DCT

1:15-cv-10374

Massachusetts Institute Of Technology v. Micron Technology Inc

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:15-cv-10374, D. Mass., 02/12/2015
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants conducting business in Massachusetts, including the sale, offering for sale, and importation of products that contain the accused DRAM semiconductor devices through established distribution channels and direct sales forces.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ manufacture of DRAM semiconductor devices, and the subsequent importation and sale of those devices and downstream products containing them, infringes a patent related to methods for laser-cutting metal interconnects in integrated circuits.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns semiconductor fabrication and repair, specifically a method for precisely severing electrical connections on a microchip using a laser, which is a key process for improving manufacturing yield by activating redundant circuits.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint states the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221, was the subject of a reexamination, resulting in the issuance of Certificate No. 6,057,221 C1. Plaintiff alleges it engaged in licensing discussions with Defendants prior to filing suit, including meetings and the sharing of presentations showing alleged infringement, with initial notice to a predecessor of Defendant Micron Japan allegedly occurring as early as 2008.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1997-04-03 '221 Patent Priority Date
2000-05-02 '221 Patent Issue Date
2008-05-22 Alleged date of Elpida's (Micron Japan) knowledge of '221 Patent
2008-06-30 MIT meeting with Elpida (Micron Japan) in Tokyo
2012-07-02 Micron definitive sponsor agreement to acquire Elpida
2012-07-19 Alleged date of Micron's knowledge of '221 Patent via correspondence
2012-09-11 '221 Patent Reexamination Certificate (C1) issued
2012-11-09 Updated infringement presentation shared with Micron
2015-02-12 Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,057,221, "Laser-Induced Cutting of Metal Interconnect," issued May 2, 2000. The complaint asserts claims from the reexamined patent, Certificate No. 6,057,221 C1, issued September 11, 2012 (the "’221 Patent"). (Compl. ¶2).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes prior art methods for laser-cutting circuits as inefficient and potentially damaging to surrounding structures. (’221 Patent, col. 1:11-20). Specifically, it critiques the narrowed "dog-bone" design for cut-links, arguing that the design philosophy of a conventional fuse is "generally false" for laser cutting, where heat is supplied externally. (’221 Patent, col. 2:1-11).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes using a "cut-link pad" that is wider than the conductive lines to which it is attached, an "inverse of the traditional 'dog bone' design." (’221 Patent, col. 2:18-21). This wider pad has a lower thermal resistance per unit length, which more effectively traps the laser's thermal energy at the cutting site. (’221 Patent, col. 2:23-28). This configuration is intended to enable a cleaner, more efficient, and more reliable severing of the circuit with a reduced risk of collateral damage. (’221 Patent, col. 3:4-34; Fig. 3).
  • Technical Importance: This technology is described as useful for purposes such as programming circuits or activating redundant circuitry to replace flawed segments on a chip, which is a standard industry practice for improving fabrication yields in memory chips. (’221 Patent, col. 1:32-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint identifies reexamined claims 3 and 17 as examples of asserted independent claims. (Compl. ¶3).

  • Independent Claim 3 (reexamined): A method for cutting a link between interconnected circuits, comprising the essential elements of:
    • Directing a laser upon an electrically-conductive cut-link pad bonded between two electrically-conductive lines on a substrate.
    • The cut-link pad has substantially less thermal resistance per unit length than the lines.
    • The width of the cut-link pad is at least ten percent greater than the width of the lines.
    • Maintaining the laser until the link is broken.
    • The cut-link pad has an inner surface facing the substrate and an outer surface facing away, with the lines "extending from the inner surface into the substrate."
  • Independent Claim 17 (reexamined): A method similar to Claim 3, with the additional limitation that:
    • A "passivative layer covers the cut-link pad."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are DRAM semiconductor devices manufactured by Defendants Micron, Micron Japan, Micron Akita, and Micron Taiwan. (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 6, 21). The complaint also accuses downstream products that incorporate these devices, such as Apple's iPhone, iPad, and MacBook Air products. (Compl. ¶¶ 8, 25).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that the accused DRAM devices are manufactured using a "laser cut link process" that practices the methods claimed in the ’221 Patent. (Compl. ¶21). These devices are allegedly imported into, used, sold, and offered for sale within the United States. (Compl. ¶21). The complaint positions Apple as the "single largest user" of the accused memory devices made by Micron Japan and other affiliated entities, highlighting the commercial scale of the alleged infringement. (Compl. ¶8).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that are not provided in the filed document. (Compl. ¶3). Therefore, the infringement allegations are summarized based on the complaint's narrative.

The core infringement theory is that Defendants manufacture DRAM semiconductor devices overseas using a "laser cut link method" that embodies the patented invention. (Compl. ¶21, 24). Infringement is alleged to occur when these devices are imported into, used, sold, or offered for sale in the United States by the various defendants. (Compl. ¶21). For defendants like Apple, direct infringement is alleged based on the importation and sale of its consumer electronics (e.g., iPhones, iPads) which contain the accused DRAM devices. (Compl. ¶25). The primary basis for infringement against the manufacturers appears to be 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), which pertains to the importation of a product made by a process patented in the United States.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Questions: A central factual question for the court will be to determine the specific characteristics of the "laser cut link process" that Defendants actually use. (Compl. ¶21). Evidence will be needed to establish whether this process employs a cut-link pad that is demonstrably wider than its connecting lines, as required by the claims.
  • Scope Questions: Claims 3 and 17 require that the conductive lines be "extending from the inner surface [of the pad] into the substrate." This language suggests a vertical, via-type structure as depicted in the patent's Figure 10. A key legal and factual dispute may arise over whether the accused manufacturing process utilizes such a structure, and whether this claim language can be construed to read on a planar or other non-via architecture.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "cut-link pad"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the central innovative structure. Its construction will determine what physical geometries fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term because the dispute hinges on whether the defendants' structures are merely a segment of a line or a distinct, wider "pad."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes the pad as the "segment where the circuit is to be severed," which could support an interpretation that includes any widened portion of a conductive line used for laser cutting. (’221 Patent, col. 2:63-65).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly contrasts the invention with prior art by emphasizing a width that is "substantially greater than the width of the lines," with preferred embodiments being at least 10%, 25%, or 50% wider. (’221 Patent, col. 2:20-22, 2:40-48). The figures consistently depict a discrete, geometrically regular (e.g., square) element. (’221 Patent, Fig. 3).

The Term: "lines extending from the inner surface into the substrate"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation, present in asserted independent claims 3 and 17, appears to define the three-dimensional architecture of the interconnect. The infringement analysis for these claims may turn entirely on whether the accused devices have this specific structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The parties could dispute whether this requires a formal "via" or could cover any electrical path that moves from a surface plane to a lower level within the chip's structure.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description explicitly illustrates this concept as a "multi-layered" structure where "vias 21a and 22a extend[] downward from the surface 52 of the pad 20 away from the laser and into the substrate." (’221 Patent, col. 8:22-29; Fig. 10). This provides strong evidence that the term refers to a specific vertical interconnect structure.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants induced infringement by encouraging customers, such as Apple, to import and sell products containing the infringing DRAM devices. (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 23). This is allegedly supported by marketing, sales, and distribution activities directed at the U.S. market. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 22).

Willful Infringement

Willfulness is alleged based on Defendants' purported knowledge of the ’221 Patent and their ongoing infringement. (Compl. ¶27). The complaint alleges specific dates for pre-suit knowledge, including a meeting between MIT and Micron Japan's predecessor (Elpida) on June 30, 2008, and correspondence with Micron starting no later than July 19, 2012. (Compl. ¶26). The complaint further alleges that Micron would have become aware of MIT's infringement allegations during its due diligence for the acquisition of Elpida. (Compl. ¶26).

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

  • A core issue will be one of structural and factual correspondence: Does the accused "laser cut link process" used by Defendants feature the specific geometry required by the claims—namely, a "cut-link pad" that is wider than its connecting lines and, for certain asserted claims, configured in a vertical, via-like structure where lines extend "into the substrate"?
  • A key question of claim construction will be determinative: Can the phrase "lines extending from the inner surface into the substrate" be interpreted to cover planar or other non-via interconnect architectures, or is it strictly limited to the vertical structures explicitly described and illustrated in the patent?
  • A central question for damages will be one of scienter: Does the evidence of pre-suit meetings, correspondence, and acquisition-related due diligence support a finding that Defendants had knowledge of the patent and acted despite an objectively high likelihood of infringement, thereby justifying enhanced damages for willfulness?