DCT

1:23-cv-00778

Microchip Technology Inc v. Aptiv Services US LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:23-cv-00778, D. Del., 07/21/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because the defendant, Aptiv Services US, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company and therefore resides in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s automotive "Dual Role Hub" products, which contain its "Boston-2" integrated circuit, infringe three patents related to USB hub combination devices, electrostatic discharge protection, and voltage regulators.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the design of integrated circuits (ICs) for automotive infotainment systems, a market requiring compact, power-efficient, and robust components for connecting consumer electronics to vehicle systems.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a specific history of interaction between the parties, noting a prior 2017 litigation. It also details a currently pending "Related Action" (1:23-cv-00307) in which Microchip has already asserted all three patents-in-suit in counterclaims against Aptiv. The complaint leverages this history, along with an alleged 2012 patent search by Aptiv, to build its allegations of pre-suit knowledge and willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-01-10 ’665 Patent Priority Date
2008-08-08 ’874 Patent Priority Date
2009-07-21 ’665 Patent Issued
2011-10-18 ’874 Patent Issued
c. 2012 Aptiv allegedly became aware of the ’665 and ’874 Patents via a patent search
2013-03-14 ’074 Patent Priority Date
2016-10-18 ’074 Patent Issued; Aptiv allegedly became aware of the patent
2023-03-20 "Related Action" filed by Aptiv Technologies against Microchip
2023-05-11 Microchip filed counterclaims in Related Action, asserting the ’074 Patent
2023-06-08 Microchip informed Aptiv of intent to assert ’665 and ’874 Patents in conference
2023-07-14 Microchip filed amended counterclaims in Related Action, asserting all three patents
2023-07-21 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,041,874 - “USB and Ethernet Controller Combination Device,” Issued Oct. 18, 2011

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As consumer devices increasingly require both USB and Ethernet functionality, there is a need for more compact, power-efficient, and cost-effective solutions than using separate, discrete integrated circuits for each function (’874 Patent, col. 2:30-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent describes a single integrated circuit that combines a multi-port USB hub with an Ethernet controller (’874 Patent, col. 6:49-54). A key aspect of the solution is connecting the USB hub and Ethernet controller internally via a digital interface (like UTMI), rather than through a full physical-layer port (PHY), which eliminates the need for two duplicative PHYs and reduces cost and complexity (’874 Patent, col. 7:45-54).
  • Technical Importance: This integrated approach allows for a single-chip solution that provides both Ethernet and USB hub capabilities, reducing the physical footprint, power consumption, and bill of materials for device manufacturers (’874 Patent, col. 7:25-34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 25 (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential elements of claim 25 include:
    • An integrated circuit (IC) comprising:
    • an Ethernet controller circuit configured to transmit/receive data to/from a network;
    • a USB hub circuit configured to transmit/receive data to/from a host, and comprising an internal downstream port; and
    • a digital interface configured to couple the USB hub circuit to the Ethernet controller circuit through the internal downstream port, and configured to manage data exchange between them;
    • wherein the Ethernet controller appears to the host as a permanently attached device on the internal downstream port.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 7,564,665 - “Pad ESD Spreading Technique,” Issued Jul. 21, 2009

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Modern integrated circuits, with their increasing density and lower operating voltages, are highly sensitive to damage from electrostatic discharge (ESD) events (’665 Patent, col. 1:11-20). Conventional protection circuits can be difficult to implement effectively without compromising performance or increasing silicon area (’665 Patent, col. 2:3-8).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an ESD protection system where an ESD event on one I/O pad triggers control circuitry to turn on the output transistors (specifically, PMOS devices) of other I/O pads on the chip (’665 Patent, col. 4:20-35). This "spreading" technique uses the inherent capacitance of all the pads to absorb and dissipate the energy of the ESD event, thereby reducing the peak voltage experienced by any single part of the circuit (’665 Patent, col. 4:26-35, Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This technique aims to provide robust ESD protection by leveraging existing circuit elements (output buffers and pads) across the entire chip, potentially improving reliability without requiring large, dedicated clamp circuits for every pad (’665 Patent, Abstract).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 14 (Compl. ¶44).
  • The essential elements of claim 14 include a system with:
    • One or more pads, each comprising:
    • a respective physical pad having respective capacitance;
    • a respective clamp device configured to absorb energy from an ESD event; and
    • a respective pad circuit comprising:
      • a respective output buffer coupled to the physical pad; and
      • respective control circuitry operable to:
        • activate at least a portion of the respective output buffer in response to an ESD event to charge the respective pad capacitance to reduce a maximum voltage; and
        • turn on the clamp device in response to the ESD event.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 9,471,074 - “USB Regulator with Current Buffer to Reduce Compensation Capacitor Size and Provide for Wide Range of ESR Values of External Capacitor,” issued Oct. 18, 2016

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the problem that low-dropout (LDO) voltage regulators often require large external capacitors for stability, and their performance is highly sensitive to the capacitor's equivalent series resistance (ESR) (Compl. ¶17). The patented solution is a voltage regulator design that incorporates a gm-enhanced current buffer, which allows the regulator to remain stable with smaller compensation capacitors and across a wider range of ESR values, increasing design flexibility (Compl. ¶18; ’074 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶19).
  • Accused Features: The voltage regulator circuit within the USB driver of the accused Boston-2 chip is alleged to infringe (Compl. ¶¶66-67).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused instrumentalities are Aptiv's "Dual Role Hub" products, which contain "Boston-2 chips," as well as earlier and later generations (collectively, the "Accused Products") (Compl. ¶26).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges the Dual Role Hub serves as an interface within a vehicle's infotainment system, connecting devices like smartphones to a vehicle head unit (Compl. ¶¶9, 27). The core of the accused functionality resides in the Boston-2 chip. This chip is alleged to facilitate host-to-host communication, for example between a vehicle's system and an iPhone, by routing communications through a "Network Control Module" that acts as an Ethernet controller (Compl. ¶31). The products are positioned for the automotive market, providing connectivity for in-vehicle infotainment systems (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’874 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 25) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
an Ethernet controller circuit configured to transmit/receive data to/from a network The Boston-2 chip allegedly contains a "Network Control Module" that transmits Ethernet data to/from a network situated between the module and a connected device (e.g., an iPhone). This is demonstrated by USB traffic analyzer testing. ¶31 col. 8:17-21
a USB (Universal Serial Bus) hub circuit configured to transmit/receive the data to/from a host, and comprising an internal downstream port The Boston-2 chip is alleged to include a USB hub with multiple downstream ports, at least one of which is an internal port. Teardown die photos are provided as evidence of internal USB ports. (Compl. ¶30, p. 9). ¶¶29-30 col. 8:60-64
a digital interface configured to couple the USB hub circuit to the Ethernet controller circuit through the internal downstream port... The alleged "Network Control Module" must be connected to the USB hub via a digital interface to facilitate communication. ¶32 col. 8:65-col. 9:2
...and configured to manage data exchange between the USB hub and the Ethernet controller The alleged digital interface must manage data exchange for the USB hub and Ethernet controller to communicate. ¶32 col. 9:1-3
wherein the Ethernet controller appears to the host as a permanently attached device on the internal downstream port The Boston-2 chip allegedly contains no detachable components, meaning the "Network Control Module" (the alleged Ethernet controller) must be permanently attached and appear to the host as such. ¶33 col. 9:45-47
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the alleged "Network Control Module" on the Boston-2 chip constitutes an "Ethernet controller circuit" within the meaning of the patent. The defense may argue it performs a different function or does not meet the full definition of an Ethernet controller.
    • Technical Questions: The existence and nature of the "digital interface" is based on inference. The complaint states the two modules "must be connected" and the interface "must manage data exchange," but does not provide direct evidence of the interface's structure or protocol. The evidence that the module "appears to the host as a permanently attached device" will also be a key factual dispute.

’665 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a respective physical pad having respective capacitance The teardown schematic of the Boston-2 chip shows a "Pad" (labeled in green) which has inherent capacitance. This is depicted in a circuit diagram derived from a teardown of the accused chip (Compl. ¶45, p. 12). ¶45 col. 5:46-49
a respective clamp device configured to absorb, when turned on, a portion of an energy generated by an ESD event... The schematic identifies a "Clamp Device" (labeled in purple) that, when enabled, allegedly shorts the pad to ground, creating a path to dissipate energy from an ESD event. ¶¶45-46 col. 4:49-52
a respective output buffer coupled to the respective physical pad... The schematic shows an "Output Buffer" (labeled in blue) that is coupled to the pad and is operable to drive signals at the pad. ¶¶45, 47 col. 4:21-24
respective control circuitry operable to: activate at least a portion of the respective output buffer in response to an ESD event to charge the respective pad capacitance... The complaint alleges that during an ESD event, the "Control Circuitry" (labeled in dark orange) activates the PMOS transistor of the output buffer, creating a path between the pad and the VDDIO line, which connects to other pads, thereby charging their combined capacitance. ¶¶45, 50-54 col. 6:35-43
and turn on the clamp device in response to the ESD event The complaint alleges that during an ESD event, the control circuitry also enables the transistors of the clamp device, creating an electrical path from the pad to ground. ¶55 col. 6:44-50
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute is the meaning of "activate... to charge the respective pad capacitance." The defense may argue that any activation of the output buffer during an ESD event is for a different purpose (e.g., a byproduct of the clamp activating) and does not perform the specific "charge spreading" function described in the patent.
    • Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies heavily on Plaintiff's own analysis of teardown schematics. A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused circuit actually operates as alleged. Does an ESD event on one pad cause the output buffers of other pads to turn on and share the charge, or is the protection localized? The complaint's visual aids (e.g., Compl. p. 17-19) illustrate this theory, but it remains an allegation of operational behavior that will require proof.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’874 Patent:

  • The Term: "digital interface"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the lynchpin of the infringement allegation for the ’874 patent. The complaint alleges the USB hub and Ethernet controller are coupled by such an interface, but provides no structural details. The definition of "digital interface" will determine whether the inferred connection between the alleged modules on the Boston-2 chip meets this limitation, or if the claim requires a specific, standardized interface like UTMI that may not be present.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly refers to the interface in general terms, stating it is "configured to couple" the two circuits and "manage data exchange" (e.g., ’874 Patent, col. 9:1-3). This could support a construction that covers any non-PHY digital connection that performs this function.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification frequently uses "a USB Transceiver Macrocell Interface UTMI" as the prime example of the digital interface (’874 Patent, col. 6:62-63, claim 20). A defendant may argue that the invention is limited to standardized interfaces like UTMI, not just any proprietary set of digital signal lines.

For the ’665 Patent:

  • The Term: "control circuitry operable to: activate at least a portion of the respective output buffer in response to an ESD event to charge the respective pad capacitance"
  • Context and Importance: This functional language is the core of the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the infringement case depends on proving not just that the output buffer is active during an ESD event, but that it is activated for the purpose of charging the pad capacitance to spread the energy.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is functional. A plaintiff could argue that if the accused circuit's output buffer turns on in response to an ESD event and this action results in charging the pad capacitance, the claim is met, regardless of any other simultaneous protection mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent's detailed description emphasizes the concept of "charge sharing" among "all the other pad cells" as the primary mechanism (’665 Patent, col. 4:29-35). A defendant could argue this requires proof of a coordinated, chip-wide response where multiple output buffers are intentionally activated to absorb energy, as opposed to a localized or incidental activation of a single buffer.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement for all three patents. The allegations are based on Aptiv providing the Accused Products to customers (e.g., auto manufacturers) and "advising" them on how to incorporate the products into infringing infotainment systems (Compl. ¶¶36, 58, 75).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes detailed willfulness allegations. It alleges Aptiv has known of the ’665 and ’874 Patents since a 2012 patent search related to the launch of the Dual Role Hub (Compl. ¶20). For the ’074 Patent, it alleges knowledge since its 2016 issuance and, at a minimum, since May 11, 2023, when Microchip asserted it in counterclaims in a "Related Action" between the parties (Compl. ¶¶21-22). Knowledge of the ’665 and ’874 patents is also alleged based on communications in that same Related Action (Compl. ¶23).

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

  1. A central issue will be one of architectural characterization: Does the accused "Boston-2" chip contain a distinct "Ethernet controller circuit" coupled to a "USB hub circuit" via a "digital interface" as claimed in the ’874 patent, or is this an inaccurate description of a more integrated, proprietary architecture that does not map onto the claim elements?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of operational mechanism: Does the accused chip's ESD protection circuitry function as described in the ’665 patent by activating output buffers across the chip to "spread" charge among pad capacitances? Or does it rely on a different, more conventional protection scheme where the role of the output buffer, if any, during an ESD event is incidental and not for the claimed purpose of charging capacitance?
  3. Given the specific, fact-based allegations of pre-suit knowledge dating back to 2012 and knowledge from parallel litigation, a critical question will be willfulness: If infringement is found, can Aptiv overcome the strong factual predicate laid by Microchip to argue that its alleged infringement was not willful, which would have significant implications for potential damages?