DCT

1:17-cv-01309

Fujifilm Corp v. Sony Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:17-cv-01309, D. Del., 09/15/2017
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on alleged acts of patent infringement committed in the District of Delaware, defendants being subject to personal jurisdiction in the District, and Defendant Sony DADC US Inc. being a resident of Delaware.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s LTO Ultrium 4, 5, and 6-generation magnetic tape data storage cartridges infringe five U.S. patents related to the composition, structure, and mechanics of magnetic recording media and tape cartridges.
  • Technical Context: The dispute centers on technologies for high-capacity magnetic tape, a key medium for long-term data archival and backup in enterprise and data center environments.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Sony had pre-suit knowledge of four of the five asserted patents. Notice for U.S. Patent Nos. 6,630,256 and 6,462,905 was allegedly provided via a claim chart in November 2015; for U.S. Patent No. 6,835,451 via a letter in August 2012; and for U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899 via an email in December 2015. These allegations form the basis for claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1999-11-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905
2000-06-26 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,783,094
2000-08-03 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,630,256
2002-09-13 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 6,835,451
2002-10-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905 Issues
2003-09-04 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899
2003-10-07 U.S. Patent No. 6,630,256 Issues
2004-08-31 U.S. Patent No. 6,783,094 Issues
2004-12-28 U.S. Patent No. 6,835,451 Issues
2006-03-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899 Issues
2012-08-23 Alleged notice of U.S. Patent No. 6,835,451 to Sony
2015-11-09 Alleged notice of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,630,256 and 6,462,905 to Sony
2015-12-24 Alleged notice of U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899 to Sony
2017-09-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 6,630,256 - "Magnetic recording medium comprising a non-magnetic layer having inorganic particles of specific size and distribution"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a challenge in developing high-capacity magnetic tapes: making tapes thinner increases storage length but reduces rigidity, leading to edge damage, deformation, and powder drop-off during repeated use (Compl., Ex. 1; ’256 Patent, col. 3:1-12).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention specifies a multilayer magnetic tape where the nonmagnetic support layer contains inorganic powder particles of a specific size (40-200 nm) and density (10-200 particles/100 µm²). This particular composition is designed to provide the necessary durability to prevent edge damage even in thin tapes, while also being suitable for mass production (Compl., Ex. 1; ’256 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:42-4:8).
  • Technical Importance: This technology aimed to resolve the trade-off between tape thickness (and thus capacity) and physical robustness, a critical factor for reliable long-term data archival systems (Compl., Ex. 1; ’256 Patent, col. 3:1-12).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 7 (Compl. ¶ 23).
  • Independent Claim 1: A magnetic recording medium with an overall thickness of 8 µm or less, comprising a nonmagnetic support, a lower layer, an upper magnetic layer, and a backcoat layer, where the nonmagnetic support contains inorganic particles of a mean diameter of 40-200 nm at a cross-sectional density of 10 to 200 particles per 100 µm², and the magnetic layer has a coercivity between 159 and 239 kA/m.
  • Independent Claim 7: A magnetic recording medium with an overall thickness of 8 µm or less, comprising a similar layered structure, where the nonmagnetic support contains inorganic particles of a mean diameter of 10-200 nm at a cross-sectional density of 10 to 200 particles per 100 µm², and the medium exhibits a specific amount of curl between 0.4 mm and 1.0 mm.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-5 and 8-9 (Compl. ¶¶ 23-25).

U.S. Patent No. 6,835,451 - "Magnetic recording medium"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses noise issues specific to high-sensitivity magnetoresistive (MR) read heads. Contrary to use with older inductive heads, high residual magnetization (Φr) can saturate an MR head and increase noise. Additionally, the aggregation of ferromagnetic particles into "magnetic clusters" creates non-uniformities that are another source of noise (Compl., Ex. 3; ’451 Patent, col. 1:19-2:41, col. 3:1-7).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes controlling the magnetic layer's properties by keeping the residual magnetization (Φr) within a specified low range (5 to 50 mA) to prevent head saturation. It also introduces a metric—the ratio of the average area of magnetic clusters under DC magnetization to that under AC erasure (Sdc/Sac)—and claims a range for this ratio (0.8 to 2.0) to ensure a high degree of particle dispersion and reduce noise (Compl., Ex. 3; ’451 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:15-24).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method for optimizing magnetic tape performance specifically for modern, high-sensitivity MR heads, which are essential for achieving higher data densities in storage systems (Compl., Ex. 3; ’451 Patent, col. 1:19-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶ 38).
  • Independent Claim 1: A magnetic recording medium having a magnetic layer on a nonmagnetic support, wherein:
    • the magnetic layer has a residual magnetization Φr ranging from 5 to 50 mA, and
    • the ratio (Sdc/Sac) of the average area of magnetic clusters under DC magnetized condition to the average area of magnetic clusters under AC erased condition ranges from 0.8 to 2.0.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims 2-14 (Compl. ¶¶ 38-40).

U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899 - "Magnetic recording layer"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,011,899, "Magnetic recording layer," issued March 14, 2006 (Compl. ¶ 47).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem of data errors caused by the surface roughness of a tape's backcoating layer imprinting on the magnetic layer when the tape is wound in a reel. The solution is a backcoating layer with a specifically controlled topography: a high density (800-1500 per 6400 µm²) of small projections (50-75 nm high) to reduce friction, and a low density (600 or less per 6400 µm²) of large projections (≥75 nm high) to minimize imprint-related errors (Compl., Ex. 4; ’899 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶¶ 53-55).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the backcoating layer on the magnetic tape in the Accused Products has the specific projection densities claimed by the ’899 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 49, 53-55).

U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905 - "Magnetic tape cartridge"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,462,905, "Magnetic tape cartridge," issued October 8, 2002 (Compl. ¶ 62).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent concerns the mechanical reel-locking mechanism within a single-reel tape cartridge that prevents the tape from unspooling when not in use. The invention describes a reel stopper with a braking member whose gear teeth have a specific geometry, in combination with guide members on the reel hub. This design is intended to ensure reliable locking and unlocking without the braking member tilting, which could cause noise or obstruct reel rotation (Compl., Ex. 5; ’905 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1, 3, and 4 (Compl. ¶¶ 68-70).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the mechanical construction of the reel stopper and hub within the Accused Products infringes the claims of the ’905 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 64, 68-70).

U.S. Patent No. 6,783,094 - "Recording-media tape reel"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,783,094, "Recording-media tape reel," issued August 31, 2004 (Compl. ¶ 77).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the precise dimensions and tolerances of the flanges on a tape reel to prevent tape edge damage, a critical issue for very thin tapes. The invention claims a specific dimensional relationship (H₁-α > H₂+β) ensuring that the minimum clearance at the radially innermost part of the flange is always greater than the maximum clearance at the outermost part. This prevents the tape from rubbing against the interior flange surface during operation (Compl., Ex. 6; ’094 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent claims 1 and 12 (Compl. ¶¶ 83-85).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the tape reels within the Accused Products are constructed with the specific flange geometries and dimensional tolerances claimed by the ’094 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 79, 83-85).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • Sony's LTO Ultrium 4, LTO Ultrium 5, and LTO Ultrium 6 generation data cartridges and associated library packs, including models LTX800G, LTX1500G, and LTX2500G (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 23-25).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are magnetic tape cartridges used for high-capacity digital data storage, particularly for backup and archival purposes in enterprise systems (Compl. ¶ 13). The complaint alleges that these cartridges contain a reel of magnetic tape and are used in compatible drives that read and write data (Compl. ¶ 13). The complaint asserts that Sony manufactures, imports, and sells these products in the United States, including as an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) for other brands (Compl. ¶ 15). The complaint does not provide further technical details on the specific composition or construction of the accused tapes beyond the conclusory allegations of infringement.
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement but does not provide specific factual support mapping elements of the Accused Products to the claim limitations. The following tables summarize the allegations based on the general assertions of infringement for each patent.

’256 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a magnetic recording medium having... a nonmagnetic support, a lower layer... an upper magnetic layer... and a backcoat layer The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the magnetic tape within the Accused Products has this multilayer structure. ¶¶ 18, 20, 23-25 col. 3:56-64
said nonmagnetic support comprises inorganic powder particles with a mean primary particle diameter in a range of from 40 to 200 nm The complaint alleges that the nonmagnetic support in the tape of the Accused Products contains particles meeting this size limitation. ¶¶ 18, 20, 23-25 col. 4:1-2
the number of particles of said inorganic powder in the cross-section of said nonmagnetic support is in a range of from 10 to 200/100 µm² The complaint alleges that the particle density in the nonmagnetic support of the Accused Products' tape meets this limitation. ¶¶ 18, 20, 23-25 col. 4:2-4
said magnetic layer exhibits a coercivity in a range of from 159 to 239 kA/m The complaint alleges that the magnetic layer in the tape of the Accused Products has a coercivity meeting this limitation. ¶¶ 18, 20, 23-25 col. 4:5-6
the overall thickness is equal to or less than 8 µm The complaint alleges that the total thickness of the tape in the Accused Products meets this limitation. ¶¶ 18, 20, 23-25 col. 4:7-8
  • Identified Points of Contention: The core of the dispute for the ’256 Patent will be factual and evidentiary. The analysis will depend on whether discovery and expert testing reveal that the nonmagnetic support layer in Sony's LTO tapes actually contains inorganic particles of the claimed size and density, and whether the tape's overall properties match the claim limitations. The complaint provides no specific data or evidence to support these allegations.

’451 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a magnetic recording medium comprising a magnetic layer comprising a ferromagnetic powder and a binder on a nonmagnetic support The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that the magnetic tape within the Accused Products has this structure. ¶¶ 33, 35, 38-40 col. 2:15-18
the magnetic layer has a residual magnetization Φr ranging from 5 to 50 mA The complaint alleges that the magnetic layer in the tape of the Accused Products exhibits a residual magnetization within this range. ¶¶ 33, 35, 38-40 col. 2:18-20
the ratio (Sdc/Sac) of average area Sdc of magnetic clusters under DC magnetized condition to average area Sac of magnetic clusters under AC erased condition ranges from 0.8 to 2.0 The complaint alleges that the magnetic layer in the tape of the Accused Products exhibits a magnetic cluster area ratio within this range. ¶¶ 33, 35, 38-40 col. 2:20-24
  • Identified Points of Contention: The dispute over the ’451 Patent will likely focus on highly technical, factual questions. The key issue will be whether the magnetic layers of the Accused Products, when measured, actually possess a residual magnetization and a magnetic cluster area ratio that fall within the claimed ranges. This raises a secondary question of claim construction regarding the precise methodology for identifying and measuring these "magnetic clusters."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term: "magnetic clusters" (from ’451 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is the basis for the Sdc/Sac ratio, a central limitation of the ’451 Patent’s independent claim. The definition of what constitutes a "magnetic cluster" and the methodology for measuring its "average area" will be critical to the infringement analysis, as different methodologies could yield different Sdc/Sac ratios for the same product.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a rigid definition, stating only that they are "magnetic blocks... measured by magnetic force microscopy (MFM)" (Compl., Ex. 3; ’451 Patent, col. 3:3-6). A party could argue this allows for any reasonable MFM-based measurement protocol known to those skilled in the art.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description provides a specific example of how the measurement was performed, including the use of a Nanoscope III, a specific lift height (40 nm), and a specific thresholding process (70% of standard deviation) to render images binary for analysis (Compl., Ex. 3; ’451 Patent, col. 13:8-24). A party may argue that the term should be construed consistently with this detailed, enabling disclosure.

  • Term: "nonmagnetic support" (from ’256 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: The claims of the ’256 Patent recite specific physical properties of the "nonmagnetic support," including the size and density of inorganic particles within it. The definition of this term is fundamental to determining which part of the multi-layered tape must meet these limitations.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term itself is general. A party could argue it encompasses more than just a single base film if other nonmagnetic components contribute to the support function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The structure of claim 1, which describes a "lower layer" and a "backcoat layer" being on opposite surfaces "of a nonmagnetic support," strongly suggests the "nonmagnetic support" is the central, distinct substrate film upon which other layers are built (Compl., Ex. 1; ’256 Patent, col. 16:50-57). The specification consistently describes forming layers on the support, reinforcing this interpretation (Compl., Ex. 1; ’256 Patent, col. 3:56-64).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: For all five patents, the complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Sony's advertising, instructional materials, and support services actively encourage and instruct customers to use the Accused Products in an infringing manner (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22, 36, 37). The complaint also pleads contributory infringement, alleging the Accused Products are a material part of the inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially made or adapted for infringement (e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 19, 34).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents. For the ’256, ’451, ’899, and ’905 patents, willfulness is based on alleged pre-suit notice provided to Sony through letters, claim charts, and emails between August 2012 and December 2015 (Compl. ¶¶ 29, 44, 59, 74). For the ’094 patent, the allegation rests on knowledge acquired "at least as of the time this Complaint was filed" (Compl. ¶ 89).

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

This case appears to be a deeply technical dispute between two major competitors in the data storage industry. The resolution will likely depend on the answers to two primary questions:

  1. A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Can Fujifilm, through discovery and expert analysis, demonstrate that Sony’s commercially produced LTO tapes consistently meet the highly specific and quantitative limitations recited in the patents—such as particle densities, magnetic cluster ratios, surface projection counts, and mechanical tolerances? The notice-style complaint provides no upfront evidence, making this the central factual battleground.
  2. A key legal question will be one of claim construction and measurement methodology: How will the court define critical but potentially ambiguous terms like "magnetic clusters" (’451 patent)? The outcome of these definitions will dictate the standard against which the accused products are measured and could be dispositive for the infringement analysis.