DCT
1:19-cv-01095
Rondevoo Tech LLC v. Avalanche Technology Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Rondevoo Technologies, LLC (a California Limited Liability Company)
- Defendant: Avalanche Technology, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: O'Kelly Ernst & Joyce, LLC; Brandt Law Firm
- Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01095, D. Del., 06/13/2019
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Delaware because Defendant is a Delaware corporation that resides and conducts business in the state.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s discrete MRAM (Magnetoresistive Random-Access Memory) devices infringe a patent related to nano-electronic memory arrays.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue involves the architecture of non-volatile memory devices, specifically the use of nano-scale magnetic materials to form individual memory cells.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2004-04-06 | ’369 Patent Priority Date |
| 2008-02-12 | ’369 Patent Issue Date |
| 2019-06-13 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,330,369, “NANO-Electronic Memory Array,” issued on February 12, 2008.
- The Invention Explained:
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the challenge of continuing to scale down integrated circuits according to Moore's Law, particularly for mixed-signal chips that combine analog and digital components. It notes that while shrinking transistor size benefits digital logic, it can lead to poor performance for analog circuits, creating a bottleneck for device advancement (ʼ369 Patent, col. 1:10-33).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a memory architecture based on an array of nano-scale components. The core of the solution is a memory cell comprising two electrodes with a "single molecule magnetic nano-layer" situated at their intersection, which acts as the data storage element. These cells are organized into a grid using word lines and bit lines, forming a high-density memory array (’369 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-6; Fig. 5).
- Technical Importance: This approach aimed to leverage molecular-scale electronics to overcome the physical limitations of conventional semiconductor fabrication, suggesting a path toward denser, more power-efficient memory devices (’369 Patent, col. 3:1-5).
- Key Claims at a Glance:
- The complaint asserts infringement of independent Claim 1 (’369 Patent, col. 57:20-30; Compl. ¶11).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
- A memory device comprising an array of memory cells disposed in rows and columns and constructed over a substrate.
- Each memory cell comprising a first signal electrode, a second signal electrode, and a single molecule magnetic nano-layer disposed in the intersecting region between the first signal electrode and the second signal electrode.
- A plurality of word lines each connecting the first signal electrodes of a row of memory cells.
- A plurality of bit lines each connecting the second signal electrodes of a column of memory cells.
- The complaint’s prayer for relief references "one or more claims" of the patent, but the infringement count specifically identifies only Claim 1 (Compl. ¶11, Prayer for Relief ¶A).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
- Product Identification: The accused products are "Avalanche's discrete MRAM devices" (Compl. ¶13).
- Functionality and Market Context:
- The complaint alleges that the accused products are MRAM devices that include memory cells arranged in rows and columns (Compl. ¶15-16). Each cell is alleged to contain two metal electrodes with a "single molecule layer of MgO" (Magnesium Oxide) between them (Compl. ¶16).
- The architecture is alleged to include wordlines connecting the first metal electrodes and bitlines connecting the second metal electrodes (Compl. ¶17).
- The complaint does not provide details on the products' commercial importance or market position.
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
- Claim Chart Summary: The complaint references a claim chart in an "Exhibit B," which was not attached to the filed document. The following table summarizes the infringement theory based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body.
’369 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a memory device comprising an array of memory cells disposed in rows and columns and constructed over a substrate | The Accused Product(s) includes an MRAM device with memory cells containing a layer of MgO, disposed in rows and columns. | ¶15, ¶16 | col. 17:47-52 |
| each memory cell comprising a first signal electrode, a second signal electrode... | The Accused Product(s) includes memory cells which each have two metal electrodes. | ¶16 | col. 17:53-54 |
| ...and a single molecule magnetic nano-layer disposed in the intersecting region between the first signal electrode and the second signal electrode | The Accused Product(s) includes a "single molecule layer of MgO" disposed between the two metal electrodes. | ¶16 | col. 17:55-59 |
| a plurality of word lines each connecting the first signal electrodes of a row of memory cells... | The Accused Product(s) includes wordlines that connect the first metal electrodes. | ¶17 | col. 17:59-62 |
| ...and a plurality of bit lines each connecting the second signal electrodes of memory cells. | The Accused Product(s) includes bitlines that connect the second metal electrodes. | ¶17 | col. 17:62-65 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The infringement analysis raises the question of whether the accused "single molecule layer of MgO" (Compl. ¶16) falls within the scope of the claimed "single molecule magnetic nano-layer" (’369 Patent, col. 57:25-26). In MRAM technology, MgO typically functions as a non-magnetic tunnel barrier, while adjacent metallic layers (e.g., CoFeB) serve as the magnetic storage elements. The court may need to determine if a non-magnetic layer that is essential to the operation of a magnetic memory cell can satisfy the "magnetic" limitation of the claim.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question is what evidence the complaint provides that the accused MgO layer itself is "magnetic," as required by the claim language. The complaint makes a conclusory allegation but does not explain how the accused MgO layer meets this specific technical requirement, suggesting a potential mismatch between the claim and the actual function of the accused component.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "single molecule magnetic nano-layer"
- Context and Importance: The construction of this term appears central to the dispute. The case will likely depend on whether this term is interpreted broadly to cover any nano-scale layer integral to a magnetic memory cell's function, or narrowly to mean a layer composed of specific materials that are themselves magnetic at the molecular level. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's infringement theory equates it with a layer of MgO, a material not typically considered a "magnetic layer" in its own right.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party arguing for a broader reading might point to general language in the patent summary, which describes the invention as having a "NANO-layer" without the "magnetic" qualifier, potentially suggesting the terms are interchangeable in the patent's context (’369 Patent, col. 2:2-3).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party arguing for a narrower reading will likely cite the patent’s repeated and specific references to "Single Molecule Magnets (SMMs)" as the material for this layer (’369 Patent, col. 17:1-4). The specification provides a concrete chemical example of an SMM, "Mn12O12(O2CMe)16(H2O)," and explicitly labels the corresponding component in Figure 5 as an "SMM layer 214" (’369 Patent, col. 17:27-29, 17:55). This evidence may support a construction that limits the claim to layers composed of actual SMMs, which would not include MgO.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain allegations of induced or contributory infringement. It alleges direct infringement based on Defendant's acts of making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing the accused products (Compl. ¶12).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit claim for willful infringement or any factual allegations regarding Defendant's knowledge of the patent prior to the lawsuit.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this case will likely depend on the court’s determination of two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of claim construction: can the term "single molecule magnetic nano-layer," which the patent specification consistently describes in the context of specific Single Molecule Magnet (SMM) compounds, be construed to cover a layer of MgO, which is widely understood in the art to function as a non-magnetic tunnel barrier in an MRAM cell?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of technical function: assuming the claim is not limited to SMMs, can the plaintiff prove that the accused MgO layer itself performs a magnetic function as required by the claim, or is its role purely that of a dielectric, creating a fundamental mismatch in technical operation that precludes a finding of infringement?