Texas Instruments, Intel and two other semiconductor and technology companies are asking a Dallas federal judge to dismiss lawsuits brought by five Ukrainian citizens who claim that microchips, processors and programmable devices made by the four companies are being used by the Russian military in its war against Ukraine.
A star-studded crew of trial lawyers on both sides of the litigation will present arguments Tuesday to U.S. District Judge Sidney Fitzwater about whether the lawsuits claiming that TI, Mansfield-based Mouser Electronics, Advanced Micro Devices and Intel sold their technology to third parties, which they knew or should have known were then providing those technologies to Russia to use in the war in Ukraine.
The Ukrainian plaintiffs claim that they were injured or killed in separate attacks on community playgrounds, a children’s hospital and a school dormitory and that technology made and sold by the defendants were used by the Russians in those attacks.
But in court documents, lawyers for the tech companies claim that the lawsuits are preempted by federal law, failed to legally plead a claim under Texas law and missed the deadline for filing such claims under the statute of limitations.
“These lawsuits ask the court to do something essentially unprecedented in American tort law: hold American manufacturers liable — under Texas state law — for foreign military operations they had no role in planning or executing,” according to a motion filed by lawyers for the tech companies. “American semiconductor companies are not liable for the Russian military’s attacks, and plaintiffs cannot use Texas law to privately enforce federal export-control laws and foreign policy. As a result — for multiple overlapping reasons — plaintiffs’ claims fail.”
The technology companies argue that federal export control laws and regulations “preempt plaintiffs’ claims.”
“Plaintiffs’ tort theories conflict with federal law,” the defendants’ brief states. “Particularly in areas that touch on ‘foreign relations,’ states cannot use state law to punish alleged violations of federal law without treading on the executive branch’s discretion and undermining the president’s ability to speak for the Nation with one voice.”
Lawyers for the tech companies state in their brief that their clients “deeply sympathize” with the victims but argue that “the avenue for Ukrainian citizens to pursue justice for Russian military airstrikes is not in the U.S. courts and not under Texas tort law.”
“Plaintiffs have not alleged facts supporting a ‘reasonable inference that the [defendants are] liable for the misconduct alleged,’” the defendants argue, citing the 2009 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Ashcroft v. Iqbal. “Plaintiffs have not plausibly pleaded causation. They neither plead facts showing which semiconductors were in the specific weapons that injured plaintiffs, nor that export control violations had anything to do with Russia acquiring those components.”
“As the petitions show, many different companies from many different countries make semiconductors that have been found in Russian munitions, and Russia also had legal access to those components before stringent U.S. export restrictions went into effect in 2022,” lawyers for the tech companies argue. “In addition, plaintiffs premise several tort claims on direct violations of federal export-control laws, which provide for no private cause of action.”
“Contrary to Texas law, plaintiffs impermissibly seek to hold defendants liable for failing to protect others from third-party criminal acts,” the tech companies state in their motion to dismiss.
In response, lawyers for the five Ukrainians state their lawsuits are no different from scores that have gone before and the litigation should continue to trial.
“Nothing about Plaintiffs’ allegations is unprecedented: tort law routinely holds defendants liable for foreseeable harm to foreseeable plaintiffs, whether the misconduct is as simple as a dog bite or as complex as fueling opioid addiction by ignoring red flags about end users,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers state in their brief.
The defendants’ preemption arguments fail, according to the plaintiffs’ lawyers, because “they ignore the text of the relevant regulatory provisions, which plainly permit common-law claims such as plaintiffs.”
Lawyers for the five Ukrainians argue that their lawsuits are based on two laws, the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which they state, “expressly permit state common law claims.”
“This alone dooms defendants’ preemption arguments,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys state. “Defendants cannot point specifically to any text from the relevant regulations showing that federal law displaces or conflicts with plaintiffs’ common law tort claims. To the contrary, the relevant language of the ECRA itself states that it does not limit the availability of other administrative or judicial remedies with respect to violations of this subchapter, or any regulation, order, license or other authorization issued under this subchapter.”
Regarding the defense’s claim that the plaintiffs did not file their lawsuit in a timely manner, the plaintiffs’ argue that their “inability to learn about defendants’ wrongful conduct before September 2024 was compounded by defendants’ affirmative misrepresentations to the contrary.”
“When a defendant fraudulently conceals information, the defendant is estopped from relying on the defense of limitations until the party learns of the right of action or should have learned thereof through the exercise of reasonable diligence,” the plaintiffs’ lawyers state.
The lawsuits were originally filed in December in state court in Dallas County. The defendants had the litigation removed to federal court. At a hearing in February, lawyers for the plaintiffs told Judge Fitzwater that they would not oppose having the case tried in his federal courtroom.
The courtroom is expected to be filled with high-profile trial lawyers on Tuesday, including Mikal Watts, Charla Aldous and BakerHostetler lawyers Robert Julian, Dustin Dow and Lauren Attard for the Ukrainians.
The technology companies have hired some of the biggest names in the trial bar, including Tom Melsheimer and Rex Mann of King & Spalding, Anna Rotman of Kirkland & Ellis, Dallas attorney Jeff Tillotson and Faegre Drinker lawyers Eli Burriss and Abbey Hernandez.
The semiconductor makers have also hired Munger Tolles partners L. Ashley Aull, Gregory Stone and David Ryan.
The primary case is Liudmyla Dmytrivina v. Texas Instruments, NDTX, Case No. 3:25-cv-03046.