Capital Asset Exchange and Trading Faces Multiple Lawsuits

Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, the Santa Clara semiconductor equipment trader that operates as CAE, has been hit with at least seven breach-of-contract lawsuits since mid-2024, most brought by buyers who say the firm failed to deliver the used equipment it had promised or supplied inadequate replacements. Several of the Capital Asset Exchange and Trading lawsuits have settled or been dismissed; others remain active in federal and California state court as of 2026. A recurring feature is the company’s requests to pause proceedings while the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control reviews license applications tied to the underlying transactions.

Who Is Being Sued

Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC is a California-incorporated dealer in used semiconductor capital equipment, headquartered at 5201 Great America Parkway in Santa Clara.¹ The firm acts as an intermediary between chipmakers, foundries, original equipment manufacturers, and research centers, and says it handles procurement, due diligence, compliance, and logistics on the transactions it brokers.²

Court filings identify CAET as a subsidiary of CAE Integrated LLC and reference a related entity, CAE Online, LLC. Ryan Franzke Jacob serves as chairperson and David Ruiz as managing director. Other affiliated individuals named in filings include Jeffrey Scott Robbins, John Sgro, and Austin Gill.³ Across multiple matters, CAET has been represented by attorney William Joseph Frimel of Seubert French Frimel and Warner.⁴

Epicrew Corporation (Northern District of California)

Epicrew Corporation sued CAET on June 19, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (case number 5:24-cv-03676), bringing a contract dispute under diversity jurisdiction. During an April 2025 status conference, the court noted that “replacement equipment provided to Plaintiff” was “not adequate.”⁵

Judge Edward J. Davila granted CAET’s motion to dismiss in part on May 13, 2025, allowing Epicrew to amend. An amended complaint followed on June 3, 2025. Earlier settlement conferences before Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen were unsuccessful. As of May 2026, the case remains active, with Epicrew demanding a jury trial.⁵

Shanghai Tyron Semiconductor Equipment (Settled)

Shanghai Tyron Semiconductor Equipment Co., Ltd. went to federal court in the Northern District of California to enforce a $5 million emergency arbitral award issued on October 24, 2024, by the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (case number SHG20240681). The dispute involved a contract for lithography machines.⁶

Tyron sought a temporary restraining order and an asset freeze. On January 29, 2025, Judge Davila denied the request, finding that CAET had not sold off its assets and had no indication of doing so.⁷ The case resolved soon after. The parties reported a settlement on March 14, 2025, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice that same day, retaining jurisdiction over enforcement of the settlement.⁶

GMC Semitech and Suzhou Cycas Microelectronics (Terminated)

GMC Semitech Co., Ltd. and Suzhou Cycas Microelectronics Co., Ltd. filed a joint breach-of-contract action on December 26, 2024, in the Northern District of California (5:24-cv-09451) before Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. The court granted CAET’s motion to dismiss on April 29, 2025.³

On May 29, 2025, CAET moved to stay the proceedings pending a determination by the Office of Foreign Assets Control, with chairperson Ryan Jacob submitting a declaration in support. The plaintiffs opposed the stay. The court ruled on the papers on August 4, 2025, referred the case to mediation on August 21, 2025, and terminated it on October 1, 2025. The docket does not specify whether the termination reflected a settlement, a post-mediation dismissal, or another resolution.³

Semiconductor Global Solutions (Active, Transferred from Texas)

This case is unusual because it names two individuals in addition to the corporate entities: Ryan Franzke Jacob and Jeffrey Scott Robbins, alongside Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC and CAE Online, LLC. Semiconductor Global Solutions filed originally in the Western District of Texas on August 14, 2024 (1:24-cv-00923) before Judge David A. Ezra.⁴

The defendants persuaded Judge Ezra to transfer the case to the Northern District of California on May 1, 2025, where it was assigned to Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. as 4:2025cv04075.⁸ In California, the defendants filed both a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay. The stay motion cited a pending OFAC determination on a license application to refund a payment to the plaintiff.⁹

Judge Gilliam denied the motion to stay on March 25, 2026.¹⁰ The motion to dismiss was taken under submission in July 2025 after the scheduled hearing was vacated, and both sides filed statements of recent decision in August 2025. The case remains pending as of early 2026.⁸

Dobest Semiconductor Technology (Jurisdictional Question)

Dobest Semiconductor Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. filed contract and fraud claims against CAET in the Northern District of California (24-cv-09045-NC). On February 18, 2025, the court ordered Dobest to show cause why the court had jurisdiction, finding that the complaint had not adequately established diversity jurisdiction or the applicability of the U.N. Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. The plaintiff was given until March 4, 2025, to respond in writing.¹¹

The Other Cases

Three more cases fill in the picture:

ISJ General Trading, LLC filed a commercial contract dispute in Santa Clara County Superior Court on October 3, 2024, over the purchase of an Oxford Plasma Pro 100 Cobra 300 ICP Etcher. The case was most recently listed as open.¹²
Regen Microscopy, S.A.S. filed a breach-of-contract action in the Northern District of California on October 17, 2025 (5:25-cv-08962), voluntarily dismissed it on November 4, 2025, and the case was terminated on November 10, 2025.¹³
Tech Semi Inc filed against CAET in Santa Clara County Superior Court on March 9, 2026. Limited details are available beyond the filing.¹²

The OFAC Thread

In both the GMC Semitech and Semiconductor Global Solutions cases, CAET asked the courts to pause proceedings while OFAC reviewed license applications. In the SGS matter, the defendants stated that the license application concerned a refund to the plaintiff.⁹ OFAC administers U.S. economic and trade sanctions programs. Several of the plaintiffs are Chinese companies, including Shanghai Tyron, GMC Semitech, Suzhou Cycas Microelectronics, and Dobest, and the used semiconductor equipment sector has drawn closer regulatory attention as U.S. export controls on advanced chip-making technology have tightened. Judge Gilliam denied the stay request in SGS in March 2026.¹⁰

What the Cases Have in Common

Almost every complaint follows the same basic shape: a buyer or counterparty claims CAET failed to perform under a contract for semiconductor equipment. The theories are predominantly breach of contract, with fraud added in Dobest. Specific pieces of equipment named across the cases include lithography machines and plasma etchers.

Venue has clustered in the Northern District of California and Santa Clara County Superior Court, matching CAET’s Santa Clara headquarters. The Semiconductor Global Solutions case, first filed in Texas, was transferred to California on the defendants’ motion. As of mid-2026, Epicrew and Semiconductor Global Solutions are actively litigated, Shanghai Tyron and GMC Semitech have concluded, Regen Microscopy was voluntarily dismissed, the Dobest and ISJ General Trading cases have uncertain current statuses, and the newly filed Tech Semi matter began in March 2026.¹²

1
Creditsafe. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC
2
CAE Online. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading
3
CourtListener. GMC Semitech Co., Ltd. v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC
4
PACER Monitor. Semiconductor Global Solutions v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC et al
5
CourtListener. Epicrew Corporation v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC
6
Jus Mundi. Shanghai Tyron v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading
7
Law360. Semiconductor Co. Eyeing $5M Award Can’t Get Asset Freeze
8
Justia Dockets. Semiconductor Global Solutions v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC et al
9
Justia. Semiconductor Global Solutions v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC et al, Order
10
Leagle. Semiconductor Global Solutions v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC et al
11
CISG Online. Dobest Semiconductor Technology (Suzhou) Co., Ltd. v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC
12
Unicourt. ISJ General Trading, LLC vs. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC
13
CourtListener. Regen Microscopy, S.A.S. v. Capital Asset Exchange and Trading, LLC