DCT

1:24-cv-00341

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Seagate Technology LLC

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-00341, D. Del., 03/15/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware because two of the defendant entities are incorporated in Delaware, and the foreign corporate defendants may be sued in any judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s hard disk drives (HDDs) and their internal read/write heads infringe three U.S. patents related to Magnetic Tunnel Junction (MTJ) technology.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the physical structure of MTJ devices, which are critical components in modern high-capacity HDDs for reading and writing data at high densities.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that between 2014 and 2017, the patents’ prior owners litigated a Japanese counterpart patent against Seagate. Following a 2017 finding of infringement in Japan, the parties allegedly engaged in licensing negotiations in 2018, during which Seagate was made aware of the asserted U.S. patents. In March 2019, Seagate allegedly took a license to the Japanese portfolio but not the U.S. patents. The complaint also notes that one of the asserted patents issued in August 2023.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-03-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’403, ’263, and ’372 Patents
2006-02-01 Seagate researchers publish paper on TMR heads using MgO
2011-02-08 U.S. Patent No. 7,884,403 Issued
2012-11-27 U.S. Patent No. 8,319,263 Issued
2014-01-01 Alleged start of Japanese litigation between prior owners and Seagate
2017-05-01 Japanese court finds Seagate HDDs infringed counterpart patent
2018-01-01 Alleged start of license negotiations and Seagate's knowledge of U.S. patents
2018-03-01 Alleged start of infringing activity for damages period
2019-03-01 Seagate licenses Japanese portfolio, excluding U.S. patents
2023-08-22 U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372 Issued
2024-03-15 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,884,403 - "Magnetic Tunnel Junction Device and Memory Device Including the Same"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7884403, "Magnetic Tunnel Junction Device and Memory Device Including the Same," issued February 8, 2011.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional MTJ devices, which often used an amorphous aluminum-oxide (Al-O) tunnel barrier, suffered from a relatively low magnetoresistance (MR) ratio of around 70%. This low MR ratio resulted in a small output voltage, which limited the feasibility of creating very large-scale, high-density memories like gigabit-class MRAMs (Compl. ¶32; ’403 Patent, col. 2:21-31, col. 2:50-60).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention replaces the amorphous barrier with a highly-ordered, crystalline magnesium oxide (MgO) layer, specifically one where the (001) crystal plane is preferentially oriented (’403 Patent, col. 3:1-9). This ordered structure is said to suppress the scattering of electrons as they pass through the barrier, a phenomenon described as "coherent spin polarized tunneling," which dramatically increases the MR ratio and the device's output voltage (Compl. ¶32; ’403 Patent, col. 5:9-14). The complaint also highlights that creating oxygen vacancy defects in the MgO layer can lower its potential barrier height, reducing resistance and allowing for higher currents (Compl. ¶31; ’403 Patent, col. 6:52-56). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the basic Fe/MgO/Fe structure (Compl. ¶32, p. 11).
  • Technical Importance: This shift from an amorphous Al-O barrier to a crystalline MgO barrier was a fundamental innovation that enabled significantly higher data storage densities and performance in magnetic storage devices (Compl. ¶24, ¶28).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 5 of the patent (Compl. ¶52). Claim 5 is an independent claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 5 include:
    • A first ferromagnetic material layer of a BCC structure.
    • A second ferromagnetic material layer of a BCC structure.
    • A magnesium oxide layer located between the first and second ferromagnetic layers.
    • Wherein the magnesium oxide layer is a single-crystalline (001) or a poly-crystalline layer in which the (001) crystal plane is preferentially oriented.
    • Wherein the magnesium oxide has oxygen vacancy defects.
    • Wherein the magnesium oxide has a tunnel barrier height in a range of 0.2 to 0.5 eV.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶2).

U.S. Patent No. 8,319,263 - "Magnetic Tunnel Junction Device"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8319263, "Magnetic Tunnel Junction Device," issued November 27, 2012.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '403 patent's application, the ’263 patent addresses the same core technical challenge: the performance limitations of prior art MTJ devices, particularly their low MR ratio and insufficient output voltage, which hindered the development of high-density memory devices (’263 Patent, col. 1:25-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is likewise centered on using a specific type of magnesium oxide (MgO) as the tunnel barrier. The patent describes forming a tunnel barrier from a single-crystalline or preferentially oriented poly-crystalline MgO layer, which facilitates coherent tunneling and yields a higher MR ratio than conventional amorphous barriers (’263 Patent, col. 3:9-25, col. 5:45-51). The invention also discloses that this structure can have a specific, low tunnel barrier height, which is beneficial for device operation (’263 Patent, col. 10:9-12).
  • Technical Importance: The technology provides a structural blueprint for MTJ devices capable of supporting the performance and density requirements of modern magnetic storage (Compl. ¶42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 1 of the patent (Compl. ¶79). Claim 1 is an independent claim.
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A first ferromagnetic material layer of BCC structure.
    • A second ferromagnetic material layer of BCC structure.
    • A tunnel barrier layer between them, comprising a single-crystalline or poly-crystalline magnesium oxide layer where the (001) crystal plane is preferentially oriented.
    • Wherein the tunnel barrier layer has a tunnel barrier height in a range of 0.2 to 0.5 eV.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶2).

U.S. Patent No. 11,737,372 - "Method of Manufacturing a Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM)"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11737372, "Method of Manufacturing a Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (MRAM)," issued August 22, 2023.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method for manufacturing an MRAM device. The claimed process involves specific steps for creating the high-performance MTJ structure, including preparing a substrate, depositing a first Fe(001) layer, using electron beam evaporation in a high vacuum to deposit a crystalline MgO tunnel barrier, and then forming a second Fe(001) layer on the barrier (’372 Patent, Abstract, Claim 1). The invention aims to provide a reliable manufacturing process for devices with high magnetoresistance (’372 Patent, col. 2:61-65).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶107).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the Defendants' manufacturing processes for their HDDs and read/write heads practice the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶107, ¶109).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint identifies a wide range of Seagate's internal and external hard disk drives (HDDs), including those sold under the Exos, IronWolf, BarraCuda, and FireCuda brands, as well as the read/write heads incorporated within them (Compl. ¶46-47).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that the read/write heads within these accused HDDs are the components that embody the patented technology (Compl. ¶46). Specifically, it is alleged that these heads are magnetoresistive devices that employ a Magnetic Tunnel Junction (MTJ) structure to read data (Compl. ¶28). The complaint alleges that Seagate's own technical publications from as early as 2006 confirm its use of "TMR heads" with MgO as the barrier material in its laptop and desktop drives, which the Plaintiff contends is the technology covered by the Asserted Patents (Compl. ¶36). The complaint includes a visual snippet from a 2006 Seagate technical paper reporting a measured barrier height in its TMR readers (Compl. ¶37).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the defendants' accused HDDs infringe the asserted patents, but it states that the detailed, element-by-element infringement contentions for each patent are contained in Exhibits D, E, and F, which were not filed publicly with the complaint (Compl. ¶54, ¶81, ¶109). The complaint's narrative theory is that the MTJ-based read/write heads in the accused HDDs incorporate all the structural and material features recited in the asserted claims, including a crystalline MgO tunnel barrier with specific properties (Compl. ¶28-33, ¶49).

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a claim-chart analysis.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The claims of the ’403 and ’263 Patents require the MgO layer to be "poly-crystalline... in which (001) crystal plane is preferentially oriented." The required degree of "preferential orientation" is not defined. A dispute may arise over what level of crystal quality is necessary to meet this limitation and whether the accused devices possess it.
    • Technical Questions: A significant technical question arises from the patents' requirement of a "tunnel barrier height in a range of 0.2 to 0.5 eV" (’403 Patent, cl. 5; ’263 Patent, cl. 1). The complaint cites a 2006 technical paper from Seagate researchers stating that their TMR reader exhibited a barrier height "around 100 meV," which is 0.1 eV (Compl. ¶37). This value is outside the explicitly claimed range. This raises the question of whether the accused products, sold from 2018 onward, have a barrier height that falls within the claimed range, or if the 0.1 eV figure is representative, creating a potential non-infringement argument for the defendants.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "tunnel barrier height in a range of 0.2 to 0.5 eV" (appears in independent claim 5 of the ’403 patent and independent claim 1 of the ’263 patent)

  • Context and Importance: This term's construction is critical because the infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused devices meet this specific numerical range. Practitioners may focus on this term because the complaint's own evidence, a 2006 Seagate paper, reports a barrier height of 0.1 eV (100 meV), which is below the claimed range (Compl. ¶37).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the ’403 patent discusses a broader range for the barrier height decrease, mentioning a range of "0.10 to 0.85 eV," which could suggest the inventors contemplated values outside the specific claimed range (’403 Patent, col. 6:52-54).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides a specific, bounded range. The patent also distinguishes the invention's lower barrier height from the much higher "ideal tunnel barrier height of a MgO crystal" of 3.6 eV, suggesting the recited range is a deliberate and defining feature of the invention (’403 Patent, col. 7:31-33).

  • The Term: "poly-crystalline MgOx ... in which (001) crystal plane is preferentially oriented" (appears in independent claim 5 of the ’403 patent and independent claim 1 of the ’263 patent)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement determination will depend on the physical characteristics of the MgO layer in Seagate's products. The term "preferentially oriented" is qualitative, and its required scope will likely be a central point of dispute.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's background repeatedly contrasts the invention with prior art "amorphous" Al-O barriers, suggesting that any significant, non-amorphous crystalline orientation could fall within the term's scope (’403 Patent, col. 2:21-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification emphasizes that the invention's improved performance stems from "coherent" tunneling enabled by a "highly-ordered" and "crystalline" MgO layer, and provides RHEED images (a technique for analyzing crystal structure) as evidence of "good crystallinity and flatness" (’403 Patent, col. 5:9-14, Figs. 3(A)-(B)). This could support an argument that a high degree of orientation is required.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement, stating that Defendants have known of the patents since at least 2018 and have actively encouraged infringement by providing product manuals, datasheets, and other marketing materials that instruct customers and distributors on using the accused HDDs in their intended, infringing manner (e.g., in laptops, servers, and external storage systems) (Compl. ¶63, ¶90, ¶118).
  • Willful Infringement: The willfulness allegations are based on alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents. The complaint contends that Seagate knew of the Asserted Patents and their relation to its products no later than 2018, as a result of prior litigation in Japan involving a Japanese counterpart patent and subsequent worldwide licensing negotiations where Seagate allegedly declined to license the U.S. patents (Compl. ¶55-59, ¶73-75). Knowledge of the recently-issued ’372 patent is alleged from its issue date, based on awareness of the patent family (Compl. ¶114).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical fact: do the accused Seagate HDDs, sold from March 2018 onward, contain an MgO tunnel barrier with a height that falls within the 0.2 to 0.5 eV range recited in the claims, especially given that the complaint's own supporting evidence from a 2006 Seagate paper reports a value of 0.1 eV?
  • A central legal issue will be one of claim construction: what specific degree of crystal quality and alignment is required to satisfy the term "preferentially oriented," and does the accused technology meet that standard, or is it closer to the "amorphous" structures described as prior art?
  • The viability of the willful infringement claim will likely depend on the court's assessment of the prior interactions between the parties: do the allegations regarding the Japanese litigation and subsequent licensing negotiations constitute the kind of pre-suit knowledge and egregious conduct necessary to support enhanced damages?