DCT
1:12-cv-00534
Semcon Tech LLC v. Texas Instruments Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Semcon Tech, LLC (Texas)
- Defendant: Texas Instruments Incorporated (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Bayard, P.A.
- Case Identification: 1:12-cv-00534, D. Del., 04/27/2012
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that has transacted business in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s integrated circuits are manufactured using a process of chemical-mechanical polishing that infringes a patent related to in-situ process control.
- Technical Context: The case concerns chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP), a critical process in semiconductor manufacturing used to achieve extreme surface planarity on silicon wafers, which is essential for fabricating modern multi-layered integrated circuits.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1998-11-06 | ’717 Patent Priority Date |
| 2007-01-02 | ’717 Patent Issue Date |
| 2012-04-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,156,717, In Situ Finishing Aid Control, issued January 2, 2007.
U.S. Patent No. 7,156,717 - In Situ Finishing Aid Control
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes the problem of conventional abrasive finishing for semiconductor wafers being "overly harsh," causing unwanted scratching, surface damage, and defects ('717 Patent, col. 2:10-14). It notes that accurately determining when enough material has been removed (the "end point") is difficult, and periodically removing the wafer for measurement is time-consuming, expensive, and risks further damage (ʼ717 Patent, col. 1:59 - col. 2:4).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method for real-time, in-situ control over the finishing process. It involves providing a "finishing aid," such as a lubricant, to the interface between the polishing pad and the wafer to reduce friction and improve finishing ('717 Patent, Abstract). The core of the solution is a "finishing control subsystem" that uses at least three sensors to gather "in situ process information" during polishing. This real-time data is combined with pre-existing "tracked information" about the specific wafer, and a processor evaluates both to dynamically change "a plurality of control parameters" to control the process with greater precision ('717 Patent, col. 12:57-68, Fig. 1).
- Technical Importance: This approach allows for finer control over the CMP process, which may help improve yields for workpieces with extremely close tolerances, such as advanced semiconductor wafers ('717 Patent, col. 2:45-49).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts "one or more claims of the ’717 patent, including but not limited to claim 1" (Compl. ¶9).
- Independent Claim 1 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
- Providing a tracked semiconductor wafer having tracked information.
- Providing a finishing surface.
- Providing a finishing aid to the interface between the finishing surface and the wafer.
- Providing a finishing control subsystem with at least three operative process sensors, access to the tracked information, and a processor to evaluate both the in-situ and tracked information.
- Applying an operative finishing motion to the interface.
- Changing a plurality of control parameters in response to the processor's evaluation to change the tangential force of friction during the finishing cycle.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are integrated circuits made, used, sold, or imported by Defendant Texas Instruments (Compl. ¶8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused integrated circuits are fabricated using a process of chemical-mechanical polishing ("CMP") that involves an "Applied Materials Reflexion CMP system" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific operation of this system or the characteristics of the resulting integrated circuits.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendant’s process for manufacturing integrated circuits infringes at least Claim 1 of the ’717 Patent (Compl. ¶9). The complaint does not provide a detailed mapping of the accused process to the claim elements. The allegations are summarized below based on the infringement theory articulated in the complaint.
'717 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing the tracked semiconductor wafer having tracked information | The complaint alleges TI fabricates integrated circuits using a CMP process, which would necessarily involve providing a semiconductor wafer that is tracked through the manufacturing process. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 3:1-3 |
| providing a finishing surface | The complaint alleges the use of a CMP system, which inherently includes a finishing surface (e.g., a polishing pad). | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 13:54-58 |
| providing a finishing aid to an interface formed between the finishing surface and the semiconductor wafer surface | The complaint alleges the use of a CMP process, which typically involves a slurry or other chemical agent that could be characterized as a "finishing aid." | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 27:3-10 |
| providing a finishing control subsystem having: at least three operative process sensors...access to the tracked information; and a processor to evaluate the in situ process information and the tracked information | The complaint alleges use of an Applied Materials Reflexion CMP system, implying this system constitutes the claimed "finishing control subsystem." | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 12:57-68 |
| applying an operative finishing motion in the interface forming at least one region having the finishing aid and wherein the at least one region has a tangential force of friction | The complaint alleges use of a CMP system, which by definition applies operative finishing motion (e.g., rotation of the platen and wafer carrier) that generates a tangential force of friction. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 13:64 - 14:3 |
| changing a plurality of control parameters in response to an evaluation of both the in situ process information...and the tracked information...[to] change the tangential force of friction... | The complaint alleges that TI's CMP process is covered by the claims, implying that the process includes automated, real-time adjustments based on sensor data and wafer information to control friction. | ¶8, ¶9 | col. 3:56 - col. 4:1 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint makes conclusory allegations without providing specific facts. A primary point of contention will be whether Plaintiff can produce evidence that the accused "Applied Materials Reflexion CMP system," as used by Defendant, actually performs each limitation of the asserted claims. For example, what evidence demonstrates that the accused system uses "at least three operative process sensors" to sense "in situ process information" and evaluates that data in combination with "tracked information" to change parameters for the specific purpose of altering the "tangential force of friction"?
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the standard materials used in Defendant's CMP process qualify as the claimed "finishing aid." The patent describes this term broadly, but its scope in the context of the claims will be a key issue for the court.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "tracked semiconductor having tracked information" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the input to the claimed method. Its construction is critical because it determines the type and quality of information the wafer must possess before the process begins. A narrow construction could place many standard manufacturing processes outside the claim's scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general. A party could argue that any semiconductor wafer with a standard lot number or barcode used for factory logistics constitutes a "tracked semiconductor."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests "tracked information" is more substantial than a simple identifier. It describes using tracking "to update and change a preferred model used for advanced real time control" ('717 Patent, col. 2:45-49) and discusses tracking codes that store data on "processes, performance, and preferred lubrication conditions" ('717 Patent, col. 26:35-42). This suggests the term requires wafer-specific historical process data, not just an identifier.
The Term: "finishing control subsystem" (Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This subsystem is the technological core of the claim. The definition will determine whether a standard automated CMP tool infringes, or if infringement requires a more sophisticated, specific architecture for processing real-time and historical data.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that any modern CMP system with sensors, a processor, and a controller that automates the process meets the general definition of a "finishing control subsystem."
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim explicitly requires the subsystem to have three distinct components working together: "at least three operative process sensors," "access to the tracked information," and "a processor to evaluate the in situ process information and the tracked information." Figure 1 and the accompanying text illustrate these components as an integrated system for real-time control ('717 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 12:57-68). An argument could be made that a system that does not evaluate both in-situ sensor data and historical tracked data in combination to adjust parameters falls outside the claim.
VI. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of evidentiary sufficiency: Given the complaint's lack of specific factual allegations, a central question is whether the plaintiff can produce evidence to demonstrate that Defendant's commercial manufacturing process using an "Applied Materials Reflexion CMP system" actually performs each discrete step of the asserted method claim.
- The case may also turn on a question of definitional scope: Can the term "tracked information", as used in the patent, be construed to cover standard semiconductor lot and batch tracking, or will the court determine that it requires the more granular, wafer-specific process history described in the specification for use in real-time control models?