DCT
2:23-cv-02294
Laser Spallation Tech LLC v. Boeing Co
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Laser Spallation Technologies, LLC (California)
- Defendant: The Boeing Company (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear, LLP; Sughrue Mion, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:23-cv-02294, C.D. Cal., 06/30/2023
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant’s established places of business within the Central District of California and alleged acts of infringement occurring in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s methods and tools for testing the bond strength of composite materials in its aircraft infringe a patent related to using glass-modified stress waves for material analysis.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns non-destructive testing of adhesion in thin films and composite material interfaces, a critical process for ensuring structural integrity in high-performance aerospace applications.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology, citing a 2003 communication with the inventor regarding related work and a November 2021 presentation to Defendant’s personnel where methods described in the patent-in-suit were discussed.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-05-01 | Boeing representative allegedly emails inventor about related patent |
| 2004-03-05 | ’684 Patent Priority Date |
| 2009-02-10 | ’684 Patent Issue Date |
| 2021-11-22 | Inventor allegedly presents methods to Boeing personnel |
| 2023-06-30 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,487,684, “Glass-Modified Stress Waves for Separation of Ultra Thin Films and Nanoelectronics Device Fabrication,” issued February 10, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in prior art laser-based adhesion testing (laser spallation), where testing very thin films (< 0.5 µm) was difficult. The long duration of the laser-generated stress pulse would cause destructive interference, leading to failure within the substrate material itself rather than cleanly measuring the adhesion strength at the intended film-substrate interface (’684 Patent, col. 2:36-45, col. 8:7-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a "glass element" bonded to the back of the substrate being tested. A high-energy laser pulse is directed at the assembly, generating a compressive stress wave. The presence of the glass element is described as modifying this wave into a profile with a sharp post-peak decay, termed a "rarefaction shock" (’684 Patent, col. 8:46-49). This modified, shorter-duration wave reflects as a clean tensile pulse, allowing for precise measurement of interface adhesion even in ultra-thin films without damaging the underlying substrate (’684 Patent, Abstract; col. 9:11-20).
- Technical Importance: This method provided a way to extend reliable, non-destructive adhesion testing to the nanoscale, which was becoming critical for the development of microelectronics, MEMS, and advanced composite materials (’684 Patent, col. 2:39-45).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (apparatus) and 13 (method) (’684 Patent, Compl. ¶14).
- Independent Claim 1 (Apparatus):
- a substrate having a thickness defined by a first side and a second side
- a coating applied to the first side of the substrate to form a coating/substrate interface
- a glass element disposed on the second side of the substrate
- wherein the glass element is configured to propagate and modify a stress wave to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile stress
- Independent Claim 13 (Method):
- positioning a glass element on the second side of a substrate
- directing a laser pulse at the glass element
- propagating and modifying a stress wave through the glass element to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile force
- separating the coating from the substrate as a result of the force
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are the methods and apparatuses used by Boeing to test composite substrates, including the use of a Laser Bond Inspection (LBI) tool developed by LSP Technologies, Inc. (Compl. ¶¶9, 18, 22).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges Boeing uses the accused LBI tool and associated methods to test the integrity of epoxy-bonded joints in composite structures, both as-manufactured and during in-service inspections (Compl. ¶¶20, 21). These tests are performed on aircraft components, including those for the 737, 777x, and 787 models, where composites make up a significant portion of the airframe (Compl. ¶¶18, 19). An infographic from a Boeing publication, included in the complaint, illustrates that advanced composites constitute 50% of the 787 airframe (Compl. ¶19, p. 5).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’684 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substrate having a thickness, said thickness defined by a first side and a second side in a first axis | The composite parts used in Boeing aircraft, such as composite wings, which are bonded together (Compl. ¶¶18, 19). | ¶18, ¶24 | col. 14:36-38 |
| a coating applied to the first side of the substrate such that the coating and substrate are axially spaced... to form a coating/substrate interface | An epoxy coating (e.g., HYSOL EA 9394) used to join composite substrates, forming interfaces on each side of the coating (Compl. ¶¶19, 24). A diagram in the complaint shows two composite substrates bonded by an epoxy coating layer, with "Planar Interface 1" and "planar interface2" identified (Compl. ¶24, p. 6). | ¶19, ¶24 | col. 14:39-43 |
| a glass element disposed on the second side of the substrate and axially spaced along the first axis | The complaint alleges several alternative components fulfill this element, including: a glass window on the LBI tool itself, a "glass composite epoxy" used for joints, glass fibers within composite laminates, or an EMAT sensor tape (Compl. ¶¶25, 29, 30). A screenshot from the LBI tool provider's website, included in the complaint, shows a part labeled "Glass Element" through which a laser is directed at the test article (Compl. ¶25, p. 7). | ¶25, ¶29, ¶30 | col. 14:44-46 |
| wherein the glass element is configured to propagate and modify a stress wave to the coating/substrate interface to generate a tensile stress | The complaint alleges that when the glass element is placed in the vicinity of stress wave generation, it "shapes the profile of the compression stress wave," which reflects to generate a tensile force that separates the coating from the substrate (Compl. ¶¶32, 33). A photo in the complaint depicts the LBI tool head directing a laser pulse, indicated by a red line, through its window toward the test sample (Compl. ¶31, p. 9). | ¶31, ¶32, ¶33 | col. 14:47-51 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute may be the definition of "glass element." The complaint offers multiple, distinct infringing components (a tool window, the epoxy itself, composite fibers, sensor tape). This raises the question of whether any of these components, which may serve other primary functions, can be considered a "glass element" within the meaning of the claims.
- Technical Questions: The patent's core innovation is the modification of a stress wave to create a "rarefaction shock." A key technical question will be whether the plaintiff can provide evidence that the accused LBI process, regardless of which component is deemed the "glass element," actually generates this specific physical phenomenon, or if it merely involves a laser passing through a transparent material without achieving the claimed wave-shaping function.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "glass element"
- Context and Importance: The plaintiff's infringement case rests on identifying a "glass element" in Boeing's testing process. The complaint's multiple alternative theories for what constitutes this element (e.g., a tool window, the epoxy, sensor tape) suggest its scope is a primary point of dispute. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction could either limit the claim to the specific scientific setup described in the patent or broaden it to cover more conventional uses of glass components in laser-based tools.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "glass element may comprise Pyrex, soda lime, quartz, borosilicate or similar material" (’684 Patent, col. 3:18-20). Claim 8 also recites this list. This language could support an interpretation that the term encompasses a range of glass-like materials, not just a specific type or configuration.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent repeatedly links the "glass element" to the function of creating a "rarefaction shock" to solve the problems of prior art (’684 Patent, col. 8:46-52). A defendant could argue that a component is only a "glass element" under the patent if it is configured and used in a way that is proven to produce this specific wave modification, as opposed to simply being a piece of glass present in the system. The abstract and detailed description emphasize its role in modifying the stress wave, not just being transparent to it.
VI. Other Allegations
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patented technology. The facts alleged to support this include an email exchange in 2003 between a Boeing employee and the inventor regarding related technology, allegations that Boeing monitors patents in the laser testing field, and a presentation made by the inventor to Boeing personnel on November 22, 2021, where the methods of the ’684 patent were allegedly discussed (Compl. ¶¶36-38).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "glass element," which in the patent is described as a component specifically configured to modify a stress wave, be construed to cover general-purpose components in the accused system, such as a tool's protective window, the bonding epoxy, or sensor tape?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional operation: does the accused Laser Bond Inspection (LBI) process "modify" a stress wave to create the specific "rarefaction shock" that is central to the patented invention, or is there a fundamental mismatch in the underlying physical principles of operation? The case may turn on whether the plaintiff can prove not only the presence of a "glass element" but also that it performs the claim's specific wave-shaping function.