GlobalFoundries US Inc v. TTE Technology

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Globalfoundries U.S. Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: TCL Corporation (China), TCL Electronics Holdings Limited (China), and TTE Technology, Inc. d/b/a TCL North America (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Farnan LLP
• Case Identification: 1:19-cv-01572, D. Del., 08/26/2019
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper as Defendant TTE Technology, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, and the other TCL defendants are foreign entities subject to suit in any judicial district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that semiconductor chips incorporated into Defendant's consumer electronics are manufactured abroad by a third party using a process that infringes a U.S. patent, and that Defendant's importation and sale of products containing these chips constitutes infringement.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to advanced semiconductor fabrication, specifically methods for tuning the electrical properties of transistors at nanometer scales to optimize performance in modern integrated circuits.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that Plaintiff Globalfoundries acquired the patent-in-suit as part of a 16,000-patent portfolio obtained through its 2015 acquisition of IBM's microelectronics business and facilities.

Case Timeline

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,750,418 - "Introduction of Metal Impurity to Change Workfunction of Conductive Electrodes"

• Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,750,418, "Introduction of Metal Impurity to Change Workfunction of Conductive Electrodes," issued July 6, 2010.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As semiconductor manufacturing moved to more advanced materials, replacing traditional silicon dioxide gate dielectrics with "high-k" dielectrics (materials with a higher dielectric constant), a technical problem arose. Transistors using these new materials, particularly n-MOSFETs, suffered from "a non-ideal threshold voltage," which negatively impacts device performance (’418 Patent, col. 2:46-54).
• The Patented Solution: The patent describes a method to correct this threshold voltage issue by modifying the "workfunction" of the transistor's gate stack. This is achieved by intentionally "introducing at least one metal impurity" into a specific "metal-containing material layer" that sits between the high-k dielectric and the conductive gate electrode (’418 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:22-29). By carefully selecting the impurity, the workfunction can be precisely adjusted to achieve the desired electrical characteristics.
• Technical Importance: This method provided a way to enable the use of high-k dielectrics, which are critical for continued transistor scaling (i.e., making smaller, more efficient chips), while maintaining control over the essential electrical properties of the transistors (’418 Patent, col. 2:9-11).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 27 (Compl. ¶23).
• Independent Claim 27 is a method claim with two primary steps:
  • "providing a material stack that comprises a dielectric having a dielectric constant of greater than silicon dioxide, a metal-containing material located above said dielectric, and a conductive electrode located directly on an upper surface of said metal-containing material;"
  • "introducing at least one workfunction altering metal impurity into said metal-containing material wherein said at least one workfunction altering metal impurity is introduced during forming of a metal impurity containing layer or after formation of a layer containing said metal-containing material."
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are integrated circuits, specifically MediaTek 1602 systems on a chip ("SoCs"), that are manufactured by a third party, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. ("TSMC"), using its "28 Nanometer and smaller technology" (Compl. ¶8, ¶23). These SoCs are alleged to be incorporated into end-products sold by TCL, such as the TCL 55R617 television (Compl. ¶23).

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint's allegations focus on the manufacturing process of the accused SoCs, not the functionality of the final television product. The relevant accused functionality is the method by which TSMC allegedly fabricates at least the p-type field-effect transistors (FETs) within the SoCs (Compl. ¶27-28). The complaint alleges this manufacturing process involves creating a specific material stack and introducing impurities to alter the workfunction, thereby falling within the scope of the asserted patent claims (Compl. ¶26).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

’418 Patent Infringement Allegations

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The complaint alleges that one layer, "interfacial TiN," is the "metal-containing material", while an adjacent layer, "TiN WF," is the "conductive electrode". A central dispute may arise over whether two adjacent layers comprised of the same base material (Titanium Nitride) can be properly construed as meeting two distinct limitations of the claim. The interpretation of "metal-containing material" versus "conductive electrode" will be critical.
• Technical Questions: The complaint asserts that "TiAlCOClf fill" is a "workfunction altering metal impurity". A key technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that this specific material, as used in the accused TSMC process, actually performs the function of altering the workfunction of the "interfacial TiN" layer in the manner described and claimed by the patent.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "metal-containing material"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical because the infringement theory requires it to be a distinct element from the "conductive electrode". Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff identifies a thin "interfacial TiN" layer as this element, separate from another TiN-based layer alleged to be the electrode. The viability of this infringement theory depends on construing these as separate claimed elements.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the term broadly as a material that "comprises a metallic material and/or a semimetallic material that is capable of conducting electrons," and provides examples like metal nitrides, including TiN (’418 Patent, col. 6:10-14; col. 6:21-24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent frequently discusses this layer in context as a specific, discrete layer (e.g., a TiN layer) positioned underneath a separate, primary gate electrode material like polysilicon (’418 Patent, col. 2:50-51, describing a "TiN/polySi...gate stack"). This might be used to argue it must be compositionally distinct from the layer serving as the "conductive electrode".

• The Term: "conductive electrode"

• Context and Importance: This term must be construed as an element distinct from the "metal-containing material" for the plaintiff's theory to succeed. Its definition will determine whether the accused "TiN WF" layer can satisfy this limitation when an "interfacial TiN" layer is already present.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the electrode as potentially being a "conductive metal or a conductive metal alloy," not just traditional polysilicon, which could support the argument that the accused "TiN WF" layer qualifies (’418 Patent, col. 8:53-54).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Many examples in the patent describe the "conductive electrode" as a polysilicon layer deposited on top of the "metal-containing material" (e.g., TiN) (’418 Patent, col. 2:36-37, col. 2:50-51). A defendant may argue that in the context of the invention, the "conductive electrode" refers to the bulk gate material, not another thin metallic film like the one it is deposited on.

VI. Other Allegations

The complaint does not contain specific allegations to support indirect or willful infringement.

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

• A core issue will be one of definitional scope and claim differentiation: Can the terms "metal-containing material" and "conductive electrode" be construed to read on two distinct but adjacent layers made of the same base material (Titanium Nitride), as alleged in the complaint? The case may turn on whether the accused "interfacial TiN" and "TiN WF" layers are viewed as satisfying two separate and distinct claim limitations.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of process infringement and importation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g): Can the plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to prove that the specific semiconductor chips inside the imported TCL products were in fact manufactured abroad using the precise process alleged (e.g., the use of "TiAlCOClf fill") and that this process meets every limitation of the asserted method claim?