DCT
1:15-cv-10240
Energetiq Technology Inc v. ASML Netherlands BV
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Energetiq Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Defendant: ASML Netherlands B.V. (Netherlands); Excelitas Technologies Corp. (Delaware); Qioptiq Photonics GmbH & Co. KG (Germany)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Proskauer Rose LLP
- Case Identification: 1:15-cv-10240, D. Mass., 01/30/2015
- Venue Allegations: Venue in the District of Massachusetts is alleged based on Plaintiff Energetiq and Defendant Excelitas residing in the district, Defendants ASML and Qioptiq conducting business in the district, and a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims occurring in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ laser-driven light source products, used in semiconductor manufacturing equipment, infringe four U.S. patents related to generating high-brightness light from a laser-sustained plasma.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns high-brightness light sources that use lasers to energize a gas into a plasma, offering a more stable and powerful alternative to traditional arc lamps for applications like semiconductor wafer inspection.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint describes a business relationship between Energetiq, ASML, and Qioptiq for the development of a light source for ASML's next-generation YieldStar 350 system. Energetiq alleges that Qioptiq, with its parent Excelitas, fraudulently provided false technical specifications to misdirect Energetiq's development while secretly creating its own competing and infringing product to supplant Energetiq. The complaint also notes that both ASML and Qioptiq had previously discussed licensing Energetiq's patent portfolio.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2006-03-31 | Priority Date for ’982, ’455, ’138, and ’943 Patents |
| 2008-10-14 | U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 Issues |
| 2010-08-31 | U.S. Patent No. 7,786,455 Issues |
| 2011-01-01 | Energetiq begins supplying patented products to ASML (approx. date) |
| 2012-11-13 | U.S. Patent No. 8,309,943 Issues |
| 2013-09-03 | U.S. Patent No. 8,525,138 Issues |
| 2013-07-01 | Qioptiq begins making/selling accused Qioptiq LS1 (approx. date) |
| 2013-10-01 | ASML begins discussions with Energetiq for YieldStar 350 (approx. date) |
| 2014-01-01 | ASML begins importing YieldStar 250 with LS1 into U.S. (approx. date) |
| 2014-01-01 | Qioptiq/Excelitas begin developing accused Qioptiq LS2 (approx. date) |
| 2014-09-25 | ASML informs Energetiq it will not use Energetiq's product |
| 2015-01-30 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982 - "Laser-Driven Light Source"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,435,982, entitled “Laser-Driven Light Source,” issued October 14, 2008.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes limitations of conventional high-brightness light sources like xenon or mercury arc lamps. These lamps rely on an electrical discharge between an anode and cathode, which are prone to wear, can emit contaminating particles, and can produce an unstable arc position, limiting brightness and reliability, particularly in the ultraviolet spectrum (’982 Patent, col. 1:21-35).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides a light source that uses two distinct components: an "ignition source" to initially ionize a gas within a chamber, and a separate laser to provide a continuous supply of energy to that ionized gas, thereby creating and sustaining a small, stable, high-temperature plasma that emits high-brightness light (’982 Patent, col. 1:44-54, col. 4:30-39). By separating the ignition and sustainment functions and using a laser for sustainment, the invention avoids the problems associated with high-current electrodes used in conventional arc lamps (’982 Patent, col. 7:1-15).
- Technical Importance: This approach of using a laser to sustain the plasma allows for higher plasma temperatures and pressures than are achievable in conventional arc lamps, resulting in a more stable light source with significantly greater brightness in the ultraviolet (UV) spectrum (’982 Patent, col. 5:1-10).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least dependent claim 10, which incorporates independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶78).
- The essential elements of asserted claim 10 are:
- A sealed chamber;
- An ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber; and
- At least one laser for providing energy to the ionized gas within the chamber to produce a high brightness light.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’982 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 7,786,455 - "Laser-Driven Light Source"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,786,455, entitled “Laser-Driven Light Source,” issued August 31, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: In addition to the problems of conventional arc lamps, the ’455 Patent addresses the challenge of efficiently collecting the light generated by the small, laser-sustained plasma to maximize the usable output brightness (’455 Patent, col. 1:45-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a light source with a specific optical architecture designed for high collection efficiency. It features a chamber with an integrated reflective surface (e.g., parabolic) and a separate, external reflector. The laser beam is directed through the external reflector toward the chamber's reflective surface, which focuses the laser energy to create the plasma. The chamber’s reflective surface then collects a large solid angle of the light emitted by the plasma and directs it back out through the external reflector toward the device's output (’455 Patent, col. 4:21-51; Fig. 5). The external reflector is designed to be transparent to the high-brightness light while being reflective to the laser's wavelength, further enhancing efficiency (’455 Patent, col. 4:25-30).
- Technical Importance: This dual-reflector optical system enables the collection of light over a large solid angle, which is critical for maximizing the effective brightness and utility of the light generated from the very small plasma source (’455 Patent, col. 5:18-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least dependent claim 41, which incorporates independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶87).
- The essential elements of asserted claim 41 are:
- A chamber comprising a reflective surface;
- An ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber;
- At least one laser external to the chamber for providing electromagnetic energy to the ionized gas within the chamber to produce a plasma that generates a high brightness light;
- A reflector positioned along a path that the electromagnetic energy travels from the at least one laser to the reflective surface of the chamber; and
- Wherein one or more of the reflective surface, reflector, and the window comprise a material to filter predefined wavelengths of electromagnetic energy.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert other claims of the ’455 Patent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,525,138 - "Laser-Driven Light Source"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,525,138, entitled “Laser-Driven Light Source,” issued September 3, 2013 (Compl. ¶18).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent focuses on the method of operating a laser-driven light source. It describes initiating the plasma by tuning the laser to a specific wavelength near a strong absorption line of the gas, and then sustaining the plasma by tuning the laser to a second, different wavelength to maintain optimal brightness and stability (’138 Patent, Abstract). The invention addresses the conflicting energy absorption requirements for starting versus sustaining the plasma.
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 3 (Compl. ¶95).
- Accused Features: The Qioptiq LS1 light source as incorporated into ASML's YieldStar 250 and Upgraded YieldStar 200 systems (Compl. ¶96).
U.S. Patent No. 8,309,943 - "Laser-Driven Light Source"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,309,943, entitled “Laser-Driven Light Source,” issued November 13, 2012 (Compl. ¶17).
- Technology Synopsis: This patent discloses a laser-driven light source that includes a "blocker" component. The blocker is a physical element suspended in the light path designed to block any laser energy that is not absorbed by the plasma from exiting the device, while allowing the desired high-brightness light generated by the plasma to pass to the output (’943 Patent, Abstract). This prevents potentially hazardous unabsorbed laser energy from contaminating the light source's output.
- Asserted Claims: At least claim 3 (Compl. ¶101).
- Accused Features: The Qioptiq LS1 light source as incorporated into ASML's YieldStar 250 and Upgraded YieldStar 200 systems (Compl. ¶102).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint accuses two primary sets of instrumentalities: (1) the Qioptiq LS1 light source, as incorporated into ASML's YieldStar S-250D, YieldStar T-250D, and Upgraded YieldStar 200 systems; and (2) the Qioptiq LS2 light source, which was allegedly developed by Qioptiq and Excelitas (Compl. ¶¶79-80).
Functionality and Market Context
- The Qioptiq LS1 is alleged to be a laser-driven light source that includes a "pressurized chamber with ionized gas whereby a laser provides energy to the ionized gas within the chamber to produce a high brightness light" (Compl. ¶20). The complaint further alleges it contains an "ignition source with electrodes for exciting gas" and utilizes a laser operating at a wavelength of approximately 980 nm (Compl. ¶20). These light sources are components of ASML's YieldStar semiconductor manufacturing equipment, which is imported into and used in the United States (Compl. ¶¶21-22).
- The Qioptiq LS2 is alleged to be "substantially similar to the Qioptiq LS1" and to also include a "chamber with ionized gas whereby a laser provides energy to the ionized gas" (Compl. ¶34). The LS2 was allegedly developed as a competing product intended to replace Energetiq's own light source in ASML's future YieldStar 350 system (Compl. ¶31, 33).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’982 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1, incorporated in Asserted Claim 10) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a chamber | The accused Qioptiq LS1 and LS2 products each include a "pressurized chamber." | ¶20, ¶34 | col. 1:45-46 |
| an ignition source for ionizing a gas within the chamber | The accused Qioptiq LS1 product includes an "ignition source with electrodes for exciting gas." The LS2 is alleged to be substantially similar. | ¶20, ¶34 | col. 2:24-28 |
| at least one laser for providing energy to the ionized gas within the chamber to produce a high brightness light | The accused Qioptiq LS1 and LS2 products each include a "laser [that] provides energy to the ionized gas within the chamber to produce a high brightness light." | ¶20, ¶34 | col. 1:49-54 |
| Additional element from Claim 10: the chamber is a sealed chamber | The complaint alleges the accused products use a "pressurized chamber," which suggests a sealed structure. | ¶20 | col. 9:29-30 |
’455 Patent Infringement Allegations
- The complaint alleges that the Qioptiq LS2 product infringes at least claim 41 of the ’455 Patent (Compl. ¶¶87-88). However, the complaint does not provide specific factual allegations detailing how the accused product meets the key structural limitations of claim 41 related to the patented optical system, such as the "chamber comprising a reflective surface" and the external "reflector." The infringement theory rests on the general allegation that the LS2 includes each limitation of the claim (Compl. ¶88).
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A central question for the ’982 Patent may be whether the accused products' alleged "ignition source with electrodes for exciting gas" (Compl. ¶20) or "Cermax lamp" (Compl. ¶34) falls within the scope of the claimed "ignition source for ionizing a gas." The defense may argue its component performs a different function (e.g., sustaining, not merely igniting) or operates by a different principle than that described in the patent.
- Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether the complaint's allegations regarding the functionality of the accused products are technically accurate. For the ’455 Patent, a primary point of contention will be the lack of factual allegations mapping the accused product to the claimed optical architecture. This raises the question of whether the complaint provides sufficient notice of the basis for its infringement claim under this patent.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "ignition source" (’982 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term is central to the patent's novelty, which distinguishes between a component that initiates the plasma and the laser that sustains it. Practitioners may focus on this term because Defendants could argue that their component (e.g., "electrodes for exciting gas") is not merely for ignition or that it does not function to "ionize" the gas in the manner required by the claim, potentially seeking to characterize it as part of a single, integrated plasma generation system rather than the claimed two-part system.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad, non-exhaustive list of potential ignition sources, including "electrodes, an ultraviolet ignition source, a capacitive ignition source, an inductive ignition source, an RF ignition source, a microwave ignition source, a flash lamp, a pulsed laser, or a pulsed lamp," which may support a construction covering a wide variety of plasma-initiating technologies (’982 Patent, col. 2:24-28).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent consistently depicts the "ignition source" (140 in Fig. 1) as functionally separate from the "laser source" (104) that sustains the plasma, stating, "The laser then provides laser energy to the ionized medium to sustain or create the plasma" after the ignition source acts (’982 Patent, col. 5:31-33). This distinction may support a narrower construction requiring a component whose primary or sole function is to start the ionization process for the laser to then take over.
The Term: "reflective surface" (of the chamber) (’455 Patent, Claim 17)
- Context and Importance: The infringement case for the ’455 Patent hinges on the accused product having a specific optical design that includes this element. Because the complaint lacks factual allegations on this point, the construction of this term will be critical in determining whether any feature of the accused product could meet this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not limit the "reflective surface" to a particular shape or material, which might support a construction that reads on any internal surface of the chamber that happens to reflect some light.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the "reflective surface" in preferred embodiments as having specific shapes (e.g., "paraboloid shape") and a specific function: to "reflect a substantial amount of the high brightness light... toward and out of the window" (’455 Patent, col. 12:1-4). This language, tied to specific figures like Fig. 5, could support a narrower construction requiring a purpose-built, shaped surface designed to efficiently collect and direct light, not merely an untreated interior wall of a bulb.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
- The complaint alleges that Qioptiq actively induced infringement by its parent, Excelitas, by "instructing and directing Excelitas' manufacturing of the Qioptiq LS2 according to Qioptiq's designs and specifications" (Compl. ¶¶82, 90). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Qioptiq LS2 is especially made for infringing use and has no substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶¶81, 89).
Willful Infringement
- Willfulness is alleged against all Defendants for all asserted patents. The complaint bases this on alleged pre-suit knowledge, citing specific communications. For ASML, it alleges knowledge based on a January 2014 meeting and a November 2014 license request concerning the patent portfolio (Compl. ¶74). For Qioptiq and Excelitas, it alleges knowledge based on September and November 2014 conversations in which they inquired about licensing Energetiq's patents (Compl. ¶73).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of pleading sufficiency: particularly for the ’455 patent, has the plaintiff alleged sufficient technical facts to state a plausible claim for infringement of an invention defined by a specific optical architecture (e.g., a "reflective surface" and external "reflector"), or are the allegations on these elements impermissibly conclusory?
- A key question for the merits will be one of functional definition: Does the accused "ignition source with electrodes" operate as the claimed "ignition source"—a component for merely initiating a plasma that is subsequently sustained by a laser—or does it function in a manner that blurs this distinction and falls outside the scope of the claims as construed?
- A central theme of the case, beyond the technical infringement analysis, will be the narrative of alleged unfair competition: To what extent will the allegations of fraudulent business conduct and misappropriation influence the context of the patent dispute, particularly regarding issues of willfulness and damages?