A Delaware federal judge has denied Intel Corp.'s bid to transfer an infringement suit to California, where the chip giant is already facing claims that it had infringed patents for semiconductors and microprocessors.

U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware on Monday declined to take up Intel's argument that VLSI, the nonpracticing patent holding company that filed both lawsuits, was improperly engaging in forum shopping, and found little overlap between the two cases.

In a 22-page memorandum opinion, Connolly said the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands nixed “any argument that venue does not lie in this district,” adding that VLSI's motives in selecting Delaware were not relevant to Intel's motion to transfer. Under TC Heartland, a company can be sued for infringement only in its state of incorporation or where it has “committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”

“Accordingly, I will not look to the reasons behind VLSI's selection of Delaware as a forum; nor will I give less weight to VLSI's forum choice on the grounds that it had improper forum shopping motives,” Connolly wrote in his ruling.

Intel, which is headquartered in Santa Clara, California, is incorporated in the First State.

The company had argued that VLSI, a Delaware limited liability company, had no real connection to the state and had only formed there in 2016 to file infringement suits against Intel.

Intel's Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr attorneys said in court filings that the five-patent case “significantly overlaps” with other litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where VLSI has accused Intel of infringing eight patents that it had recently acquired from NXP Semiconductors and Freescale Semiconductors Inc.

According to Intel, a transfer would have cleared the way for the cases to be consolidated and allow for streamlined proceedings and a single trial.

“VLSI's filing of a new action in this district—rather than either filing in the Northern District of California or, simpler still, seeking to amend its existing complaint in the California action—can only be understood as an attempt to evade the court that VLSI originally chose,” Intel's attorneys said in an Aug. 13 brief.

“By filing in this district, VLSI is attempting to avoid the possibility that this action will be coordinated and/or consolidated with the California action and assigned to the same judge and the same previously-set trial date.”

But Connolly said that Intel had “overstated” the similarities between the two suits, finding that none of the California patents shared the same inventors or claims and that only six of the 13 asserted patents covered the same subject matter.

Connolly also pointed to Intel's own statements to Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of California, which he said “effectively negate” its arguments regarding overlap. According to Connolly's opinion, counsel for Intel told Freeman that there was very little relationship among the California patents and that they covered “a lot of different technology.”

“We agree that we need to streamline the case in some meaningful way for sure, but it is, from our perspective, a very challenging [case] to streamline,” an Intel attorney said, according to Connolly's ruling.

Wilmer Cutler represents Intel in both cases.

“Intel's assertions before Judge Freeman about the California action and the California patents also lead me to conclude that it is unlikely that the two actions would be consolidated and result in a single trial if I transferred this case to the Northern District,” Connolly said.

According to Connolly, the California action is not expected to reach a trial before June 2021, but Connolly said he would set a trial in Delaware next November.

Attorneys for both sides did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment on the ruling.

VLSI is represented by Morgan Chu, Ben Hattenbach, Amy E. Proctor, Dominik Slusarczyk and Charlotte J. Wen of Irell & Manella in Boston and Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP in Wilmington.

Intel is represented by Mark D. Selwyn in WIlmer Cutler's Palo Alto, California, office; William F. Lee and Louis W. Tompros in Boston; and Amanda L. Major in Washington, D.C. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Jeremy A. Tigan of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell are acting as local counsel.

The case is captioned VLSI Technology v. Intel.