DCT

1:22-cv-11290

Bell Semiconductor LLC v. MACOM Technology Solutions Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:22-cv-11290, D. Mass., 11/04/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Massachusetts because Defendant MACOM maintains its corporate headquarters and other regular and established places of business within the district, and allegedly commits acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s circuit design methodology for producing semiconductor devices infringes a patent related to an improved process for inserting "dummy metal" during fabrication to ensure planarity.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses a challenge in semiconductor manufacturing where "dummy fill" is added to ensure layer uniformity for Chemical Mechanical Polishing (CMP), a critical step for creating modern integrated circuits.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Notably, subsequent to the filing of this complaint, the patent-in-suit underwent an ex parte reexamination, requested on December 30, 2022. On July 5, 2023, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a certificate confirming the patentability of claims 1-5 and 18-22, which includes the primary independent claim asserted in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-07-31 ’259 Patent Priority Date
2006-02-28 ’259 Patent Issue Date
2022-11-04 First Amended Complaint Filing Date
2022-12-30 ’259 Patent Reexamination Requested
2023-07-05 ’259 Patent Reexamination Certificate Issued

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,007,259 - Method for Providing Clock-Net Aware Dummy Metal Using Dummy Regions, issued February 28, 2006.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section explains that during semiconductor fabrication, inserting "dummy metal" is necessary to achieve uniform density for polishing. (Compl. ¶2). However, prior art methods often used a large, fixed "stay-away" distance from sensitive timing circuits called "clock nets." (Compl. ¶3). This approach was often inefficient, making it "impossible to insert enough dummy metal into a tile to meet the required minimum density" in a single attempt, necessitating an "involved, iterative process" that could "significantly impact the design schedule." (’259 Patent, col. 2:2-18).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a more intelligent software-based method that prioritizes the order of filling. It first identifies all available "dummy regions" and then prioritizes them so that regions located "adjacent to clock nets are filled with dummy metal last." (’259 Patent, Abstract). By deferring the fill in these sensitive areas, the method ensures that if the required density is achieved early, the areas most critical to timing performance are left untouched, thus minimizing negative impacts like increased signal capacitance while guaranteeing minimum density in a "single run." (’259 Patent, col. 2:19-23, 2:32-37).
  • Technical Importance: The invention offered a method to resolve the competing manufacturing demands of achieving metal density for planarity and preserving the timing integrity of high-speed clock circuits, improving efficiency over prior iterative techniques. (Compl. ¶5, ¶23).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint identifies Claim 1 as a representative asserted claim. (Compl. ¶24). It also alleges infringement of "one or more claims," preserving the right to assert others. (Compl. ¶31).
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A method for inserting dummy metal into a circuit design...the method comprising:
    • (a) identifying free spaces on each layer of the circuit design suitable for dummy metal insertion as dummy regions, and
    • (b) prioritizing the dummy regions such that the dummy regions located adjacent to clock nets are filled with dummy metal last, thereby minimizing any timing impact on the clock nets.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses MACOM’s circuit design methodologies (the "Accused Processes") of infringement. (Compl. ¶32). These processes are allegedly used to design MACOM's semiconductor devices, with the MAXP-37161B product cited as one example. (Compl. ¶31).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that MACOM uses a variety of third-party electronic design automation (EDA) tools from vendors like Cadence, Synopsys, and/or Siemens to implement its Accused Processes. (Compl. ¶32).
  • The core of the infringement allegation is that these tools are configured to assign a "high cost" to adding metal fill near clock nets and a "lower cost" to adding it near other nets. (Compl. ¶34). This cost-based assignment, according to the complaint, results in filling the dummy regions adjacent to clock nets last, thereby practicing the patented method. (Compl. ¶34).
  • The complaint alleges that the patented inventions hold "significant commercial value" for companies like MACOM but does not provide specific market details for the accused MAXP-37161B product. (Compl. ¶5).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Claim Chart Summary

The complaint provides a narrative infringement theory, which is summarized in the table below. It refers to an "exemplary infringement analysis" in an unattached Exhibit B. (Compl. ¶34).

’259 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for inserting dummy metal into a circuit design, the circuit design including a plurality of objects and clock nets... MACOM employs design tools to perform a method of inserting dummy metal into a circuit design for products like the MAXP-37161B, which contains objects and clock nets. ¶32 col. 2:26-32
identifying free spaces on each layer of the circuit design suitable for dummy metal insertion as dummy regions MACOM's Accused Processes, via its design tools, identify free spaces suitable for dummy metal insertion in the circuit designs of its products. ¶33 col. 2:29-32
prioritizing the dummy regions such that the dummy regions located adjacent to clock nets are filled with dummy metal last... The Accused Processes allegedly assign a "high cost" to adding fill near clock nets, which "fills dummy regions adjacent to clock nets last." ¶34 col. 2:32-37

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on whether MACOM's alleged use of a "cost" function in its design tools is equivalent to "prioritizing the dummy regions such that [they] are filled...last" as claimed. A court may need to decide if "last" requires an absolute, final step in a sequence, or if it can be read to cover a system that assigns the lowest preference, which may not always result in being filled absolutely last in every complex scenario.
  • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that assigning a "high cost" to a region necessarily causes it to be filled "last"? The complaint asserts this link, but discovery will be required to establish how the accused Cadence, Synopsys, or Siemens tools translate that "cost" input into a concrete, sequential fill order.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "prioritizing ... such that ... filled with dummy metal last"

Context and Importance

This phrase is the central limitation of the asserted independent claim and the focal point of the infringement allegation. The case may hinge on whether MACOM’s alleged "cost"-based system falls within the scope of this language. Practitioners may focus on this term because the plaintiff's theory equates a "high cost" with the specific temporal outcome of being "filled...last."

Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent describes achieving the prioritization by calculating a "Timing Factor" for dummy regions and then sorting them in ascending order for filling. (’259 Patent, col. 5:9-11, 5:35-40). A party could argue that MACOM's "cost" function is simply another name for a "Timing Factor" and that any mechanism achieving the stated goal of minimizing timing impact by filling clock-net adjacent regions last meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the word "last," which has a plain and ordinary meaning of being at the end of a sequence. The specification describes a specific implementation of sorting a list and then serially filling regions based on that sorted list. (’259 Patent, Fig. 5, steps 252, 254). A party could argue that a "cost" function is a relative weighting that does not guarantee a region is filled absolutely last in all circumstances, and therefore is distinct from the claimed method.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint focuses on direct infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) (for using the process in the U.S.) and § 271(g) (for making/selling products made by the process). (Compl. ¶31, ¶36). It does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that the infringement is "exceptional" to support a claim for attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. ¶37). However, it does not explicitly allege "willful" infringement or plead facts establishing MACOM's pre-suit knowledge of the ’259 patent.

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

  • A core issue will be one of technical equivalence: Does MACOM's alleged "cost"-based algorithm, as implemented in its third-party design tools, function in the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed method of "prioritizing...such that...filled...last"? The case will likely require a detailed technical analysis of how the accused EDA tools translate a "cost" parameter into a physical fill sequence.
  • A key evidentiary question will be what direct proof can be obtained to substantiate the infringement theory. The allegations regarding the operation of MACOM's design process are made on "information and belief" (Compl. ¶32-34) and will depend on evidence from discovery, such as tool configuration files, design logs, and internal MACOM procedures.
  • Finally, a central question for validity has been partially addressed. The post-filing ex parte reexamination certificate, which confirmed the patentability of the asserted independent claim over prior art, provides Plaintiff with a significant rebuttal to potential invalidity defenses, likely shifting focus more heavily onto the questions of infringement and damages.