DCT

1:24-cv-12354

SiOnyx LLC v. Apple Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:24-cv-12354, D. Mass., 12/09/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Massachusetts because Apple is registered to do business there, maintains a corporate office in Waltham, derives revenue from the district, and sells the accused products through multiple retail stores within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s mobile phones and tablets, which contain certain digital imaging sensors, infringe patents related to semiconductor pixel isolation and light-trapping technology.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns technology for improving the performance of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) image sensors, particularly for enhancing low-light and infrared sensitivity while reducing signal crosstalk between pixels.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges a significant history between the parties, stating they discussed SiOnyx's technology as early as May 2014. It further alleges that in August 2017, SiOnyx provided a technical presentation to Apple that cited the parent patents of those now asserted. These allegations of pre-suit knowledge form the basis for the claims of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2012-03-22 Earliest Priority Date for ’764, ’359, and ’714 Patents
2014-05-01 Approximate date parties first discussed SiOnyx's technology
2015-06-23 ’764 Patent Issued
2017-08-01 Approximate date SiOnyx provided technical update to Apple citing patents related to the technology
2019-03-05 ’359 Patent Issued
2023-08-08 ’714 Patent Issued
2024-09-12 Initial Complaint Filed, providing actual notice to Apple
2024-12-09 First Amended Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,064,764 - Pixel Isolation Elements, Devices, and Associated Methods (June 23, 2015)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As image sensors shrink, individual pixels are placed closer together, which increases "electrical and optical cross-talk" between them and leads to a "significant sacrifice in image quality" (’359 Patent, col. 1:25-30). Reflections off the planar back surface of backside-illuminated (BSI) sensors are a particular source of this cross-talk (’359 Patent, col. 1:33-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes methods for trapping light within a pixel and isolating it from its neighbors. This is achieved by creating structures, such as trenches filled with reflective materials, that surround the pixel. These structures act as isolation elements that can both optically reflect stray light back into the correct pixel and electrically repel charge carriers, preventing signal bleed (’764 Patent, col. 6:10-44). The patent also describes texturing the back surface of the pixel to enhance light absorption, particularly for infrared wavelengths (’764 Patent, col. 7:11-20).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to improve the quantum efficiency and signal-to-noise ratio of image sensors, allowing for smaller, higher-performance pixels that are critical for high-resolution imaging in compact devices like smartphones, especially in low-light conditions (’359 Patent, col. 1:15-30).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claim 8 (Compl. ¶19). Claim 8 depends on independent claim 1.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Essential Elements):
    • A light trapping device with at least one light-sensitive pixel.
    • The pixel has a light incident surface, a backside surface, and a peripheral sidewall.
    • A "backside light trapping material" at least partially covering the backside surface.
    • A "peripheral light trapping material" substantially covering the peripheral sidewall.
    • The materials are structured such that light is reflected back toward the pixel.
    • At least one of the trapping materials includes a first material sandwiched between two second materials, with a specific refractive index differential of at least 0.2.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶14).

U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359 - Pixel Isolation Elements, Devices, and Associated Methods (March 5, 2019)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, from the same family as the ’764 Patent, addresses the same core problem of signal cross-talk in high-density image sensors (’359 Patent, col. 1:25-30).
  • The Patented Solution: The ’359 Patent provides a more specific structural solution for pixel isolation. It claims an "imager device" where adjacent pixels are separated by a "peripheral isolation element" made of a three-layer structure (’359 Patent, col. 23:8-16). This structure, acting as a Bragg reflector, is specifically designed with a high-refractive-index material sandwiched between two low-refractive-index materials to optically and electrically isolate the pixels and trap light within them (’359 Patent, col. 8:35-44). The structure can also include a passivating charge to reduce electrical leakage current (’359 Patent, col. 9:26-34).
  • Technical Importance: By defining a specific multi-layer isolation structure, the invention offers a precise method for fabricating high-performance BSI CMOS sensors with reduced cross-talk, which is essential for advancing image quality in consumer electronics (’359 Patent, col. 1:15-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least claims 1 and 18 (Compl. ¶28).
  • Independent Claim 1 (Essential Elements):
    • An imager device with at least two adjacent light-sensitive image sensor pixels.
    • A "peripheral isolation element" separating the pixels.
    • The isolation element comprises a first, second, and third layer.
    • The third layer is disposed between the first and second layers.
    • The first and second layers each have an index of refraction that is less than the index of refraction of the third layer.
  • Independent Claim 18 (Essential Elements):
    • An imager device with at least two adjacent light-sensitive image sensor pixels.
    • A "peripheral isolation element" separating the pixels to reduce optical crosstalk.
    • The isolation element comprises at least two materials with different indices of refraction.
    • The isolation element comprises a first, second, and third layer, with the third disposed between the first and second.
    • The first and second layers have an index of refraction less than the third layer.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims (Compl. ¶23).

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,721,714 - Pixel Isolation Elements, Devices, and Associated Methods (August 8, 2023)

  • Technology Synopsis: Continuing the same inventive line, this patent also focuses on light-trapping pixels. It describes a device comprising a light-sensitive pixel with a peripheral sidewall, a backside light-trapping material, and a peripheral light-trapping material (’714 Patent, Abstract). The key inventive concept again involves a multi-layer structure where a high refractive index material is sandwiched between two low refractive index materials to reflect light back into the pixel and prevent escape or cross-talk (’714 Patent, col. 18:21-31).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least claim 1 (Compl. ¶37).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the digital imaging sensors in Apple's products, such as the iPhone 15, embody the claimed inventions (Compl. ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused products are "digital imaging sensors and mobile phones and tablet computers that contain those sensors," with the "Apple iPhone 15 smartphones" identified as a specific example (Compl. ¶1, 14). The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that these devices contain "at least one image sensor made by Sony" (Compl. ¶14, 23, 32).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint does not detail the specific functionality of the accused Sony sensors. The allegations are premised on the sensors being BSI CMOS image sensors that are fundamental to the camera performance of Apple's flagship mobile products (Compl. ¶8). The complaint includes an image of Plaintiff's own commercial night vision camera products to establish its presence in the high-performance imaging market (Compl. ¶10 & fig. on p. 4).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that the Accused Products infringe the asserted patents and states that exemplary claim charts are attached as Exhibits B, D, and F (Compl. ¶19, 28, 37). However, these exhibits were not filed with the public version of the complaint. The complaint’s narrative text asserts that the Accused Products "satisfy all claim limitations" without providing a limitation-by-limitation breakdown of the infringement theory (Compl. ¶19, 28, 37). A detailed analysis of the infringement allegations is therefore not possible based on the provided documents.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Structural Equivalence: The core of the dispute will likely involve a factual comparison of the accused Sony image sensor's architecture against the specific multi-layer structures claimed in the patents. A central question for the court will be whether the isolation trenches in the Sony sensor are constructed with the three-layer, differing-refractive-index "peripheral isolation element" required by claims of the ’359 Patent.
    • Functional Equivalence: Even if the structures are not identical, a question may arise as to whether the isolation elements in the accused sensors function in substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed invention, namely, the combined optical and electrical isolation through a specific reflective mechanism.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For U.S. Patent No. 10,224,359:

  • The Term: "peripheral isolation element" (from independent claims 1 and 18)
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central structural feature of the asserted claims. Its construction will determine the scope of protection. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claims require a very specific three-layer sandwich structure, and the infringement case will turn on whether the accused Sony sensor embodies this precise configuration.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the element's function broadly as being "configured to optically and/or electrically isolate neighboring pixels" (’359 Patent, col. 6:20-22). A party might argue that any structure performing this function should be considered, not just the specific embodiments.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claims themselves are quite specific, requiring a "third layer... disposed between said first and second layers" where the outer layers have a lower refractive index (’359 Patent, col. 23:11-16). The specification repeatedly illustrates this sandwich structure as a Bragg reflector (e.g., FIG. 2; col. 8:35-44), which may support a narrower construction limited to such specific optical structures.

For U.S. Patent No. 9,064,764:

  • The Term: "light trapping material" (from independent claim 1)
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the material used for both the backside and peripheral elements of the claimed pixel. The claim requires this material to have a specific multi-layer structure with a defined refractive index relationship. The infringement analysis depends on whether the materials used in the accused sensor meet this structural and physical property definition.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent summary describes the function generally, stating "light contacting the backside light trapping material or the peripheral light trapping material is thus reflected back toward the pixel" (’764 Patent, col. 1:50-54). This functional language could support an argument that the term covers various reflective material compositions.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Claim 1 explicitly limits the term to a structure where "a first material [is] sandwiched between two second materials" and "the difference in refractive index between the first material and the two second materials is at least 0.2" (’764 Patent, col. 18:43-49). This quantitative and structural limitation suggests the term is not merely functional but requires a specific, measurable physical arrangement.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating Apple has "actively induced product makers, distributors, partners, agents, affiliates, service providers, importers, resellers, customers, retailers, and/or end users" with knowledge and specific intent to cause infringement (Compl. ¶17, 26, 35). It also alleges contributory infringement, stating the Accused Products are not staple articles of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use (Compl. ¶18, 27, 36).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all three asserted patents. The allegations are based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. Pre-suit knowledge is alleged to stem from discussions between the parties beginning in May 2014 and a technical presentation SiOnyx gave to Apple in August 2017 that allegedly cited related patents (Compl. ¶15, 24, 33). Post-suit knowledge is based on the filing of the initial complaint on September 12, 2024 (Compl. ¶16, 25, 34).

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

  • A central issue will be one of claim scope: will the term "peripheral isolation element" be construed to require the specific three-layer Bragg reflector-like structure detailed in the patent, or can it be interpreted more broadly to cover other trench isolation technologies that achieve a similar result? The outcome of this construction will likely be dispositive for infringement.
  • The case will also turn on a key evidentiary question: does the accused Sony image sensor, as incorporated into Apple's products, actually contain the specific multi-layer material structures with the claimed refractive index differentials? Proving the internal micro-architecture of the accused sensor will be a critical hurdle for the plaintiff.
  • A third significant question relates to willfulness: do the alleged 2014 discussions and the 2017 technical presentation constitute pre-suit notice sufficient to support a finding of willful infringement, should Apple be found to infringe? The substance and context of these interactions will be subject to intense scrutiny.