Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallGlobalFoundries filed 25 patent-infringement lawsuits in August 2019 accusing TSMC and companies linked to TSMC-made products of infringing 16 GlobalFoundries patents. TSMC countersued, but the fight ended on October 28, 2019, when the companies agreed to dismiss their cases and enter a broad global patent cross-license. No public court ruling established that either company infringed the other’s patents.
What GlobalFoundries filed in August 2019
On August 26, GlobalFoundries (GF) announced lawsuits in the United States and Germany. The campaign involved 25 proceedings and asserted 16 GF patents; “25 lawsuits” does not mean 25 patents. The actions involved TSMC and roughly 20 other companies, with proceedings in the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), federal district courts in Delaware and the Western District of Texas, and regional courts in Düsseldorf and Mannheim. GF’s announcement described allegations concerning TSMC-manufactured products made using 7nm, 10nm, 12nm, 16nm, and 28nm process technologies.
GF described the dispute at a high level as involving semiconductor devices and manufacturing technologies. A process node is a manufacturing generation or designation, not one invention or one patent: a node encompasses many process steps and design rules, while a patent case turns on specific claims and accused products or methods. The public announcements do not establish which precise technical features GF claimed were infringed.
Why TSMC customers and distributors were named
GF said downstream companies were among the importers of products incorporating the allegedly infringing technology. Naming importers and sellers offered a legal route to seek remedies aimed at chips, components, and finished products entering the market, rather than pursuing only the foundry that manufactured them. The complaint did not mean every named company independently practiced or developed the manufacturing process.
#1 Best Overall
- TSMC: the foundry GF accused of using the disputed manufacturing technologies.
- Chip designers: fabless companies whose chips could be manufactured by TSMC.
- Electronics makers: companies that could incorporate those chips into products.
- Distributors: intermediaries involved in importing or selling components.
Contemporary reporting named Apple, Asus, Broadcom, Cisco, Google, HiSense, Lenovo, MediaTek, Motorola, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and Xilinx, as well as Avnet/EBV, Digi-Key, and Mouser. The early account described 20 companies beyond the foundry, while the ITC proceeding later listed 22 respondents, including TSMC and TSMC North America; the totals refer to different ways of counting parties. EE Times reported the company list and proceeding details.
What remedies GF sought—and why the ITC mattered
GF sought damages from TSMC, injunctions, and restrictions on imports of allegedly infringing semiconductor products into the United States and Germany. The ITC is not a conventional damages court: an ITC investigation can lead to an exclusion order or other import restrictions, while monetary-damages claims generally proceed in court. GF sought remedies; it did not obtain an immediate ban on TSMC products.
GF framed the action as protecting its intellectual property, research and development, and manufacturing investments in the United States and Europe. In remarks reported at the time, GF executive Gregg Bartlett cited more than $15 billion invested in the United States over the prior decade and more than $6 billion in Europe. Those figures were GF’s stated figures, not a finding made in the patent cases. The lawsuits also arrived as GF was reassessing leading-edge manufacturing, including suspending development of its 7nm process. The public announcements do not establish that the litigation was principally intended to obtain access to TSMC’s 7nm technology.
How TSMC countersued
On September 30, 2019, TSMC filed cases in the United States, Germany, and Singapore; it announced them on October 1. TSMC alleged that GF infringed 25 TSMC patents covering technologies associated with process generations including at least 40nm, 28nm, 22nm, 14nm, and 12nm. TSMC’s announcement described patents involving FinFET designs, shallow-trench isolation, double-patterning methods, seal rings, gate structures, and contact etch-stop-layer designs. Those descriptions are TSMC’s account of its own claims, not adjudicated findings. TSMC’s announcement said it sought injunctions against manufacturing and selling products ready for shipment, as well as monetary damages.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →The countersuit made the dispute reciprocal: each foundry asserted a substantial patent portfolio and sought remedies that could affect the other’s manufacturing or customers. It did not, by itself, prove either side’s allegations.
Why the dispute mattered beyond the two foundries
Foundry customers depend on access to manufacturing capacity, so a case focused on imports could create uncertainty well beyond the firms exchanging complaints. The potential exposure included legal costs, supply-chain disruption, pressure on chip designers and electronics companies, and the possibility of restrictions affecting imported components or products. The customer-focused approach may have increased the commercial pressure surrounding the dispute, but the public record does not establish GF’s private strategy.
The timing also matters: GF was a smaller foundry challenging the industry’s dominant contract manufacturer, while TSMC supplied many major technology companies. That made the prospect of downstream remedies commercially significant, without proving that any customer’s products would actually be excluded.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How the dispute ended
On October 28, 2019, GF and TSMC announced that they would dismiss all litigation between them and cases involving their customers. They also agreed to a broad worldwide cross-license covering each company’s existing semiconductor patents and patents filed during the following ten years. The companies said the agreement gave them and their customers freedom to operate under the license. The announcement did not disclose detailed financial or licensing terms. GF’s settlement announcement describes the agreement and dismissals.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteFor the ITC matter, the parties and respondents submitted a joint settlement-based motion on November 8. The commission terminated its investigation on November 25, 2019; that was a procedural end following settlement, not a ruling on infringement. The ITC termination notice records the outcome and notes that the cross-license agreement was submitted confidentially.
What the settlement does—and does not—tell us
The cross-license resolved the immediate litigation and reduced uncertainty for both foundries and their customers. It does not establish that one side won on the merits. The public record cited here contains no infringement judgment against either company, no public declaration that the patents were invalid, and no disclosed royalty or payment terms. Settlement and dismissal are not admissions of infringement.
Accordingly, the 2019 episode is best understood as a high-stakes patent confrontation that ended through mutual licensing before the threatened import remedies produced a public product ban. The outcome was negotiated resolution, not a court verdict that TSMC copied GF technology or that GF infringed TSMC’s patents.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
