DCT

3:18-cv-05592

ASML Netherlands BV v. Nikon Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-05592, N.D. Cal., 09/12/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of California because two Nikon defendants are incorporated in California with their principal places of business in the district, and because Nikon is alleged to have a regular and established place of business in the district where it makes, uses, sells, or imports the accused systems.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s immersion lithography systems infringe patents related to force compensation for liquid supply systems, predictive and application-specific aberration control, and thermal management via heaters.
  • Technical Context: Immersion lithography is a foundational technology for manufacturing advanced semiconductors, using a liquid between the projection lens and the wafer to enable the printing of smaller circuit features.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that the parties entered into a patent cross-license agreement in 2004, which is no longer in effect. It also notes prior patent litigation between the parties in the same district in 2001 and 2002. This history is presented to support allegations of pre-suit knowledge.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-04-02 ’283 Patent Priority Date
2004-07-08 ’264 Patent Priority Date
2004-08-13 ’880 Patent Priority Date
2004-XX-XX Nikon and ASML enter patent cross-license agreement
2007-11-13 ’283 Patent Issue Date
2008-07-22 ’264 Patent Issue Date
2012-01-XX Accused Nikon NSR-S621D released
2015-11-17 ’880 Patent Issue Date
2018-09-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,295,283 - “Lithographic Apparatus and Device Manufacturing Method,” issued Nov. 13, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In localized immersion lithography, the liquid supply system that maintains a layer of liquid between the lens and the wafer can exert disturbance forces on the wafer substrate (Compl. ¶39; ’283 Patent, col. 2:35-42). These forces, arising from sources like gravity acting on the liquid handler or pressure variations in the liquid, can minutely displace the substrate, degrading the precision required for semiconductor manufacturing (’283 Patent, col. 2:35-48).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an active compensation system. It features a "compensation controller" that determines the disturbance force applied to the substrate by the liquid supply system and then directs an "actuator" to apply a counter-force that is "substantially equal in magnitude and substantially opposite in direction" (’283 Patent, col. 2:26-34). This active cancellation is designed to neutralize the disturbance forces, thereby maintaining the substrate’s positional stability and imaging accuracy (’283 Patent, Fig. 6; col. 8:29-9:3).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a targeted solution to a specific source of error in immersion lithography, moving beyond general-purpose positioning systems to directly counteract forces introduced by the immersion hardware itself.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A lithographic apparatus with standard components (illumination system, support structure, substrate table, projection system).
    • A liquid supply system to provide immersion liquid.
    • An actuator configured to apply a force to the substrate.
    • A compensation controller that determines a compensating force to be applied by the actuator that is substantially equal and opposite to a force applied by the liquid supply system.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶39).

U.S. Patent No. 7,403,264 - “Lithographic Projection Apparatus and a Device Manufacturing Method Using Such Lithographic Projection Apparatus,” issued Jul. 22, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The energy from the projection beam heats lens elements in a lithography tool, causing thermal expansion and changing their optical properties. This results in image aberrations that degrade focus and overlay accuracy (’264 Patent, col. 3:47-54). While compensation systems exist, generic corrections are often a compromise and not optimized for the specific circuit pattern and illumination mode being used in a particular exposure (’264 Patent, col. 6:17-26).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a more intelligent, "application-specific" control system. The system uses a "predictive system" (e.g., a lens heating model) to forecast how aberrations will change over time, and a "modelling system" (e.g., an "IQEA-model") to determine how those predicted aberrations will specifically affect the image quality for the particular pattern being printed (’264 Patent, col. 7:16-35; Fig. 2). A "control system" then directs an "adjustment system" to make corrections that are optimized for that specific application, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all solution (’264 Patent, col. 15:45-16:2).
  • Technical Importance: This invention enables a higher degree of process control by tailoring aberration corrections to the specific product being manufactured, potentially improving yield for advanced semiconductor devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶49).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A predictive system for predicting changes in projection system aberrations over time.
    • A modelling system for determining the application-specific effect of the predicted aberration changes on the image of a selected patterning device.
    • A control system for generating a control signal specific to the patterned beam based on the predicted changes and their application-specific effect.
    • An adjustment system that carries out imaging adjustments based on the control signal to compensate for the application-specific effect.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶51).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 9,188,880 - “Lithographic Apparatus and Device Manufacturing Method Involving a Heater,” issued Nov. 17, 2015

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the problem of substrate cooling caused by the evaporation of immersion liquid left on the wafer surface (’880 Patent, col. 2:30-34). Such cooling can cause thermal distortions and overlay errors. The invention discloses using a "heater" system, which can be integrated into the substrate table or barrier member, to actively apply heat and counteract the cooling effect of evaporation, thereby stabilizing the substrate’s thermal environment (’880 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:40-54).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶61).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the Accused Systems infringe the ’880 Patent but does not detail the specific features corresponding to the claimed heater system (Compl. ¶¶61-63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Nikon's NSR-S631E, NSR-S650D, NSR-S630D, NSR-S622D, NSR-S621D, NSR-S620D, NSR-S322F, and NSR-S320F immersion lithography systems, collectively referred to as the "Accused Systems" (Compl. ¶24).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Systems are advanced semiconductor manufacturing tools that use immersion lithography to pattern silicon wafers (Compl. ¶24). The complaint alleges these systems are imported, sold, and used in the United States by major semiconductor industry players, including Intel and the SUNY Polytechnic Institute (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The complaint references a Nikon announcement of the installation of an accused NSR-S650D immersion scanner at a U.S. facility (Compl. ¶28, Ex. 4). It also cites a Nikon publication reporting on the performance of the accused NSR-S631E immersion scanner, which notes the tool offers "extremely high overlay accuracy and productivity" (Compl. ¶¶29-30, Ex. 5). These allegations position the Accused Systems as direct competitors to ASML's products in the high-end lithography market.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits 18, 19, 20) that are not provided in the filed document. The following is a summary of the narrative infringement theories for the lead patents.

’283 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint asserts that the Accused Systems, as immersion lithography tools, necessarily include mechanisms to ensure precise substrate positioning in the presence of forces from the immersion liquid (Compl. ¶¶38-39). The infringement theory is that the Accused Systems’ positioning and control hardware meets every element of claim 1, including the use of a "compensation controller" and "actuator" to determine and counteract forces applied to the substrate by the liquid supply system, thereby maintaining the high overlay accuracy required for their operation (Compl. ¶39, citing Ex. 18).

’264 Patent Infringement Allegations

  • The complaint alleges that the Accused Systems employ sophisticated control systems to mitigate image degradation from effects like lens heating (Compl. ¶¶50-51). The infringement theory posits that these control systems infringe claim 1 by being "application-specific"—that is, by using a predictive model that considers the specific patterning device (mask) and illumination settings to determine the effect of aberrations on the final image and apply optimized, non-generic corrections (Compl. ¶51, citing Ex. 19).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question (’283 Patent): A central dispute may concern whether the Accused Systems' positioning mechanisms perform the specific functions of the claimed "compensation controller." The question for the court will be whether evidence shows Nikon's systems determine the specific force imparted by the liquid supply system and apply a "substantially equal and opposite" counter-force, or if they employ a more general positioning feedback loop that corrects for net positional error without the specific determination and action required by the claim.
  • Scope Question (’264 Patent): The infringement analysis will likely focus on the scope of "application-specific effect." The key question is whether the Accused Systems' control architecture uses a "modelling system" that actively determines the effect of aberrations based on the selected mask and illumination mode, as claimed, or if it selects from a library of pre-calibrated, generic compensation recipes that do not rise to the level of an "application-specific" determination.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’283 Patent, Claim 1: "compensation controller configured to determine a compensating force ... to be substantially equal in magnitude and substantially opposite in direction to a force applied to the substrate by the liquid supply system"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core functionality of the invention. The outcome of the infringement analysis for the ’283 Patent hinges on whether the control logic in Nikon’s systems performs this specific determination and counter-action.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the determination can be made in a "feed-forward manner" based on a "desired position of the substrate" (’283 Patent, col. 2:55-60). A party might argue this supports a construction covering any controller that anticipates a disturbance from the liquid system based on the scan path and applies a correction.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language "equal in magnitude and opposite in direction" suggests a direct, vector-based cancellation. The abstract reinforces this, describing a controller that "controls actuators to apply forces...equal in magnitude and opposite in direction to forces which are applied to the substrate by a liquid supply system" (’283 Patent, Abstract). This may support a narrower construction requiring a more explicit calculation and mirroring of the specific disturbance force vector.

’264 Patent, Claim 1: "modelling system for determining the application-specific effect"

  • Context and Importance: The "application-specific" nature of the modeling is the key inventive concept distinguishing it from generic compensation. Infringement depends on whether Nikon's system considers the specific "application"—i.e., the selected mask and illumination mode.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the "application" is denoted by "the combination of the patterning device (the mask) and the illumination mode" and can be characterized by numerous parameters like "feature size, the orientation, the density," and illumination settings (’264 Patent, col. 7:37-47). This could support a reading where any adjustment based on these high-level job parameters is "application-specific."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific "IQEA model" that receives "data indicative of the particular application (product pattern, illumination mode)" to determine image parameter offsets (’264 Patent, col. 15:60-16:2). A party may argue this requires a distinct software "modelling system" that actively processes pattern-specific data, rather than merely selecting a compensation routine from a list based on the chosen recipe.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

  • The complaint alleges that Nikon induces infringement by providing customers like Intel and CNSE with the Accused Systems along with technical manuals, training, and product support that instruct them on how to operate the systems in their intended, and allegedly infringing, manner (Compl. ¶¶40, 43, 52, 55). It also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Systems are especially made for infringement and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶44, 56).

Willful Infringement

  • The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Nikon's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. This knowledge is purportedly based on Nikon's active monitoring of ASML’s patent portfolio and a 2004 cross-license agreement that allegedly included the ’283 and ’264 patents (Compl. ¶¶34-35, 41, 53).

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

  • A core issue will be one of functional equivalence: Does the method used by Nikon’s Accused Systems to maintain substrate stability perform the specific function of the ’283 Patent’s "compensation controller"—determining and applying a mirrored counter-force—or is it a general-purpose positioning system that achieves a similar result through a technically distinct, non-infringing method?
  • A second central question will concern definitional scope: Can the "modelling system for determining the application-specific effect" of the ’264 Patent be construed to cover the selection of pre-calibrated correction recipes, or does it require a system that actively computes image effects based on real-time data from the specific mask and illumination settings being used?
  • A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be the extent and nature of Nikon’s pre-suit knowledge. The court will examine whether the expired license and alleged competitive monitoring gave Nikon knowledge of the patents sufficient to establish that its continued alleged infringement represented an objectively high risk that was either known or so obvious it should have been known.