DCT

4:24-cv-01553

Infineon Tech Austria AG v. Innoscience Suzhou Technology Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-03-20 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003
2009-08-25 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 8,686,562
2012-02-17 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755
2012-09-11 U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003 Issued
2014-04-01 U.S. Patent No. 8,686,562 Issued
2015-06-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755 Issued
2016-01-18 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481
2017-11-01 Innoscience alleges to have established mass production 8-inch wafer line
2018-02-20 U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 Issued
2024-03-13 Original Complaint Filed
2024-07-23 Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,899,481 - “Electronic component and switch circuit,” issued February 20, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: In high-speed power switching applications, parasitic inductance in the electrical connection to a transistor's source terminal can counteract the gate driving voltage, leading to increased energy loss and reduced efficiency (Compl. ¶38; ’481 Patent, col. 4:38-42).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes an electronic component package for a lateral transistor, such as a High Electron Mobility Transistor (HEMT). The solution provides a dedicated "source sense" connection via a third lead that is coupled directly to the transistor's source, separate from the main high-current source connection that is coupled to the die pad. This configuration allows the gate driver circuitry to use a reference voltage that is not affected by the parasitic inductance of the main source path, thereby improving switching performance (’481 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:45-54).
  • Technical Importance: This packaging approach enables more precise and efficient control of high-frequency power transistors, which is critical for compact and high-performance power converters.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 17 (Compl. ¶74).
  • Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
    • An electronic component comprising a compound semiconductor transistor device (with first/second current electrodes and a control electrode), a die pad, and a first, second, and third lead.
    • The control electrode is coupled to the first lead.
    • The first current electrode is coupled to the die pad.
    • The second current electrode is coupled to the second lead.
    • The third lead is coupled to the transistor device and provides a "source sensing functionality."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,686,562 - “Refractory Metal Nitride Capped Electrical Contact and Method for Frabricating Same,” issued April 1, 2014

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional electrical contacts on III-nitride semiconductor devices often use a gold capping layer. Gold is expensive and can diffuse through the contact stack, contaminating silicon fabrication lines and making it difficult to integrate GaN and silicon devices on the same wafer (’562 Patent, col. 1:40-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses an electrical contact structure that replaces the problematic gold cap with a refractory metal nitride, such as titanium nitride (TiN). The claims specify that this capping layer must "consist only of" the refractory metal nitride and have a thickness greater than the bottommost layer of the contact stack (’562 Patent, Claim 1). This design is intended to be more cost-effective and compatible with standard silicon device manufacturing (Compl. ¶40).
  • Technical Importance: This invention facilitates the low-cost, mass-production of GaN power devices by enabling their fabrication in conventional silicon foundries without risk of cross-contamination.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 13 (Compl. ¶106).
  • Independent Claim 1 Essential Elements:
    • An electrical contact for a semiconductor device.
    • Comprising an electrode stack with a plurality of metal layers and a capping layer.
    • The capping layer "consisting only of a refractory metal nitride."
    • The refractory metal nitride forms the top of the contact and has a thickness "greater than that of a bottommost layer" in the stack.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 9,070,755 - “Transistor Having Elevated Drain Finger Termination,” issued June 30, 2015 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the problem of high termination electric fields at the ends of drain finger electrodes in power transistors, which can limit a device's breakdown voltage (Compl. ¶42). The invention describes a transistor where at least a portion of the drain finger electrode end is "non-coplanar" with the main body of the drain finger, for example, by elevating it on a dielectric material. This structure is designed to reduce peak electric fields, thereby increasing the device's breakdown voltage without compromising its on-resistance (’755 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶42).

Asserted Claims

At least claim 1 (Compl. ¶127).

Accused Features

The accused products are alleged to include a drain finger electrode where the end portion is non-coplanar with the main body, as depicted in a cross-sectional image provided in the complaint (Compl. ¶51).

U.S. Patent No. 8,264,003 - “Merged Cascode Transistor,” issued September 11, 2012 (Multi-Patent Capsule)

Technology Synopsis

This patent aims to solve issues common in high-voltage switching circuits, such as excessive switching losses from the "Miller effect" and unwanted conduction known as "shoot-through" (Compl. ¶44). The solution is a "merged cascode" transistor that integrates a normally-off, low-voltage transistor (Q1) and a normally-on, high-voltage transistor (Q2) into a single semiconductor device. The drain of Q1 is merged with the source of Q2, shielding the input transistor (Q1) from large voltage swings and thereby improving efficiency and reliability (’003 Patent, Abstract; Compl. ¶45).

Asserted Claims

At least claims 1 and 10 (Compl. ¶147).

Accused Features

The accused products are alleged to contain a transistor with a first portion (Q1) and a second portion (Q2) arranged in a merged cascode geometry, including a source-connected second gate with a field plate (Compl. ¶53).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are a broad portfolio of Innoscience's gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, sold as wafers, discrete devices, and integrated solutions (Compl. ¶¶ 2, 55). The complaint identifies dozens of specific product numbers, with representative examples including INN650DA190A, INN650D080BS, INN100W032A, and ISG3201 (Compl. ¶¶ 69, 101, 122, 142).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are high-performance power transistors used for efficient power conversion in a wide array of applications, such as consumer device chargers, data centers, telecom infrastructure, and automotive systems (Compl. ¶56). The complaint alleges that Innoscience markets these products by highlighting their high frequency and efficiency characteristics (Compl. ¶56). Critically, it is alleged that Innoscience markets some of its products as "pin-to-pin compatible" with Infineon's GaN devices, presenting them as direct replacements (Compl. ¶59; Exhibit 5, p. 19). An annotated photograph in the complaint shows an Innoscience presentation slide stating that "Some of Infineon and GaNSystem GaN devices are pin-to-pin compatible with Innoscience's GaN power devices" (Compl. ¶59; Exhibit 5, p. 19).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’481 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a compound semiconductor transistor device having a first current electrode, a second current electrode and a control electrode; The accused product (e.g., INN650DA190A) is a GaN power transistor, a type of compound semiconductor transistor, with source (first current), drain (second current), and gate (control) electrodes (Compl. ¶79, Ex. 12). ¶78, ¶79 col. 3:12-14
a die pad; a first lead, a second lead and a third lead...spaced at a distance from the die pad The accused product package includes a die pad and multiple leads (for gate, drain, source, and Kelvin Source) spaced from the die pad. A plan-view X-ray photograph shows the die pad and the first, second, and third leads (Compl. ¶80, Ex. 12). ¶80 col. 3:15-18
the control electrode is coupled to the first lead, The transistor's gate (control electrode) is coupled to the first lead (designated as the Gate pin) (Compl. ¶81, Ex. 12). ¶81 col. 3:41-42
the first current electrode is coupled to the die pad, The transistor's source (first current electrode) is coupled to the die pad (Compl. ¶84, Ex. 12). ¶81, ¶84 col. 3:42-43
the second current electrode is coupled to the second lead, The transistor's drain (second current electrode) is coupled to the second lead (designated as the Drain pins) (Compl. ¶81, Ex. 12). ¶81 col. 3:43-45
the third lead is coupled to the compound semiconductor transistor device and provides a source sensing functionality. A third lead (designated as the Kelvin Source pin) is coupled to the transistor's source and provides a separate, low-inductance voltage reference, which is alleged to be a "source sensing functionality" (Compl. ¶82, Ex. 12). ¶82 col. 3:45-48
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether Innoscience's "Kelvin Source" connection (Compl. ¶82) meets the claim limitation of "provides a source sensing functionality." The analysis will depend on the construction of this functional term and whether the accused feature operates in a manner consistent with the patent's disclosure for excluding parasitic inductance from the gate driver loop.
    • Technical Questions: While the complaint maps the "first current electrode" to the source and the "second current electrode" to the drain, the claim itself is not explicit. The patent specification, however, appears to support this mapping (e.g., ’481 Patent, col. 3:49-51). The court will have to determine if this mapping is correct and if the accused device's physical connections match the claim's requirements.

’562 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an electrode stack including a plurality of metal layers and a capping layer formed over said plurality of metal layers; The accused products (e.g., INN650D080BS) are alleged to have an electrical contact comprising an "Electrode stack" with multiple metal layers and a "Capping layer" on top. A cross-sectional TEM image is provided as evidence (Compl. ¶108). ¶108 col. 2:44-46
said capping layer consisting only of a refractory metal nitride, The complaint alleges the capping layer in the accused products consists only of titanium nitride (TiN), which is a refractory metal nitride (Compl. ¶109). An annotated TEM image identifies the top layer as "TiN" (Compl. p. 38). ¶109 col. 2:47-48
said refractory metal nitride forming a top of said electrical contact and having a thickness greater than that of a bottommost layer of said plurality of metal layers. The complaint alleges the TiN capping layer is at the top of the contact and that its thickness (e.g., 0.05 µm) is greater than the thickness of the bottommost layer (identified as a 0.03 µm Ti layer) in the stack, based on analysis of a TEM image (Compl. ¶110; Compl. p. 38). ¶110 col. 2:48-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The infringement analysis will likely focus on the term "consisting only of." This is a restrictive term in patent law. The defense may argue that their capping layer contains other elements beyond incidental impurities, which could potentially avoid literal infringement.
    • Technical Questions: The case may turn into a battle of competing material analyses. The complaint's allegations rely on interpreting Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) images (Compl. p. 38). The accuracy of this analysis—regarding both the composition of the capping layer and the relative thicknesses of the layers—will be a key evidentiary battleground.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’481 Patent:

    • The Term: "source sensing functionality"
    • Context and Importance: This functional language is the central inventive concept of claim 1. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused "Kelvin Source" pin is properly characterized as providing this functionality. "Practitioners" may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether a structural feature (the Kelvin Source pin) performs the specific function required by the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the outcome: "The third lead is coupled to the compound semiconductor transistor device and provides a source sensing functionality." This suggests the term could be defined by its purpose—providing a clean voltage reference—rather than a specific structure.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the functionality in the context of a specific problem and solution: using a separate connection to "exclude the parasitic source inductance from the driver circuitry" (’481 Patent, col. 4:38-45). A defendant may argue the term is limited to structures that achieve this specific purpose in the manner disclosed in the embodiments (e.g., Fig. 3).

  • For the ’562 Patent:

    • The Term: "consisting only of"
    • Context and Importance: This term is critical because it creates a "closed" claim element. For literal infringement, the accused capping layer must not contain any materials other than a refractory metal nitride (and any normal impurities). This makes the claim highly specific and potentially easier to design around, but also very strong if the accused product falls within its narrow scope.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: It is difficult to argue for a broad interpretation of "consisting of" or "consisting only of." Parties might look to the specification's use of the more open term "comprises" when describing the invention generally (’562 Patent, col. 2:47-48) to argue the claim should not be read as narrowly as its text suggests, though this is typically a challenging argument.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself is the strongest evidence. The use of "consisting only of" is a deliberate choice that patent law interprets as excluding any other elements. This will likely be construed to mean the layer is pure refractory metal nitride, aside from trace manufacturing impurities.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement to infringe for all four asserted patents. The factual basis includes Defendants' marketing activities, provision of product datasheets, application notes, and design guides that allegedly instruct and encourage customers to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 96, 117, 137, 158). The allegation that Defendants market their products as "pin-to-pin compatible" is also presented as evidence of an intent to induce Infineon's customers to switch (Compl. ¶59).
  • Willful Infringement: While not pleaded as a separate count, the complaint lays the groundwork for willfulness. It alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the patents no later than the March 2024 filing and service of the original complaint (Compl. ¶¶ 86-90). The prayer for relief requests a finding of an "exceptional case" and an award of attorneys' fees, relief that is often predicated on a finding of willful infringement (Compl. p. 52, ¶d).

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

  • A central issue will be one of structural and compositional identity: For the patents on device structure (’562, ’755, ’003), the case will depend heavily on factual evidence from device teardowns. Can Infineon prove, for example, that the accused contact stack's capping layer "consists only of" a refractory metal nitride and meets the specific thickness ratio, or will Innoscience demonstrate a material difference that avoids the narrow claim language?
  • A key legal question will be one of functional scope: For the ’481 patent, the dispute will likely turn on the court's construction of "source sensing functionality." Does this term broadly cover any dedicated, low-inductance source connection like a "Kelvin Source," or is it limited to the specific implementation and purpose disclosed in the patent?
  • A critical question of intent will pervade the proceedings: The complaint's evidence that Innoscience markets its products as "pin-to-pin compatible" with Infineon's (Compl. ¶59) frames the dispute not as an accidental overlap but as a deliberate effort to supplant a competitor. While not proof of infringement, this narrative may significantly influence the court's view on the plausibility of the allegations and the ultimate questions of inducement and willfulness.