DCT
1:16-cv-11249
President Fellows Of Harvard College v. Micron Technology Inc
Key Events
Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: President and Fellows of Harvard College (Massachusetts)
- Defendant: Micron Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Pepper Hamilton LLP
- Case Identification: 1:16-cv-11249, D. Mass., 06/24/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts based on Defendant's business contacts, sales revenue, and alleged acts of infringement within the Commonwealth.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s manufacturing processes for its DRAM memory products infringe patents related to atomic layer deposition (ALD) methods for creating thin films.
- Technical Context: The technology involves chlorine-free chemical vapor deposition processes, particularly ALD, which is a fundamental technique for fabricating the ultra-thin, high-quality dielectric layers required in modern high-density semiconductors.
- Key Procedural History: The '016' Patent is a continuation of a patent that is itself a continuation of the '539' Patent, indicating they share a common specification and priority claim. The complaint does not mention any prior litigation or administrative proceedings involving these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2000-09-28 | Earliest Priority Date for '539 and '016 Patents |
| 2005-11-29 | U.S. Patent No. 6,969,539 Issued |
| 2012-12-18 | U.S. Patent No. 8,334,016 Issued |
| 2016-06-24 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 6,969,539 - “Vapor Deposition of Metal Oxides, Silicates and Phosphates, and Silicon Dioxide” (Issued Nov. 29, 2005)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in depositing thin films for semiconductor devices, noting that conventional processes using metal chlorides can leave behind residual chlorine, which is detrimental to device performance and can corrode manufacturing equipment ('539 Patent, col. 1:57-64). The complaint adds that fabricating uniform dielectric films in the deep, narrow trench structures of modern DRAM is particularly difficult (Compl. ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses processes for forming metal oxides and silicates using chlorine-free precursors ('539 Patent, col. 2:7-14). The asserted claims describe a process of forming a metal oxide film by alternately exposing a heated surface to a vapor of a specific type of metal amide compound and then to a vapor of water or an alcohol, which serves as an oxygen source ('539 Patent, col. 32:24-31). This sequential exposure process, known as atomic layer deposition (ALD), allows for the precise, layer-by-layer growth of a film.
- Technical Importance: Providing a chlorine-free pathway to deposit high-quality metal oxide films was a key step for creating the high-dielectric constant insulators needed to continue shrinking the size of transistors and capacitors in advanced electronics like DRAM ('539 Patent, col. 1:51-56).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 24 (Compl. ¶27).
- Essential elements of Claim 24:
- A process for forming a metal oxide, comprising:
- exposing a heated surface alternately to the vapor of one or more metal amides having an amido group selected from the group consisting of dialkylamido, disilylamido and (alkyl)(sily) amido moieties,
- and then to the vapors of water or an alcohol.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶26).
U.S. Patent No. 8,334,016 - “Vapor Deposition of Metal Oxides, Silicates and Phosphates, and Silicon Dioxide” (Issued Dec. 18, 2012)
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the '539 patent's family, this patent addresses the same fundamental challenge: creating high-quality, uniform, and conformal thin-film coatings for microelectronic devices, particularly in structures with high aspect ratios where complete coverage is difficult to achieve ('016 Patent, col. 2:37-41; Compl. ¶12).
- The Patented Solution: The invention describes a specific ALD process for making an insulator. The process involves alternately introducing a first reactant component (a metal alkylamide) and a second reactant component into a deposition chamber ('016 Patent, col. 29:16-25). A critical feature of the patented process is that the deposition of each component is "self-limiting," meaning the chemical reaction on the surface stops once a single molecular layer is formed, which ensures uniformity and precise thickness control ('016 Patent, col. 29:19-21).
- Technical Importance: Self-limiting ALD processes are critical for mass production of advanced semiconductors because they enable highly uniform and conformal coatings over complex topographies, a requirement for reliable, high-density memory devices ('016 Patent, col. 2:37-41).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 7, and 8 (Compl. ¶42).
- Essential elements of Claim 1:
- A process for making an insulator in a microelectronic device, comprising:
- introducing a first reactant component into a deposition chamber;
- introducing a second reactant component into the deposition chamber;
- alternately repeating these introductions;
- wherein the deposition of the reactant components is self-limiting;
- wherein the first reactant component comprises a metal alkylamide;
- wherein the second reactant component interacts with the first to form the insulator;
- and wherein the insulator comprises oxygen and the metal from the metal alkylamide.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶42).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as the processes used by Micron to manufacture its DRAM memory products, as well as the resulting products themselves, such as Micron's DDR4 DRAM (Compl. ¶¶15-16, 24).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Micron's manufacturing facilities use ALD processes to form thin films, specifically for the capacitor dielectrics in its DRAM devices (Compl. ¶¶30, 45). These dielectrics are a type of insulator that, according to the complaint, includes a metal oxide layer of zirconium oxide (ZrO₂) (Compl. ¶31). The complaint supports this by referencing a teardown image of a Micron DDR4 DRAM capacitor (Compl. p. 9, ¶31). These DRAM products are components in a wide array of computing, consumer, mobile, and other electronic products (Compl. ¶16).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'539 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 24) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A process for forming a metal oxide, comprising: | Micron performs a process to manufacture DRAM memory chips, which are microelectronic devices that include insulators containing metal oxide (Compl. ¶28-29). A teardown image shows a Micron DDR4 DRAM capacitor with a zirconium oxide (ZrO₂) layer (Compl. p. 9, ¶31). | ¶28-29, 31 | col. 8:5-8 |
| exposing a heated surface alternately to the vapor of one or more metal amides having an amido group selected from the group consisting of dialkylamido, disilylamido and (alkyl)(sily) amido moieties, | Micron uses an ALD process, which involves alternately exposing a surface to precursor vapors (Compl. ¶33). The complaint alleges that Micron uses a metal amide precursor, specifically tetrakis(ethyl-methylamino) zirconium, which it asserts falls within the claimed group (Compl. ¶35). | ¶32-33, 35 | col. 32:27-30 |
| and then to the vapors of water or an alcohol. | The complaint alleges that ALD of metal oxides involves reaction with an oxygen source, and alleges upon information and belief that Micron’s process exposes the heated surface to water vapor (Compl. ¶36). | ¶36 | col. 32:30-31 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the precursor allegedly used by Micron, tetrakis(ethyl-methylamino) zirconium, falls within the specific Markush group of "dialkylamido, disilylamido and (alkyl)(sily) amido moieties" recited in the claim. The complaint's assertion that it does (Compl. ¶35) will likely be a point of dispute requiring claim construction and expert testimony.
- Technical Questions: The infringement theory relies on "information and belief" and is supported by third-party technical analysis rather than direct evidence of Micron's proprietary process (Compl. ¶¶31, 35). A key factual question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that Micron's actual manufacturing process uses the specific sequence of a metal amide from the claimed group followed by water or an alcohol, as alleged.
'016 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A process for making an insulator in a microelectronic device... | Micron manufactures DRAM memory chips, which are microelectronic devices containing insulators (Compl. ¶44). The process is for making a capacitor dielectric, which is an insulator (Compl. ¶45). | ¶44-45 | col. 29:9-10 |
| alternately repeating introducing the first reactant component and the second reactant component... | Micron's ALD process inherently involves alternately introducing and repeating steps with different reactant components (Compl. ¶¶46-49). A diagram in the complaint illustrates this alternating sequence of precursor exposure and purging (Compl. p. 15). | ¶46-49 | col. 29:14-18 |
| wherein deposition of the first reactant component and the second reactant component are self-limiting; | The complaint alleges Micron's ALD process is self-limiting, a characteristic feature of ALD where reactions saturate after forming a single layer (Compl. ¶50). A process schematic included in the complaint explicitly labels the deposition cycles as "Self-limited Half Cycles" (Compl. p. 17). | ¶50-51 | col. 29:19-21 |
| wherein said first reactant component comprises a metal alkylamide; | The complaint alleges, based on technical literature, that the first reactant is tetrakis(ethyl-methylamino) zirconium, which it asserts is a metal alkylamide (Compl. ¶¶52-53). | ¶52-53 | col. 29:22-23 |
| wherein said second reactant component interacts with the deposited first reactant component to form the insulator; | The complaint alleges that in the ALD process, the second component interacts with the first to form the insulator film (Compl. ¶54). | ¶54 | col. 29:24-26 |
| and wherein said insulator comprises oxygen and the metal from the metal alkylamide. | Teardown images allegedly show the resulting insulator is zirconium oxide (ZrO₂), which contains oxygen and the metal (zirconium) from the alleged metal alkylamide precursor (Compl. ¶55). | ¶55 | col. 29:27-29 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: The term "self-limiting" is central to the claim. The patent specification notes that self-limiting behavior can be lost at higher temperatures ('016 Patent, col. 28:38-44). A potential dispute is whether Micron's process, under its specific operating conditions (temperature, pressure), meets the claim's requirement for being "self-limiting."
- Technical Questions: As with the '539 patent, the allegations regarding the specific chemical identities of the first and second reactants and their interaction are based on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶43, 52). The case may turn on whether evidence from discovery confirms that Micron's process uses a "metal alkylamide" and a second reactant that "interacts" in the manner required by the claim.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "metal alkylamide" (in '016 Claim 1) and the related Markush group "...metal amides having an amido group selected from the group consisting of dialkylamido, disilylamido and (alkyl)(sily) amido moieties..." (in '539 Claim 24).
Context and Importance: The identity of the first chemical precursor is the cornerstone of the infringement allegation for both patents. The viability of Harvard's case depends on the accused Micron precursor, tetrakis(ethyl-methylamino) zirconium, falling within the court's construction of these terms.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The '539 patent's specification includes extensive tables of "Volatile Metal or Metalloid Amides" spanning multiple columns, suggesting the inventors contemplated a wide variety of such compounds for use in the disclosed processes ('539 Patent, Table 1, col. 10-14). A party might argue this context supports a broad reading of the claimed chemical groups.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the explicit Markush group in '539 Claim 24 is a deliberate limitation, excluding any amides that do not structurally fit into the "dialkylamido," "disilylamido," or "(alkyl)(sily) amido" categories. For the '016 patent's term "metal alkylamide," a party may argue that the term has a precise chemical definition that could be construed to exclude the specific precursor allegedly used by Micron.
The Term: "self-limiting" (in '016 Claim 1)
Context and Importance: This term defines the fundamental nature of the claimed deposition process. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement requires the accused ALD process to exhibit this specific characteristic, which distinguishes it from other deposition methods like conventional Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD).
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the functional result of a self-limiting reaction as one that proceeds to "completion (saturation of the surface reaction...)" ('016 Patent, col. 22:58-60). This could support a functional definition based on whether the reaction stops after a monolayer is formed, regardless of minor process variations.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explicitly states that for one embodiment, "the surface reaction is not self-limiting at temperatures above 300° C., due to thermal decomposition" of the precursor ('016 Patent, col. 28:38-44). A party could use this disclosure to argue that if an accused process operates under conditions that cause any amount of thermal decomposition or non-saturating growth, it does not meet the "self-limiting" limitation.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) to the extent Micron manufactures DRAM products abroad using the patented process and subsequently imports them into the United States (Compl. ¶¶25, 41).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint does not contain an explicit allegation of willful infringement. It alleges knowledge of infringement only "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶20), which may form a basis for seeking enhanced damages for any post-filing infringement but does not allege pre-suit knowledge.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents a classic dispute over the application of university-developed foundational technology to industrial-scale manufacturing. The outcome will likely depend on the court’s resolution of two central questions:
- A core issue will be one of chemical scope: Can the terms "metal alkylamide" and the specific Markush group of amido moieties, as defined by the patent claims and specification, be construed to read on the specific chemical precursor, tetrakis(ethyl-methylamino) zirconium, that Micron allegedly uses in its proprietary DRAM manufacturing process?
- A key evidentiary question will be one of process proof: As the complaint is based on "information and belief" and public-facing information, will discovery yield direct evidence confirming that Micron’s internal, confidential ALD process performs the specific, ordered, and "self-limiting" steps with the claimed categories of chemicals, or will it reveal a fundamental mismatch in materials or operation?