team in this case. I was telling them that before the verdict came down, and I feel it even more now.”

Carter Arnett is honored to have helped Katana vindicate its patent rights.

Scott W. Breedlove

Partner

Howard L. Lim

Counsel

Alexis Ritzer

Associate

Omer Salik

Partner

Bill Pedersen, III

Partner
Previous Post
In Chapter 271 cases, a plea to jurisdiction is not the proper vehicle to challenge the merits of a breach of contract claim.
Next Post
Texas Appellate Court Affirms Defense Win in Billion-Dollar Pension Fund Case