DCT

5:16-cv-02252

Daniel L Flamm SCD v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-00613, W.D. Tex., 07/21/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants conducting business and committing acts of infringement within the Western District of Texas, including the presence of Defendant Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC's principal place of business in Austin.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ methods for manufacturing semiconductors infringe three U.S. patents related to plasma processing, plasma etching optimization, and multi-temperature processing techniques.
  • Technical Context: The patents relate to advanced methods for controlling gas plasma, a technology fundamental to the etching and deposition processes used in modern semiconductor fabrication.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed in 2015. Subsequent to the filing, inter partes review (IPR) proceedings were initiated against all three patents-in-suit. According to USPTO records, these proceedings resulted in the cancellation of all claims of the ’849 Patent (Claims 1-29), all claims of the ’221 Patent (Claims 1-7), and all asserted claims of the ’264 Patent (Claims 13-71).

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-05-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
1995-12-04 Earliest Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221 and U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE40,264
1998-01-27 U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849 Issues
2000-01-25 U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221 Issues
2008-04-29 U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE40,264 Issues
2015-07-21 Complaint Filed
2016-12-02 IPR Filed against U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
2016-12-04 IPR Filed against U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
2020-09-22 IPR Certificate Cancels All Claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849
2020-09-24 IPR Certificate Cancels All Claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221
2021-04-16 IPR Certificate Cancels Claims 13-71 of U.S. Reissue Patent No. RE40,264

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,711,849, "Process Optimization in Gas Phase Dry Etching," Issued Jan. 27, 1998

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the conventional method for obtaining and maintaining uniform plasma etching as a "trial and error" process that is costly, laborious, and difficult to achieve because accurate reaction rates are often unavailable, making it hard to anticipate the effects of parameter changes (Compl. ¶1; ’849 Patent, col. 1:26-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method to determine a "reaction rate coefficient" by measuring the physical profile of an etched film and fitting that data to an analytical model. This extracted coefficient allows for the predictive optimization of etching parameters—such as temperature, pressure, and reactor dimensions—to achieve a desired etch rate and uniformity, moving beyond simple trial and error (’849 Patent, col. 1:50–57; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: The method aims to make semiconductor etching processes more reliable, predictable, and cost-effective by providing a scientific basis for process design and optimization (’849 Patent, col. 1:45–49).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, instead alleging infringement of "one or more claims" (Compl. p. 5, ¶a). Independent claim 1 is representative of the core inventive method.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a device fabrication method comprising the essential elements of:
    • providing a plasma etching apparatus with a substrate having a film;
    • etching the film to create a "relatively non-uniform etching profile";
    • defining "etch rate data" from that profile, including an etch rate and a spatial coordinate;
    • "extracting a surface reaction rate constant from said etch rate data"; and
    • "using said surface reaction rate constant in the fabrication of a device."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 6,017,221, "Process Depending on Plasma Discharges Sustained by Inductive Coupling," Issued Jan. 25, 2000

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent explains that conventional inductively coupled plasma sources suffer from unwanted "parasitic plasma currents" caused by capacitive coupling between the high-voltage coil and the plasma. This can lead to uncontrolled ion bombardment, device damage, and process non-uniformity (’221 Patent, col. 2:36–54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a plasma processing method using an inductive applicator where the "vector sum of phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages from the inductive coupling structure substantially balances" (’221 Patent, col. 6:33–39). This balance is achieved using "wave adjustment circuits" attached to the applicator, which can be configured to create, for example, a full-wave electrical length. This design cancels out the net capacitive effects, isolating the desired inductive power transfer and providing better control over the plasma potential (’221 Patent, col. 8:50–60; Fig. 2A).
  • Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a "substantially pure" inductively coupled plasma, giving process engineers precise control over ion flux and energy, which is critical for fabricating sensitive semiconductor devices with high selectivity and low damage (’221 Patent, col. 4:1-5).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims" without specification (Compl. p. 5, ¶b). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1 recites a process for fabricating a product, comprising the essential elements of:
    • subjecting a substrate to entities from a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field from an "inductive coupling structure";
    • wherein a "phase portion and an anti-phase portion of capacitive currents" from the structure are "selectively balanced"; and
    • the "inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE40,264, "Multi-Temperature Processing," Issued Apr. 29, 2008

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses challenges in multi-step etching processes where different layers ideally require different temperatures for optimal results (e.g., high selectivity or high etch rate). Processing at a single, compromise temperature can lower throughput and damage the device (’264 Patent, col. 2:10–25). The invention provides a method and apparatus, featuring a substrate holder with a low thermal mass and an agile temperature control system, that enables rapid, in-situ changes to the substrate temperature during a single process, allowing each etching step to be performed at its optimal temperature (’264 Patent, col. 2:49–60).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims (Compl. p. 5, ¶c). Independent claim 13 is a representative method claim.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement through Defendants' "use of the methods taught in the '264 Patent to manufacture semiconductors" (Compl. ¶19).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses "methods taught in the... Flamm Patents to manufacture semiconductors" (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 15, 19).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not describe any specific accused process, product line, or piece of manufacturing equipment used by Defendants. The allegations are conclusory and lack technical detail regarding the specific operations of the accused methods. The complaint alleges that Defendants conduct "substantial business in this judicial district including the marketing, sale, offering for sale, and importation of semiconductors that are manufactured in a manner that infringes" the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only conclusory allegations of infringement without pleading specific facts to support how Defendants’ manufacturing methods meet the limitations of the patent claims. The following tables summarize the allegations at the high level of generality provided in the complaint. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’849 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
etching said top film surface to define a relatively non-uniform etching profile on said film, and defining etch rate data comprising an etch rate and a spatial coordinate... The complaint alleges that Defendants use the methods taught in the '849 Patent to manufacture semiconductors. ¶11 col. 5:12-45
extracting a surface reaction rate constant from said etch rate data... The complaint alleges that Defendants use the methods taught in the '849 Patent to manufacture semiconductors. ¶11 col. 5:61-66
using said surface reaction rate constant in the fabrication of a device. The complaint alleges that Defendants use the methods taught in the '849 Patent to manufacture semiconductors. ¶11 col. 18:47-51

’221 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
subjecting a substrate to a composition of entities... generated by a gaseous discharge excited by a high frequency field in which the vector sum of phase and anti-phase capacitive coupled voltages... from the inductive coupling structure substantially balances. The complaint alleges that Defendants use the methods taught in the '221 Patent to manufacture semiconductors. ¶15 col. 6:33-44
wherein said inductive coupling structure is adjusted using a wave adjustment circuit... The complaint alleges that Defendants use the methods taught in the '221 Patent to manufacture semiconductors. ¶15 col. 7:31-35

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: The primary point of contention is evidentiary. The complaint offers no facts demonstrating how Defendants' proprietary manufacturing processes practice the specific steps of the asserted method claims. Discovery would be required to determine if, for example, Defendants' processes involve "extracting a surface reaction rate constant" (’849 Patent) or use "wave adjustment circuits" to balance capacitive currents (’221 Patent).
  • Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of potential technical mismatches. A central question is whether Defendants' process control and optimization rely on the specific scientific modeling taught in the ’849 Patent or on alternative empirical, statistical, or machine-learning-based methods. Similarly, it is an open question whether Defendants' plasma equipment uses the balanced, full-wave applicator design of the ’221 Patent or conventional shielded or unshielded designs.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • For the ’849 Patent:

    • The Term: "surface reaction rate constant"
    • Context and Importance: This term is central to the method of the ’849 Patent. The infringement analysis depends on whether any parameter calculated or used in Defendants' processes falls within the scope of this term.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification suggests the term is derived from correlating etch profile data with an analytical model, a relatively general concept (’849 Patent, col. 5:61-66). A party might argue this covers any kinetic parameter derived from etch profiles used for process control.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description provides specific equations (e.g., based on Chapman-Enskog kinetic theory) to calculate the constant (’849 Patent, col. 6:29-57). A party may argue the term is limited to constants derived using these or closely related physical models.

  • For the ’221 Patent:

    • The Term: "wave adjustment circuit"
    • Context and Importance: This is the key structural element for achieving the claimed "balance" of capacitive currents. Whether Defendants' equipment includes a structure meeting this definition is critical to infringement.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines this broadly to include "various types of transmission lines, circuits, etc." and "lumped, fixed, or adjustable combinations of resistors, capacitors, and inductors" (’221 Patent, col. 12:26-39), potentially covering a wide range of electrical tuning networks.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The preferred embodiments focus on using sections of helical resonators as the wave adjustment circuits to modify the electrical length of the main inductive applicator (’221 Patent, col. 10:4-13). A party could argue the term should be construed as limited to structures that adjust the applicator's effective electrical wavelength.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not explicitly allege willful infringement and does not plead any facts related to pre-suit knowledge of the patents or egregious conduct that would typically be required to support such a claim.

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

  • Impact of Post-Filing Claim Cancellation: A dispositive legal issue is the effect of the USPTO's cancellation of all asserted claims of the patents-in-suit in inter partes review proceedings that concluded after the complaint was filed. This development raises the fundamental question of whether a viable cause of action remains.
  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: The central factual question is whether Plaintiff can obtain evidence through discovery to show that Defendants’ proprietary and confidential manufacturing processes meet every limitation of the asserted method claims. The complaint's lack of specific factual allegations places the entire burden of proof on evidence to be developed during litigation.
  • Definitional Scope: Should the case proceed, its outcome may turn on claim construction. A key question for the ’849 Patent is one of methodological scope: does the term "extracting a surface reaction rate constant" read on the process control and optimization techniques actually used by Defendants? For the ’221 Patent, a key question is one of structural scope: does the term "wave adjustment circuit" cover the plasma control hardware present in Defendants' equipment, or is there a fundamental mismatch in design and function?