DCT

1:25-cv-00536

Monolithic Power Systems Inc v. Reed Semiconductor Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

Case Timeline

Date Event
2015-02-02 ’078 Patent Priority Date
2016-01-29 ’078 Patent Application Filing Date
2018-09-11 ’078 Patent Issue Date
2023-10-13 Prior lawsuit filed by MPS against Reed Semiconductor Corp.
2024-01-29 MPS allegedly emails Reed's counsel identifying the ’078 Patent
2025-05-01 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 10,075,078 - "Control Circuit for Maintaining a Switching Frequency for Constant On time Converter", Issued September 11, 2018

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses a problem in a class of power converters known as "constant on-time" (COT) converters, where the switching frequency tends to change undesirably with variations in the input voltage or the load current. (’078 Patent, col. 1:46-52). While solutions like phase-locked loops exist, they can be complex and difficult to design. (’078 Patent, col. 1:52-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a control circuit that maintains a "substantially constant" switching frequency. It achieves this by regulating the "on-time" of the converter's main switch. The duration of this on-time is controlled based on the voltage across a first capacitor. This capacitor is charged for a predetermined period after the switch turns on and then discharged, creating a control mechanism that adapts the on-time to keep the overall frequency stable despite operational changes. (’078 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:20-30).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to simplify the design and reduce the cost of power converters by providing stable frequency operation without requiring complex compensation circuits. (’078 Patent, col. 1:48-50).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one claim of the patent. (Compl. ¶55). Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Independent Claim 1 requires:
    • An ON control signal generation module to receive a reference signal and a feedback signal and provide an ON control signal.
    • An OFF control signal generation module configured to generate an OFF control signal with inactive and active logic states.
    • A logic control module to turn a main switch ON in response to the ON control signal and OFF in response to the active logic state of the OFF control signal.
    • The OFF control signal generation module is configured to charge a first capacitor for a "predetermined constant time" after the switch turns on, discharge the capacitor after that time, and regulate the "ON time" of the switch based on the capacitor's voltage to "maintain a switching frequency of the main switch substantially constant."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but refers to infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as the "Reed and Nengda Accused Products," which are "switching regulator products." (Compl. ¶30). The RS53319 and RS53317 are identified as exemplary accused products. (Compl. ¶43).

Functionality and Market Context

The accused products are power regulators designed for use in a variety of electronic devices. (Compl. ¶¶30, 37). The complaint alleges that the products are sold to major downstream U.S. companies, including Microsoft, Meta, Amazon Web Services, and Hewlett Packard Enterprises, for incorporation into their end products. (Compl. ¶34). The complaint presents visual evidence comparing the product markings and website materials for the RS53319 and RS53317 chips sold under the "iPG Semi" (Nengda) and "Reed" brands, alleging the chip images and layouts appear identical apart from branding. (Compl. ¶43). This side-by-side comparison shows two semiconductor chips, one branded "iPG SEMICONDUCTOR" and the other "REED," which are alleged to be the same product. (Compl. ¶43, p. 11).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the accused products meet every limitation of at least one claim of the ’078 Patent. (Compl. ¶55). It repeatedly incorporates by reference an "Exhibit 2" which purportedly contains a detailed analysis demonstrating how the accused products infringe. (Compl. ¶¶31, 49, 51, 55). However, this exhibit was not filed with the complaint.

In the absence of the referenced exhibit, the infringement theory must be inferred from the complaint's narrative. The core allegation is that the accused switching regulators contain a control circuit that infringes the ’078 Patent. (Compl. ¶¶28, 30). Specifically, the complaint describes the patent as disclosing a control circuit that generates an "off-control signal" to regulate the "on-time" of a main switch, and alleges the accused products practice this invention. (Compl. ¶¶28, 37). A central element of this theory is that the accused products employ a mechanism to maintain a stable switching frequency, which Plaintiff alleges is achieved through the patented method. (Compl. ¶55).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: The primary technical question will be whether the accused products actually regulate the switch "on-time" by charging and discharging a capacitor for a "predetermined constant time" as required by claim 1. Without Exhibit 2, the complaint lacks specific evidence showing the internal operation of the accused chips.
  • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute will be the meaning of "maintain a switching frequency... substantially constant." The parties may contest the degree of stability required to meet this limitation and the range of operating conditions (e.g., input voltage, load current) over which it must be maintained.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "maintain a switching frequency of the main switch substantially constant"

  • Context and Importance: This phrase captures the central purpose and alleged benefit of the invention. The scope of "substantially constant" will be critical to determining infringement, as it sets the performance benchmark the accused products must meet. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition will dictate whether typical, minor frequency variations in a power converter fall inside or outside the claim's scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent repeatedly frames the goal as maintaining the switching frequency "substantially constant," suggesting that perfect or absolute constancy is not required. (’078 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:29-30). The specification contrasts the invention with prior art where frequency "tends to change," which may support an interpretation where "substantially constant" means merely avoiding the large-scale drift seen in the prior art. (’078 Patent, col. 1:50-51).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes a specific mathematical relationship where the switching cycle "TP" should be constant because it is a function of a constant current (I1), a constant time (TSET), and another constant current (I2). (’078 Patent, col. 6:42-50). A defendant may argue this disclosure ties "substantially constant" to the specific circuit topology and conditions that yield this calculated, unchanging switching cycle.

The Term: "OFF control signal generation module"

  • Context and Importance: This term is written in a functional format, and its construction will determine what specific circuit structures are covered by the claim. The dispute will center on whether this term is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and, if so, what corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation (Not a § 112(f) term): A plaintiff may argue that "module" has a sufficiently definite structural meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art of circuit design (e.g., a collection of electronic components performing a function), thus avoiding means-plus-function treatment.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation (Is a § 112(f) term): The term does not recite a specific structure for performing the functions of "generating an OFF control signal," "charg[ing] a first capacitor," and "regulat[ing] an ON time." If construed under § 112(f), its scope would be limited to the corresponding structures disclosed in the patent, such as the combination of the first and second current sources (I1, I2), the first capacitor (C1), and the timing circuit (1021) as shown in Figure 1 and its variants. (’078 Patent, col. 4:2-20; Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges induced infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), stating that Defendants provide datasheets and other technical and marketing materials that instruct and encourage customers to incorporate the accused products into their own end-products in an infringing manner. (Compl. ¶¶39, 58). Contributory infringement is also alleged, based on the assertion that the accused products are a material part of the invention and are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. (Compl. ¶59).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness allegations are based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to have been established by at least two events: the filing of a separate patent lawsuit against Defendant Reed in October 2023, which allegedly would have prompted an investigation of Plaintiff's portfolio, and a direct email communication to Reed's counsel on January 29, 2024, which identified the ’078 patent. (Compl. ¶¶41-42, 48).

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

  1. An Evidentiary Question of Operation: Can the Plaintiff produce evidence, likely through reverse engineering and expert testing, to demonstrate that the accused "Reed and Nengda Accused Products" internally employ a control circuit that operates as claimed—specifically, by charging a capacitor for a "predetermined constant time" to regulate the switch "on-time"? The current complaint is silent on this direct proof.
  2. A Definitional Question of Scope: What degree of stability is required to "maintain a switching frequency... substantially constant"? The case may turn on whether this is construed as a narrow requirement tied to the specific circuits disclosed in the patent or a broader performance standard that tolerates some degree of frequency variation.
  3. A Factual Question of Liability: To what extent are the various foreign and domestic defendants intertwined? The complaint alleges the defendants sell identical products under different brands, suggesting a close relationship that will be a key focus for establishing joint liability, personal jurisdiction over the foreign entities, and the scope of any potential damages or injunction. (Compl. ¶¶40-41, 43).