DCT
2:15-cv-07987
Headway Tech Inc v. Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Headway Technologies, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Morrison & Foerster LLP
- Case Identification: 2:15-cv-07987, C.D. Cal., 10/09/2015
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Headway Technologies alleges venue is proper because Defendant Lambeth is subject to personal jurisdiction in the district, having previously brought suit in the district for infringement of the same patent and engaged in patent licensing and settlement negotiations with a company in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its recording heads for hard disk drives do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to magnetic material structures.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns the atomic-level structure of magnetic thin films used in high-performance hard drive recording heads to control their magnetic properties for data storage.
- Key Procedural History: This declaratory judgment action arises from a prior lawsuit, Lambeth v. Toshiba, in which Lambeth accused Toshiba hard drives of infringement. Headway, a supplier of recording heads to Toshiba, claims Lambeth’s infringement contentions in that case created a reasonable apprehension of a lawsuit against Headway. Concurrently, Headway’s parent company, TDK Corporation, filed a petition for inter partes review (IPR) challenging the patentability of numerous claims of the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-08-29 | ’988 Patent Priority Date (Provisional App. 60/315,920) |
| 2006-10-31 | ’988 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-05-29 | Prior litigation filed by Lambeth Systems (Lambeth v. Acacia) |
| 2014-11-06 | Prior litigation filed by Lambeth (Lambeth v. Toshiba) |
| 2015-08-24 | Lambeth serves non-party subpoena on Headway in Toshiba case |
| 2015-09-03 | Lambeth serves Infringement Contentions in Toshiba case |
| 2015-10-05 | TDK (Headway's parent) files IPR petition against ’988 Patent |
| 2015-10-09 | Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988 - Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988, "Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods," issued October 31, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the difficulty in manufacturing magnetic thin films with a single, preferred magnetic orientation, known as "uniaxial anisotropy." (’988 Patent, col. 1:47-51). Without this precise control, magnetic devices can suffer from performance issues like data loss (hysteresis) and noise, and achieving a desired linear or non-linear response for applications like sensors or signal mixers is difficult. (’988 Patent, col. 2:24-31, col. 3:26-34).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for creating uniaxial anisotropy by carefully layering different crystalline materials. The core concept involves epitaxially growing a magnetic material with a body-centered cubic (bcc) crystal structure on top of a "hexagonal atomic template" layer. (’988 Patent, col. 13:48-61). By using a "symmetry breaking mechanism" during this growth process, such as depositing the material at a specific angle, the resulting bcc layer is engineered to have a specific, non-symmetrical arrangement of its crystal variants, which in turn produces the desired single-axis magnetic property. (’988 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:28-44).
- Technical Importance: This approach provided a new mechanism for engineering the magnetic properties of thin films at a fundamental level, potentially enabling higher performance and lower loss in a wide range of magnetic devices, from data storage to electronic sensors. (’988 Patent, col. 13:4-14).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of all claims. (’988 Patent, col. 45:1-46:65). Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Independent Claim 1:
- a substrate;
- at least one bcc-d layer which is magnetic, forming a uniaxial symmetry broken structure; and
- at least one layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template disposed between said substrate and said bcc-d layer.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to address dependent claims, but seeks a judgment covering all claims. (Compl. ¶1).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are recording heads designed and manufactured by Headway. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 24). These heads are supplied as wafer chips to third parties like SAE Magnetics, which integrates them into head gimbal assemblies for use in Toshiba hard disk drives, including models MK3253GSX, MK5065GSX, and others. (Compl. ¶24, citing Ex. D).
Functionality and Market Context
- The recording heads are critical components in hard disk drives responsible for writing and reading data. The complaint alleges that Lambeth’s infringement theory in the related Toshiba case focuses on the material composition of these heads, specifically alleging that they contain "a substrate and a (111) textured hexagonal template," which are features recited in the ’988 Patent’s claims. (Compl. ¶24).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint is for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and does not contain its own infringement claim chart. The analysis below summarizes Lambeth's alleged infringement theory, as described in the complaint, which is based on Lambeth's infringement contentions served in a separate litigation against Headway's customer, Toshiba. (Compl. ¶¶ 23-24).
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’988 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substrate | Headway's recording heads comprise a substrate. | ¶24 | col. 13:52 |
| at least one layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template disposed between said substrate and said bcc-d layer | Lambeth alleges the accused recording heads include material comprising a "(111) textured hexagonal template." | ¶24 | col. 13:52-56 |
| at least one bcc-d layer which is magnetic, forming a uniaxial symmetry broken structure | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this element, though it is the central inventive concept. | col. 13:50-52 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Technical Questions: A central factual question will be whether the materials and manufacturing processes used by Headway for its recording heads result in the specific crystalline structure claimed in the patent. Does Headway's product contain a magnetic layer that meets the definition of a "uniaxial symmetry broken structure" created through the specific epitaxial growth methods described in the patent?
- Scope Questions: The dispute will likely focus on the proper construction of the term "uniaxial symmetry broken structure." The patent describes this as a specific arrangement of six possible crystal variants where a subset dominates due to a "symmetry breaking mechanism" like angled deposition. (’988 Patent, col. 24:30-44). The court will have to determine if this term is limited to structures created by the patent's disclosed methods or if it can be read more broadly to cover any magnetic material that exhibits uniaxial properties, regardless of its underlying atomic structure or manufacturing process.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "uniaxial symmetry broken structure"
- Context and Importance: This term is the core of the invention and appears in the main independent claim. Its definition will be dispositive. The case hinges on whether Headway’s recording heads, as a matter of fact, possess this specific type of structure. Practitioners may focus on this term because the patent appears to define it not merely by its resulting magnetic property (uniaxial anisotropy) but by its specific underlying physical cause (an imbalanced set of epitaxially grown crystal variants).
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties have not yet advanced arguments. However, a party might argue that the term should be given its plain meaning, referring to any structure whose symmetry is broken in a way that results in a single magnetic axis.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly defines the concept in detail, stating a "crystallographically 'symmetry broken' material is defined to exist when individual, variant sets do not contain an equal amount of all six of the (110) textured bcc-d variants." (’988 Patent, col. 24:36-40). The patent also introduces the "symmetry breaking mechanism" as the process for creating this structure, tying the claim term to a specific physical phenomenon and method of creation. (’988 Patent, col. 24:40-44).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: Headway asserts that it does not indirectly infringe any claim of the ’988 patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. (Compl. ¶30).
- Willful Infringement: Headway seeks a declaration that it has not willfully infringed any claim. (Compl. ¶31; Prayer for Relief ¶1). The complaint does not allege a basis for pre- or post-suit knowledge beyond the facts giving rise to the declaratory judgment action itself (i.e., Lambeth's accusations in the Toshiba case).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- Claim Construction: The central issue will be one of definitional scope: how will the court construe the term "uniaxial symmetry broken structure"? Will it be limited to the specific, multi-variant crystalline arrangement created by the "symmetry breaking mechanism" detailed in the patent, or can it encompass other materials that achieve a similar magnetic result through different means?
- Evidentiary Proof: A key factual question will be one of material science: what is the actual atomic-level structure of Headway's accused recording heads? The outcome will depend heavily on competing expert testimony and physical analysis of the accused products to determine if they meet the construed definition of the key claim term.
- External Proceedings: The case exists in the shadow of the concurrent IPR proceeding filed by Headway's parent company. A finding of invalidity by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could render this entire litigation moot, a factor that may influence the court to stay the case pending the IPR's resolution. (Compl. ¶3, fn. 2).