Max BLU Tech LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corp

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Max Blu Technologies, LLC (Texas)
  • Defendant: CMC Magnetics Corp. (Taiwan) and Hotan Corp. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Insight, PLC; Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC
• Case Identification: 2:17-cv-08680, C.D. Cal., 12/01/2017
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant Hotan Corp., a subsidiary of *Max BLU Tech LLC v. CMC Magnetics Corp*., is a California corporation that resides and regularly conducts business in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Blu-ray™ recordable media infringes four patents related to a "reverse optical mastering" manufacturing process for high-density optical storage disks.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for manufacturing optical discs, like Blu-ray™ discs, by creating a surface pattern of microscopic lands and grooves with specific dimensions that allow for both high-capacity data storage and reliable tracking.
• Key Procedural History: The four patents-in-suit belong to a single, large patent family stemming from a 1998 priority application. The family's prosecution history includes continuation, divisional, and continuation-in-part applications, as well as a reissued patent (the '633 Patent) and a certificate of correction for the '685 Patent. This complex history may be relevant to claim construction and validity analyses.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
1998-04-06	Earliest priority date for all patents-in-suit
2008-04-01	U.S. Patent No. 7,352,685 issues
2010-02-16	Certificate of Correction for '685 Patent issues
2010-09-21	U.S. Patent No. 7,801,016 issues
2013-11-26	U.S. Patent No. 8,593,931 issues
2013-12-10	U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,633 issues
2017-12-01	Complaint filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 7,352,685 - “Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in conventional optical disk manufacturing where creating deep grooves (needed for reliable laser tracking) inherently results in narrow and rounded "lands" (the areas between grooves where data is stored). This trade-off limits the data density of optical disks, especially for formats where the tracks are very close together ('685 Patent, col. 3:1-29).
• The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a "reverse" mastering process. A photosensitive layer on a master disk is exposed and developed so that the grooves are etched completely down to the flat, smooth master substrate ('685 Patent, Abstract). This creates a master with wide, flat-bottomed grooves. When this master is used in a multi-generation "inverse stamping" process, the resulting replica disk has the opposite geometry: wide, flat-topped lands and deep grooves, thus decoupling the traditional trade-off between land width and groove depth ('685 Patent, FIG. 19; col. 7:29-44).
• Technical Importance: This method enables the production of high-density optical media with both wide, flat lands suitable for reliable data recording and deep grooves for accurate tracking, overcoming a key limitation of prior art manufacturing techniques ('685 Patent, col. 2:50-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶27).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A replica disk made from a replication process that includes creating a master disk, a first-generation stamper, and a second-generation stamper.
  • The replica disk has a substrate with a surface relief pattern of adjacent lands and grooves.
  • The surface pattern has a track pitch less than 425 nanometers.
  • The land tops are wider than the groove bottoms.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9, 10, and 19-35 (Compl. ¶27).

U.S. Patent No. 7,801,016 - “Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas”

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation in the same family, the '016 Patent addresses the same issue as the '685 Patent: the difficulty in conventional mastering of simultaneously achieving wide lands for data storage and deep grooves for tracking on high-density optical media ('016 Patent, col. 2:50-3:14).
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same "reverse optical mastering" process, where grooves are formed down to the master substrate to create a specific, desired geometry on the final replica disk after an inverse stamping process. The claims of the '016 Patent, however, focus on different specific dimensional relationships of the final product ('016 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:34-44).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides an alternative set of specific, claimed dimensions for a high-density replica disk that enables high performance, manufactured using the family's core reverse-mastering technique ('016 Patent, col. 2:50-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, among others (Compl. ¶35).
• The essential elements of independent Claim 1 include:
  • A replica disk with a substrate having a surface pattern defined by lands and interrupted grooves.
  • The surface pattern defines a track pitch that is less than 425 nanometers.
  • The tops of the lands define widths between 25 percent of the track pitch and 140 nanometers.
  • The grooves define depths between 20 and 120 nanometers.
• The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent Claim 2 (Compl. ¶35).

U.S. Patent No. 8,593,931 - “Replica Disk for Data Storage”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,593,931, “Replica Disk for Data Storage,” issued November 26, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same patent family, the '931 Patent claims a replica optical disk with a specific set of structural and dimensional characteristics. These characteristics, including defined ranges for track pitch, land widths, and groove depths, are designed to enable high-density data storage and are achievable through the reverse mastering process taught in the parent applications ('931 Patent, Abstract; Background).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶43).
• Accused Features: The physical characteristics of the accused Blu-ray™ media, including the track pitch and the dimensions of the lands and grooves (Compl. ¶43).

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,633 - “Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas”

• Patent Identification: U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE44,633, “Reverse Optical Mastering for Data Storage Disk Replicas,” issued December 10, 2013.
• Technology Synopsis: This patent is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 7,952,986 from the same family. It describes and claims replica disks produced via the family's core reverse optical mastering technique, which allows for independent control over land width and groove depth. The claims define a replica disk with specific surface features and dimensions tailored for high-density storage ('633 Patent, Abstract; Background of the Invention).
• Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶51).
• Accused Features: The physical characteristics and dimensions of the surface relief pattern on the accused Blu-ray™ media (Compl. ¶51).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused products are "Blu-ray™ recordable media" that Defendant manufactures, sells, advertises, or otherwise provides, including under the "Philips" brand (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 22). A representative image of the product packaging is provided in the complaint as Exhibit F (Compl. ¶19).

Functionality and Market Context

The products are optical discs intended for data recording by end-users (Compl. ¶¶18, 28). The complaint alleges these discs possess a specific physical surface structure of lands and grooves with dimensions that fall within the scope of the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶27). The allegations concerning the physical structure are based on a technical "analysis of a Blu-ray™ recordable disc," which is referenced as Exhibit G (Compl. ¶20). The complaint alleges these products are sold through various retailers and on Defendant's websites (Compl. ¶¶ 10, 21). The complaint includes a picture of representative packaging for the accused products (Compl. ¶19, Ex. F).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the physical characteristics of the Accused Products infringe the asserted claims, based on an analysis contained in Exhibit G (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 27, 35). The specific allegations for the lead independent claims are summarized below.

'685 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A replica disk made from a replication process that includes ... creation of a second-generation stamper from the first-generation stamper...	The complaint alleges the Accused Products possess the physical characteristics claimed, which are the result of the recited manufacturing process.	¶27	col. 11:6-23
...a replica substrate having a first major surface ... including a surface relief pattern defined by adjacent lands and grooves...	The Accused Products are optical discs with a surface relief pattern of lands and grooves.	¶27	col. 8:1-6
...the surface relief pattern having a track pitch less than 425 nanometers...	The Accused Products allegedly have a track pitch less than 425 nanometers, as shown by the analysis in Exhibit G.	¶¶20, 27	col. 7:32-35
...wherein the land tops are wider than the groove bottoms.	The Accused Products allegedly possess land tops that are wider than their groove bottoms, as shown by the analysis in Exhibit G.	¶¶20, 27	col. 5:39-41

'016 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A replica disk comprising: a replica substrate including a first major surface ... including a surface pattern defined by lands and interrupted grooves...	The Accused Products are optical discs with a surface pattern of lands and grooves, which are "interrupted" when data is recorded.	¶35	col. 2:40-43
...wherein the surface pattern defines a track pitch that is less than 425 nanometers...	The Accused Products allegedly have a track pitch less than 425 nanometers, as detailed in the analysis in Exhibit G.	¶¶20, 35	col. 6:60-61
...wherein tops of the lands define widths between 25 percent of the track pitch and 140 nanometers...	The Accused Products allegedly have land top widths that fall within this specified dimensional range.	¶¶20, 35	col. 14:10-12
...and wherein the grooves define depths between 20 and 120 nanometers.	The Accused Products allegedly have groove depths that fall within this specified dimensional range.	¶¶20, 35	col. 8:14-16

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The '685 Patent's Claim 1 is a product-by-process claim, reciting a disk "made from a replication process" involving multiple stamper generations. A central legal issue may be whether Plaintiff must prove Defendant actually used this specific process, or if infringement can be established by showing the accused disk has a structure that could only be produced by that process.
• Technical Questions: The infringement case for all patents appears to rest heavily on the measurements and analysis contained in Exhibit G, which is not attached to the public complaint. A key point of contention will be the accuracy and methodology of this analysis. The defense may challenge whether the accused discs' physical dimensions (track pitch, land/groove width and depth) actually meet the specific nanometer-level limitations of the claims.
• Scope Questions: For the '016 Patent, the term "interrupted grooves" raises a question of timing. Does a blank recordable disc, which may only feature a continuous pre-groove for tracking, meet this limitation, or are the grooves only "interrupted" after an end-user records data? This may impact whether the primary theory is direct or indirect infringement.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• Term: "land tops are wider than the groove bottoms" ('685 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This geometric relationship is a central feature of the invention, distinguishing it from conventional methods that often produced wider grooves than lands. Infringement of Claim 1 hinges on whether the accused discs exhibit this specific structure.
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification repeatedly emphasizes the goal of creating "wide, flat lands" to improve data storage capacity, suggesting the term should be interpreted simply by its geometric meaning ('685 Patent, col. 2:51).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification teaches that this structure is a direct result of forming the master grooves down to the flat master substrate ('685 Patent, col. 4:54-65). A party might argue the term implies a degree of flatness and corner sharpness for the land tops that is characteristic of this specific manufacturing method.

• Term: "interrupted grooves" ('016 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is critical for determining when infringement occurs. The accused products are "recordable media" (Compl. ¶18). Practitioners may focus on whether a blank, unrecorded disc satisfies this limitation, or if infringement only happens post-sale once a user records data, thereby creating the "interruptions."
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification equates "interrupted grooves" with "pits," a standard feature in optical media for encoding data ('016 Patent, col. 2:42-43). Plaintiff may argue that a disc designed and sold for the express purpose of having its grooves interrupted meets the claim.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant could argue that a blank disc has continuous, uninterrupted pre-grooves for tracking guidance. On this view, the "interrupted grooves" are not formed until an end-user records data, which would suggest a theory of indirect infringement (inducement) rather than direct infringement by the manufacturer.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement by "its intentional acts which have successfully, among other things, encouraged, instructed, enabled, and otherwise caused Defendant's customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner" (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 28, 36). The factual basis cited includes Defendant's marketing of the products under the "Blu-ray™" brand and providing instructions for their use (Compl. p. 7:1-9).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant has knowledge of the patents-in-suit "as early as the date of service of the Original Complaint in this action" and continues to infringe despite this knowledge (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 28, 36). This forms a basis for post-filing willful infringement. The prayer for relief requests a declaration that the case is "exceptional" and an award of attorneys' fees, which is consistent with an allegation of willful infringement (Compl. ¶57.E).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

The resolution of this dispute will likely depend on the court's determination of the following open questions:

• A central evidentiary question will be one of metrology: Does a verifiable, scientific analysis of the accused Blu-ray™ discs confirm that their physical structures—specifically the track pitch, land-to-groove width ratios, and groove depths—fall within the precise numerical limitations recited in the asserted claims?
• A key legal question will be one of process versus product: For the product-by-process claims, must the Plaintiff prove that Defendant used the specific multi-generation stamping method described in the patents, or is it sufficient to show that the final product's unique geometry can only be achieved by that claimed process?
• A core issue of claim scope will be one of timing: Can a blank, recordable optical disc be found to infringe claims requiring "interrupted grooves," or does this limitation require the presence of user-recorded data, thereby shifting the focus of the dispute from direct to indirect infringement?