DCT

2:07-cv-00331

Halo Electronics Inc v. Bel Fuse Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:07-cv-00331, D. Nev., 07/27/2007
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants' substantial and continuous contact with the district, commission of infringing acts within the district, and placement of infringing products into the stream of commerce directed at the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ surface-mount transformers infringe six patents related to the design and packaging of electronic surface-mount components.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns the physical packaging of toroidal transformers, which are electronic components widely used in networking and telecommunications equipment, for automated assembly onto printed circuit boards.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint is a First Amended Complaint. Though not mentioned in the complaint, which was filed in 2007, subsequent ex parte reexamination proceedings were initiated for all asserted patents. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ultimately issued certificates confirming the patentability of all originally issued claims that were asserted in this litigation and adding new claims, a factor that may bear on questions of patent validity.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1995-08-10 Patent Priority Date for '985, '720, '721, '489, '785, '431 Patents
1997-08-12 U.S. Patent 5,656,985 Issues
2001-10-02 U.S. Patent 6,297,720 Issues
2001-10-02 U.S. Patent 6,297,721 Issues
2001-11-20 U.S. Patent 6,320,489 Issues
2002-02-05 U.S. Patent 6,344,785 Issues
2003-12-16 U.S. Patent 6,662,431 Issues
2007-07-27 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,656,985 - “Electronic Surface Mount Package”, issued August 12, 1997

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a problem in the electronics industry where two-piece packages for transformers, backfilled with hard epoxy, were prone to cracking during the soldering process due to the differing rates of thermal expansion between the package, the epoxy, and the internal transformer components (’985 Patent, col. 3:12-21).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a one-piece construction package with an open bottom. This design houses the transformer components in a soft silicone material, which allows for thermal expansion during soldering without stressing and cracking the outer package (’985 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:18-21). The package includes molded terminal pins with notched posts, which facilitate the secure wrapping and soldering of fine wires from the internal toroid transformer (’985 Patent, col. 2:57-62).
  • Technical Importance: This approach aimed to increase manufacturing yield and reliability for surface-mount transformers, which are critical components in miniaturized electronic devices.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint generally alleges infringement without specifying claims. Independent claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A one piece construction package having a side wall and an open bottom.
    • A plurality of toroid transformers carried within the package by a soft silicone material.
    • A plurality of terminal pins molded within and extending from the package, with each pin having a notched post for wrapping and soldering wires from the transformers.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of the patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,297,720 - “Electronic Surface Mount Package”, issued October 2, 2001

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent, a continuation-in-part of the application leading to the ’985 patent, addresses the same problem of package cracking due to thermal expansion during soldering (’720 Patent, col. 2:22-32).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent discloses a similar open-bottom package but adds a "reinforcement beam" disposed laterally across the bottom of the package (’720 Patent, col. 2:48-52). This beam is intended to provide additional mechanical strength and stability to the package, particularly for larger multi-pin components used in automated assembly processes. This design is illustrated in a sectional view showing the beam providing support across the open bottom of the package (Compl. ¶11, Ex. B, Fig. 11).
  • Technical Importance: The addition of the reinforcement beam sought to improve the structural integrity of the open-bottom package design, making it more robust for mass production and handling.

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint generally alleges infringement without specifying claims. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1 include:
    • A one piece open construction package with a side wall.
    • A plurality of toroid transformers within the package.
    • A plurality of terminal pins molded within the side wall with ends forming solder posts.
    • The solder posts having an "hour-glass shaped notch" for wrapping wires.
    • The other end of the terminal pins extending in a "gull wing fashion" for mounting.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims but makes a general allegation of infringement of the patent.

U.S. Patent No. 6,297,721 - “Electronic Surface Mount Package”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,297,721, “Electronic Surface Mount Package”, issued October 2, 2001 (Compl. ¶12).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a divisional of the application for the ’720 Patent, this patent covers a similar open-bottom surface mount package that includes a reinforcement beam for added mechanical strength. The claims are directed to the package itself, including features like gull-wing leads and the reinforcement beam.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' surface-mount transformers and packages, including specific part numbers, embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

U.S. Patent No. 6,320,489 - “Electronic Surface Mount Package With Extended Side Retaining Wall”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,320,489, “Electronic Surface Mount Package With Extended Side Retaining Wall”, issued November 20, 2001 (Compl. ¶13).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent adds a further feature to the family: an "extended side retaining wall." This wall helps to better contain the soft silicone material within the package and provides more coverage for the wire-wrapped solder posts, while being designed with a lower height than the package's end walls to allow cleaning fluids to flow underneath.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' surface-mount transformers and packages, including specific part numbers, embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

U.S. Patent No. 6,344,785 - “Electronic Surface Mount Package”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,344,785, “Electronic Surface Mount Package”, issued February 5, 2002 (Compl. ¶14).
  • Technology Synopsis: As a continuation of the original ’985 Patent application, this patent claims additional configurations of the one-piece, open-bottom package. It includes claims covering standoffs to maintain a specific distance from the printed circuit board and variations on the terminal pin and side wall structure.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants' surface-mount transformers and packages, including specific part numbers, embody the patented invention (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

U.S. Patent No. 6,662,431 - “Electronic Surface Mount Package”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,662,431, “Electronic Surface Mount Package”, issued December 16, 2003 (Compl. ¶15).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent claims a method of making the electronic surface mount package. The claimed steps include forming the package, encapsulating the transformers with a resilient material, and wrapping/soldering the wires to the solder posts.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendants are "making, using, selling, and/or offering to sell" the accused products, which would implicate the patented method (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies "surface-mount transformers embodying the patented inventions" and "devices that have or contain an electronic surface-mount package embodying the patented inventions" (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). Specific accused products include Bel Fuse part number S558-5500-12-F and Pulse Engineering / Technitrol part numbers H1102NL and HX1188NL (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these are electronic components intended for surface mounting onto printed circuit boards (Compl. ¶¶16-17). A cut-away view of a representative package is provided in the patent documents attached to the complaint, showing the package case, internal posts, and terminal pins (Compl. ¶10, Ex. A, Fig. 1). The complaint does not provide further technical detail on the operation or market position of the accused products, beyond identifying them as infringing instrumentalities.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides a general allegation of infringement without a detailed claim chart. The following tables summarize the apparent infringement theory for the lead patents based on the complaint's allegations that the accused products "embody[ ] the patented inventions" (Compl. ¶¶16-17).

'985 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a one piece construction package having a side wall and an open bottom The accused products (e.g., S558-5500-12-F) allegedly consist of a single-piece housing that is open at the bottom to allow for thermal expansion. ¶16 col. 4:39-40
a plurality of toroid transformers carried within said package by a soft silicone material, said toroid transformers each having wires wrapped thereon The accused packages allegedly contain multiple toroidal transformers that are held in place by a soft, resilient encapsulating material. ¶16 col. 4:40-42
a plurality of terminal pins molded within and extending from the bottom of said package ... having a notched post upon which said wires from said transformers are wrapped and soldered thereon The accused packages allegedly feature terminal pins molded directly into the package housing, with these pins including notched posts for terminating the transformer wires. ¶16 col. 4:43-49

Identified Points of Contention

  • Scope Questions: A central question will be whether the material used in the accused products qualifies as a "soft silicone material" as required by the claim. The defense may argue for a narrow definition limited to specific compounds, while the plaintiff may argue for a broader functional definition covering any resilient encapsulant that prevents cracking.
  • Technical Questions: Discovery will need to establish whether the accused products are truly of "one piece construction" with an "open bottom," and whether their terminal pins possess a "notched post" used for wrapping and soldering in the manner claimed. The complaint itself does not provide this level of technical evidence.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term 1: "soft silicone material" (’985 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is at the heart of the invention's solution to the cracking problem. Its definition is critical for both infringement, as it defines the encapsulant, and validity, as it distinguishes the invention from prior art using hard epoxies.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the function of the material as being able to "protect the transformer" and meet "environmental requirements," and contrasts it with hard epoxy that cracks (’985 Patent, col. 2:32-34; col. 3:15-18). This may support a construction covering any resilient material that achieves this functional outcome.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim specifically recites "silicone," not just a generic "soft material." A party could argue this limits the claim to materials based on silicone chemistry. The detailed description refers to "silicone compound 30" and "soft silicone material," suggesting a specific class of materials was contemplated (’985 Patent, col. 2:28, 31).

Term 2: "reinforcement beam" (’720 Patent, Abstract)

  • Context and Importance: This term, while not in claim 1 of the '720 patent, is a key feature described in the patent and claimed in other family members. Its construction is important for differentiating among the patents in the family and assessing infringement of those that claim it. Practitioners may focus on this term to distinguish the accused products from patents containing this limitation.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The Summary of the Invention describes it functionally as being "disposed laterally or sidewise across the bottom of the package to provide extra support in the mechanical strength of the case" (’720 Patent, col. 2:48-52). This could support a broad definition of any structural element serving that purpose.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The figures depict a distinct, bar-like structure (element 36) spanning the open bottom (’720 Patent, Fig. 11). This may support a narrower construction requiring a discrete, beam-shaped element rather than, for example, a general thickening of the package walls.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint includes allegations of active inducement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶16, 17). However, it does not plead specific facts showing that Defendants acted with the requisite knowledge and intent to encourage infringement by others, such as by providing instructions or advertisements that map to the claimed steps.

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants are infringing "with knowledge of one or more of the patents, and thus Defendants' infringement is willful" (Compl. ¶18). This allegation provides a basis for seeking enhanced damages, though it does not specify whether the alleged knowledge was obtained pre- or post-suit.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of claim construction scope: Can terms central to the invention, such as "soft silicone material" and "open bottom," be defined broadly enough to read on the specific materials and physical constructions of the accused commercial transformer packages? The resolution of these terms will likely determine the outcome of the infringement analysis.
  2. A second key issue will be one of evidentiary proof: As the complaint makes only general allegations, the case will depend on Halo's ability to develop factual evidence in discovery that demonstrates, on a limitation-by-limitation basis, that the internal structure and materials of Defendants' products meet the requirements of the asserted claims.
  3. A final question relates to damages and willfulness: Assuming infringement is found, a central dispute will be whether Halo can prove Defendants had knowledge of the patents, as alleged in the complaint. This determination will be critical to Halo's claim for willful infringement and its request for trebled damages.