DCT

8:22-cv-00867

Iqe PLC v. Newport Fab LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 8:22-cv-00867, C.D. Cal., 10/11/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Central District of California based on a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between the parties that specifies California law and venue, as well as Defendants' business operations and the occurrence of the alleged unlawful conduct within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants misappropriated its trade secrets related to porous silicon semiconductor technology, filed patents claiming these trade secrets as their own invention, and improperly omitted Plaintiff's employees as inventors on those patents.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves using porous silicon layers in semiconductor manufacturing to improve the performance of radio frequency (RF) devices by reducing signal leakage and thermal stress.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties entered into a mutually binding NDA in 2015, under which Plaintiff disclosed proprietary technical information to Defendants between 2018 and 2020 during negotiations for a potential collaboration and exclusive supply agreement. After negotiations broke down, Defendants allegedly filed for the patents-in-suit based on the disclosed information without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-11-12 IQE and Tower enter into a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
2018-11-06 IQE begins presenting its porous silicon technology to Tower.
2019-10-09 Earliest priority date for the '740, '920, and '572 patents.
2020-02-24 IQE and Tower conclude that the planned collaboration will not proceed.
2021-04-15 Patent applications for the '740, '920, and '572 patents are published.
2021-08-12 Tower files the '712 patent application.
2021-10-12 U.S. Patent No. 11,145,572 is issued.
2021-11-02 U.S. Patent No. 11,164,740 is issued.
2021-12-02 The '712 patent application is published.
2021-12-07 U.S. Patent No. 11,195,920 is issued.
2022-10-11 First Amended Complaint is filed.

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,164,740 - "Semiconductor Structure Having Porous Semiconductor Layer for RF Devices," issued November 2, 2021 (’740 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional semiconductor-on-insulator (SOI) structures, used for high-performance radio frequency (RF) devices, suffer from drawbacks. These include signal loss from capacitive loading due to the high dielectric constant of the silicon substrate and the manufacturing expense and complexity of specialized SOI wafers (Compl. ¶27; ’740 Patent, col. 1:12-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a semiconductor structure that replaces the specialized SOI substrate with a standard substrate having a "porous semiconductor layer" formed upon it. A crystalline epitaxial layer is then grown on top of this porous layer, and RF devices (like transistors) are built within the epitaxial layer. The porous layer's key feature is its low dielectric constant, which electrically isolates the RF device from the substrate, reducing signal leakage and capacitive effects (’740 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:28-34).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to achieve the high-isolation performance of expensive SOI structures while using more conventional, lower-cost silicon wafers and manufacturing processes (Compl. ¶27).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint identifies claims 1 and 8 as representative (Compl. ¶104).

  • Independent Claim 1: A semiconductor structure comprising:
    • a substrate having a first dielectric constant;
    • a porous semiconductor layer situated over said substrate;
    • at least one crystalline epitaxial layer situated directly on said porous semiconductor layer;
    • a first semiconductor device situated in said at least one crystalline epitaxial layer;
    • said porous semiconductor layer having a second dielectric constant that is substantially less than said first dielectric constant such that it reduces signal leakage.
  • Independent Claim 8: A semiconductor structure comprising:
    • a porous silicon layer;
    • at least one crystalline epitaxial layer situated directly on said porous silicon layer;
    • first and second transistors situated in said at least one crystalline epitaxial layer;
    • an electrical isolation region separating said first and second transistors.

U.S. Patent No. 11,195,920 - "Semiconductor Structure Having Porous Semiconductor Segment for RF Devices and Bulk Semiconductor Region for Non-RF Devices," issued December 7, 2021 (’920 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In addition to the signal leakage issues described in the ’740 Patent, fabricating complex systems-on-a-chip requires integrating high-performance RF components with standard logic or power components. Using a single substrate type for both can compromise performance, as RF devices need high resistivity for isolation while other devices may not (’920 Patent, col. 1:21-49).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention claims a hybrid structure where a porous semiconductor "segment" is created in one area of the substrate, while another area remains a standard bulk semiconductor region. A single crystalline epitaxial layer is grown over both regions. High-frequency RF devices are then built over the isolating porous segment, while other devices (e.g., non-RF logic) are built over the standard bulk region, optimizing the substrate for each device type on a single die (’920 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:32-47).
  • Technical Importance: This "localized" approach allows for the monolithic integration of diverse device types on a single chip without compromising the performance of the sensitive RF components, a key goal in modern wireless system design (Compl. ¶47-48).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint references claims 1 and 8 (Compl. ¶46).

  • Independent Claim 1: A semiconductor structure comprising:
    • a porous semiconductor segment adjacent to a first region of a substrate;
    • at least one crystalline epitaxial layer situated over both the porous segment and the first region;
    • a first semiconductor device situated over the porous segment;
    • a second semiconductor device situated over the first region of the substrate;
    • the porous segment having a lower dielectric constant than the first region of the substrate to reduce signal leakage from the first device.
  • Independent Claim 8: A semiconductor structure comprising:
    • a porous silicon segment adjacent to a first region of a bulk silicon substrate;
    • at least one crystalline epitaxial layer over both;
    • a first transistor over the porous silicon segment;
    • a second transistor over the first region of the bulk silicon substrate;
    • an electrical isolation region separating the transistors.

U.S. Patent No. 11,145,572 - "Semiconductor Structure Having Through-Substrate Via (TSV) in Porous Semiconductor Region," issued October 12, 2021 (’572 Patent)

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the mechanical and thermal stress experienced by through-substrate vias (TSVs), which are vertical electrical connections critical for 3D integrated circuits. The invention proposes embedding the TSV within a porous semiconductor region, which is more deformable and has a more compatible coefficient of thermal expansion than bulk silicon, thereby acting as a stress buffer and improving reliability (’572 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:22-44).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint cites claims 1 and 13 as relevant to its allegations (Compl. ¶52).
  • Disputed Technology: The complaint alleges this invention was derived from IQE’s disclosures and discussions regarding the mechanical properties of porous silicon, including its "[m]echanical strength" and "large TCE mismatch" compared to crystalline silicon (Compl. ¶¶51, 54).

III. The Disputed Intellectual Property

  • Property Identification: The disputed intellectual property consists of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,164,740, 11,195,920, and 11,145,572, as well as U.S. Patent Application No. 17/400,712.
  • Alleged Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that these patents and the application function as instruments to misappropriate and control Plaintiff's proprietary technology (Compl. ¶¶63, 73). Plaintiff claims that by securing patent rights on technology IQE developed, Tower has created a "pronounced chilling effect on IQE’s ability to market its technology to other customers" and may prevent IQE from practicing its own inventions without facing a potential infringement suit from Tower (Compl. ¶76). The patents are thus positioned not as products, but as legal instruments allegedly derived from misappropriated trade secrets to gain an unfair market advantage (Compl. ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Misappropriation and Inventorship Allegations

'740 Patent Misappropriation Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Origin of Claimed Technology (per Complaint) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a porous semiconductor layer situated over said substrate IQE's core proprietary porous silicon technology, which it presented to Tower in confidential meetings. The complaint provides a micrograph of this technology (Confidential Exhibit 6, Pg. 9) as evidence of the disclosure. ¶44 col. 4:13-33
at least one crystalline epitaxial layer situated directly on said porous semiconductor layer IQE's disclosed technology for "epitaxy on porous silicon," illustrated in a confidential presentation diagram showing a "Group IV epi" layer on "porous Si" (Confidential Exhibit 7, Pg. 11). ¶44 col. 4:54-67
a first semiconductor device situated in said at least one crystalline epitaxial layer IQE's disclosures concerning "applications for RF devices" using its porous silicon platform. ¶44 col. 5:11-13
said porous semiconductor layer having a second dielectric constant that is substantially less than said first dielectric constant... The fundamental principle and advantage of IQE's technology, which was allegedly communicated to Tower as a means to suppress the "RF fringing field" and reduce signal leakage, as shown in an "IQE Solution" diagram. ¶44, ¶48 col. 7:1-12

'920 Patent Misappropriation Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Origin of Claimed Technology (per Complaint) Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a porous semiconductor segment adjacent to a first region of a substrate IQE's alleged proposal for a "[l]ocalized porous demonstrator" to create distinct porous and non-porous areas, which forms the basis of the claimed hybrid structure for localized RF devices. ¶47, ¶106 col. 4:32-47
a first semiconductor device situated in said at least one crystalline epitaxial layer over said porous semiconductor segment The placement of an RF device (e.g., transistor for an RF switch) over the isolating porous region, a concept IQE alleges it disclosed as a key application of its technology. ¶47 col. 7:42-45
a second semiconductor device situated in said at least one crystalline epitaxial layer over said first region of said substrate... The integration of non-RF devices on the bulk silicon portion of the substrate, which the complaint frames as part of the overall collaborative concept devised by IQE for integrating localized RF devices with other components. ¶47 col. 8:1-4

Identified Points of Contention

  • Inventorship Questions: The central legal and factual dispute appears to be one of conception. The case raises the question of whether the named inventors listed on the patents conceived of the claimed subject matter independently or if their work was entirely derived from the technical information, data, and proposals provided by IQE's employees (Richard Hammond, Rodney Pelzel, and Andrew Clark) (Compl. ¶¶109, 111, 116). The court may need to determine if Tower's employees made any contribution that was itself inventive.
  • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question may be the specificity of disclosure. The analysis may focus on whether the information IQE alleges it disclosed was sufficiently detailed and enabling to constitute a complete conception of the specific structures and combinations recited in the patent claims (e.g., the localized segment structure of the ’920 Patent), or if it was more general information from which Tower's employees independently conceived the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶¶47, 107).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

While claim construction is not the primary focus in an inventorship and trade secret dispute, the definition of certain terms may be relevant to establishing the scope of what was allegedly conceived and misappropriated.

  • The Term: "porous semiconductor segment adjacent to a first region of a substrate" (’920 Patent, Claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural innovation of the ’920 Patent—the localized, hybrid substrate. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff alleges that the idea of a "localized porous demonstrator" was its specific contribution (Compl. ¶47). The dispute may hinge on whether IQE's alleged disclosure was a complete conception of this specific adjacent arrangement or a more general idea of patterning porous silicon.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the segment as being formed by applying a hardmask and then using techniques like electrochemical etching, which could suggest that any method of creating a laterally distinct porous region next to a non-porous one is covered (’920 Patent, col. 4:51-70).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures and embodiments show a distinct, sharply-defined porous segment situated next to a bulk silicon region, over which a single, continuous epitaxial layer is grown (e.g., ’920 Patent, Fig. 3A). This might suggest the claim requires this specific integrated structure, not just any two adjacent regions.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Trade Secret Misappropriation: This is a primary count (Counts I and II). The complaint alleges that Tower acquired IQE's trade secrets—its porous silicon technology, manufacturing methods, and performance data—under a duty of confidentiality established by the 2015 NDA, and subsequently used and disclosed those secrets by filing patent applications without authorization (Compl. ¶¶70-71, 89-90).
  • Correction of Inventorship: This is also a primary count (Count III). The complaint alleges that IQE's employees are the true and sole inventors of the subject matter claimed in the patents-in-suit and that the named inventors from Tower should be removed and the IQE employees added pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 256 (Compl. ¶¶111, 116).
  • Willful Misappropriation: The complaint alleges that Tower’s misappropriation of trade secrets was "willful and malicious," which, if proven, could support an award of exemplary damages and attorney's fees under federal and state trade secret laws (Compl. ¶¶81, 99).

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

This case appears to center on the alleged conversion of confidential disclosures made during business negotiations into another party's patented intellectual property. The resolution will likely depend on the evidence presented to answer three central questions:

  • A core issue will be one of conception and inventorship: What evidence will establish whether the complete and operative inventions claimed in the patents were conceived by IQE's employees before being disclosed, or if Tower's named personnel made a distinct, inventive contribution that justifies their status as inventors?
  • A second key question will be the provenance of the technology: Can the plaintiff draw a definitive evidentiary line from the specific technical information it disclosed under the NDA to the specific limitations recited in the defendants’ patent claims, sufficient to prove derivation and misappropriation?
  • Finally, the dispute may involve an issue of contractual interpretation: Did the parties' Non-Disclosure Agreement prohibit the use of disclosed information for filing patents on related developments, and does the act of filing the patents-in-suit, in itself, constitute a breach of that agreement?