Qorvo, Inc. V. Akoustis Technologies, Inc. Et Al

Parties Involved

  • Defendant(s): Akoustis Technologies, Inc. | Akoustis, Inc.
    • Counsel for Defendants: David S. Elkins| Matthew A. Stanford | Ronald S. Lemieux | Victoria Q. Smith |  Xiaomei Cai | David A. Jakopin | David L. Stanton | Dianne L. Sweeney | Riccardo Macchiaroli | Robert M. Fuhrer | Robert C.F. Perez | Ryan Selness | Shani Rivaux  | Theresa A. Roozen |  Ronald P. Golden III | Stephen B. Brauerman.
    • Expert witness for Defendant(s): Clark Nguyen | Dr. Robert Darveaux  | Carlyn Irwin | Dr. Michael Lebby

Verdict Information

  • Verdict Date: May 17, 2024
  • Total damages awarded to Plaintiff: $28,595,023
    • For unjust enrichment: $31,315,215.00
    • Exemplary damages: $7,000,000.00
    • For infringing the ‘018 Patent: $139,904.00
    • For infringing the ‘755 Patent: $139,904.00

About the Case


This case involves several causes of action brought by Qorvo, a leading developer and manufacturer of wireless connectivity technologies, against Akoustis Technologies related to Akoustis’ competing bulk acoustic wave (BAW) filter products.

Qorvo alleged that Akoustis infringed two of its patents protecting innovative BAW filter technology: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,522,018 (‘018 patent) and 9,735,755 (‘755 patent). Regarding the ‘018 patent, Qorvo claimed Akoustis’ 3-7 GHz BAW filter portfolio products, including the AKF-1252, AKF-1256, AKF-1336, and AKF-10235, infringed at least claim 1 by having a top electrode layer thinner than the bottom layer to increase filter bandwidth. For the ‘755 patent, the products allegedly violated claim 9 through an electrode structure with a passivation layer thickness matched to outer material layers to prevent acoustic energy leakage. Akoustis also purportedly induced infringement by providing instructions to customers on using the infringing products. Qorvo asserted the infringement was willful and sought damages, injunctive relief, treble damages, and attorney’s fees.

Qorvo accused Akoustis of false advertising under the Lanham Act by describing its BAW filters as having “single-crystal” piezoelectric construction in commercial advertising like its website, presentations, press releases, and SEC filings, when the products were actually polycrystalline. These allegedly false claims promoted superior filter performance over competitors to deceive customers and influence purchasing decisions.

Compounding the false advertising, Qorvo claimed Akoustis falsely marked its polycrystalline BAW filters with a patent covering only single-crystal technology, intending to deceive that the products fell under that patent’s coverage, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292.

Finally, Qorvo alleged that Akoustis’ systematic pattern of conduct, including poaching employees with trade secret knowledge, misappropriating those trade secrets, false advertising, and false patent marking, constituted unfair and deceptive business practices prohibited by North Carolina law.


The patent infringement allegedly caused Qorvo to suffer irreparable harm and monetary damages from lost sales and profits due to Akoustis’ infringing competition. The misappropriation of trade secrets enabled Akoustis to quickly enter the market using Qorvo’s technical knowledge, substantially harming Qorvo’s business and investment. The false advertising and marking deceived customers about product qualities and patent coverage, diverting sales away from Qorvo and damaging its goodwill and reputation. The unfair trade practices impacted commerce in North Carolina, proximately causing Qorvo substantial monetary losses to its business operations in the state.


Qorvo sought significant remedies to compensate for the substantial injuries caused by Akoustis’ alleged misconduct and to prevent further unlawful actions. For the patent infringement claims, Qorvo requested the court award damages sufficient to compensate for Akoustis’ infringement of the ‘018 and ‘755 patents, including lost profits and reasonable royalties. Qorvo also sought enhanced damages up to treble damages for Akoustis’ willful and deliberate infringement. Additionally, Qorvo requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. This relief aimed to prohibit Akoustis and any affiliated parties from any further infringement of the asserted patents.

Regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets, Qorvo sought injunctive relief enjoining Akoustis from any further use or disclosure of Qorvo’s confidential and proprietary BAW filter technology information that was improperly obtained via the poached employees. Qorvo also sought compensatory damages for the harm to its business caused by Akoustis’ unfair head start in the market enabled by the misappropriated trade secrets.

For the false advertising and false patent marking claims, Qorvo requested the court order disgorgement of Akoustis’ profits stemming from the deceptive practices. Qorvo additionally sought compensatory damages for diverted sales, lost goodwill, and reputational harm flowing from Akoustis’ misleading statements about its products. Injunctive relief prohibiting any further false advertising or false marking was also requested.

As Akoustis’ actions amounted to unfair and deceptive trade practices prohibited by North Carolina law, Qorvo sought actual damages for the injuries to its business operations in the state. Moreover, Qorvo requested the court find Akoustis’ conduct rendered the case “exceptional” under patent law, entitling Qorvo to its reasonable attorney’s fees for having to bring the lawsuit. Punitive damages were sought as well based on Akoustis’ alleged willful misconduct. An accounting of Akoustis’ profits from the unlawful practices was also requested to ensure full compensation to Qorvo.

Jury Verdict

The jury found that Akoustis was unjustly enriched by misappropriating Qorvo’s trade secrets in the amount of $31,315,215.00. The jury awarded Qorvo exemplary damages against Akoustis in the amount of $7,000,000.00. Regarding damages for patent infringement, the jury determined that Akoustis should pay Qorvo $139,904.00 for infringing the ‘018 Patent and $139,904.00 for infringing the ‘755 Patent, to compensate for the damages caused by Akoustis’ infringement of each asserted patent.

Court Documents: Available upon Request