DCT

1:07-cv-00825

Anvik Corp v. Sharp Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:07-cv-00825, S.D.N.Y., 02/02/2007
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Southern District of New York because Defendant Sharp transacts business, derives substantial revenue, and has committed acts of patent infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's LCD panels, manufactured using scanning microlithography methods, and products incorporating such panels, infringe five U.S. patents related to large-area lithography systems and methods.
  • Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns scanning microlithography, a foundational technology for manufacturing high-value electronic components such as the flat-panel displays used in televisions, monitors, and mobile devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint was filed on February 2, 2007. Notably, U.S. Patent No. 4,924,257, the earliest patent-in-suit, subsequently survived an ex parte reexamination proceeding, with a certificate issued on October 13, 2009. This post-filing event affirms the patentability of several key claims and may strengthen the patent's presumption of validity in litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1988-10-05 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,924,257
1990-05-08 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 4,924,257
1992-09-30 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,285,236
1992-10-27 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,291,240
1994-02-08 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,285,236
1994-03-01 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,291,240
1995-09-07 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,721,606
1997-05-28 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,897,986
1998-02-24 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,721,606
1999-04-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,897,986
2007-02-02 Complaint Filing Date
2009-10-13 Reexamination Certificate Issued for U.S. Patent No. 4,924,257

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

U.S. Patent No. 4,924,257, "Scan and Repeat High Resolution Projection Lithography System", issued May 8, 1990

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes a conflict in prior art lithography systems between achieving high resolution and covering a large image field ('257 Patent, col. 1:35-60). Systems that could produce very fine details (high resolution) could only do so over a small area, while systems that could pattern large areas had limited resolution.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a "scan and repeat" system that breaks a large substrate into multiple parallel strips. It exposes each strip by scanning a polygon-shaped illumination beam across it ('257 Patent, Abstract). The key innovation is the use of "complementary exposures in an overlap region" between adjacent scans, which ensures that the total radiation dose is uniform across the entire substrate, eliminating the "seam" that would otherwise appear between scanned strips ('257 Patent, col. 2:51-60; Fig. 3). This allows for both high-resolution imaging and large-area coverage.
  • Technical Importance: This approach provided a method to overcome the inherent field-size limitations of high-resolution projection lenses, enabling the cost-effective manufacturing of larger and more complex microelectronic devices, such as integrated circuit chips ('257 Patent, col. 1:21-26).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative of the system's architecture.
  • The system of claim 1 includes:
    • A substrate stage capable of scanning in one dimension and stepping laterally in a perpendicular dimension.
    • A mask stage that scans in sync with the substrate stage, but at a faster speed determined by the projection lens's reduction ratio, M.
    • An illumination subsystem that creates a polygon-shaped illumination region on the mask.
    • A projection subsystem with an object-to-image reduction ratio M.
    • A control system to manage the stages and provide "complementary exposures in an overlap region" to create a seamless, uniform dose distribution.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 5,285,236, "Large-Area, High-Throughput, High-Resolution Projection Imaging System", issued February 8, 1994

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: This patent also addresses the need for large-area, high-resolution patterning, but focuses on improving throughput and simplifying the system mechanics compared to systems requiring two separately controlled, synchronized stages ('236 Patent, col. 2:31-44). Synchronizing two independent stages introduces complexity and potential for error.
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a system where the mask and substrate are held in "fixed juxtaposition" on a single, integrated stage assembly ('236 Patent, col. 3:9-15; Fig. 1). To allow the mask and substrate to move together in the same direction, the system incorporates an optical "reversing means" that corrects the image inversion typically caused by a projection lens ('236 Patent, col. 4:55-60). Like the '257 patent, it uses overlapping hexagonal scans to create a seamless exposure over the entire substrate.
  • Technical Importance: By placing the mask and substrate on a single stage, the invention simplifies the mechanical design and eliminates a potential source of alignment error, facilitating high-precision, high-throughput production of large devices like flat-panel displays ('236 Patent, col. 1:8-14).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted. Independent claim 1 is representative.
  • The system of claim 1 includes:
    • A stage subsystem with mask and substrate locking means for "providing fixed juxtaposition," capable of scanning and lateral movement.
    • An illumination subsystem.
    • A projection subsystem with a unity (1:1) magnification ratio and means to render the final image in the same orientation as the object on the mask.
    • Control means to orchestrate the system and provide additive illumination in overlap regions for a seamless result.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 5,291,240, "Nonlinearity-Compensated Large-Area Patterning System", issued March 1, 1994

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the problem that certain materials, like polyimides, have a nonlinear response to radiation, which prevents standard overlapping scans from achieving a uniform exposure ('240 Patent, col. 3:25-41). The invention discloses using a "polygonoid"-shaped illumination beam—a polygon with specially curved sides—to compensate for this material nonlinearity and produce a seamless cumulative exposure ('240 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the methods performed by Sharp using Nikon FX-Series scanners infringe the '240 Patent ('Compl. ¶8, ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 5,721,606, "Large-Area, High-Throughput, High-Resolution, Scan-and-Repeat, Projection Patterning System Employing Sub-Full Mask", issued February 24, 1998

  • Technology Synopsis: This invention provides a system for patterning a large, multi-segment substrate using a smaller "sub-full mask" that corresponds to only one segment ('606 Patent, Abstract). It solves the problem of maintaining consistent optical parameters when moving between segments by using auxiliary stages to move either the mask or optical components, compensating for the primary stage's repositioning and preserving the optical path length ('606 Patent, col. 2:32-49).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the methods performed by Sharp using Nikon FX-Series scanners infringe the '606 Patent (Compl. ¶8, ¶52).

U.S. Patent No. 5,897,986, "Projection Patterning of Large Substrates Using Limited-Travel X-Y Stage", issued April 27, 1999

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the high cost of lithography stages with a travel range large enough to cover an entire large substrate ('986 Patent, col. 3:19-24). The invention uses a "substrate docking fixture" to temporarily immobilize the substrate, allowing a less expensive, limited-travel scanning stage to reposition itself underneath to pattern each module of the substrate sequentially ('986 Patent, Abstract). This decouples the required stage travel from the overall substrate size.
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify asserted claims.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the methods performed by Sharp using Nikon FX-Series scanners infringe the '986 Patent (Compl. ¶8, ¶62).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are LCD panels manufactured by or for Sharp using methods allegedly covered by the patents-in-suit, as well as products incorporating these panels, such as Sharp's AQUOS brand televisions, which are imported and sold in the U.S. (Compl. ¶1, ¶7, ¶8). The infringement allegation is directed at the manufacturing process under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges that Sharp manufactures its LCD panels using "scanning microlithography systems manufactured by Nikon Corp." designated as "FX-Series scanners" (Compl. ¶8). The complaint does not provide any technical details about the operation of these scanners. It alleges that Sharp is a "leader of the LCD panel industry" and a "leading manufacturer of large LCD televisions," with annual LCD panel sales of approximately $5.25 billion (Compl. ¶5, ¶6).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The complaint alleges infringement in general terms without providing a claim chart or detailed mapping of accused features to claim elements. The analysis below is based on the complaint's broad assertion that the methods performed by the Nikon FX-Series scanners meet the limitations of the asserted claims (Compl. ¶8).

U.S. Patent No. 4,924,257 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) a substrate stage capable of scanning a substrate in one dimension and, when not scanning... capable of moving laterally... The complaint alleges the methods used by the Nikon FX-Series scanners include using a substrate stage that performs scanning and lateral movements to expose the substrate. ¶8, ¶22 col. 13:51-59
(b) a mask stage capable of scanning in the same dimension as, and synchronized with, the substrate stage, at a speed equal to the substrate stage scanning speed multiplied by a certain ratio M; The complaint alleges the accused methods use a mask stage that scans in synchronization with the substrate stage at a different speed. ¶8, ¶22 col. 13:61-65
(c) an illumination subsystem... having an effective source plane in the shape of a polygon... The complaint alleges the accused methods utilize an illumination subsystem that illuminates a polygon-shaped region on the mask. ¶8, ¶22 col. 13:66-col.14:4
(e) control means to... provide complementary exposures in an overlap region between the areas exposed by adjacent scans in such a way that the exposure dose... is seamless, and... uniform. The complaint alleges the accused methods provide for complementary exposures in overlapping regions between scans to create a uniform, seamless exposure across the entire substrate. ¶8, ¶22 col. 14:12-19

U.S. Patent No. 5,285,236 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
(a) a stage subsystem (11/12) comprising mask locking means and substrate locking means providing fixed juxtaposition of the mask (14) relative to the substrate (10); said stage subsystem being capable of scanning... The complaint alleges the accused methods use a stage subsystem that holds both the mask and substrate in a fixed arrangement while scanning. ¶8, ¶32 col. 10:60-65
(c) a projection subsystem (26,27/30)... having an object-to-image magnification ratio of unity, having means (27/33) to render the image in the same orientation as the object... The complaint alleges the accused methods employ a 1:1 projection system that includes means to prevent image reversal. ¶8, ¶32 col. 10:15-22
(d) control means to... provide additive illumination in certain overlap regions of areas exposed by adjacent scans such that the effect of the exposure dose delivered... is seamless and... uniform. The complaint alleges the accused methods use overlapping scans with additive illumination to achieve a uniform and seamless exposure. ¶8, ¶32 col. 10:23-31

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Question: The complaint asserts that the methods used by Nikon FX-Series scanners infringe the patents but offers no technical evidence describing how these scanners operate. A central point of contention will be factual and evidentiary: what evidence can the plaintiff produce to show that the accused manufacturing process practices each limitation of the asserted claims, particularly the core concepts of "seamless" and "complementary" exposures in overlapping scan regions?
  • Architectural Question: The '257 and '236 patents claim distinct system architectures. The '257 patent claims a system with separate, synchronized mask and substrate stages, while the '236 patent claims a system with a single stage holding both in "fixed juxtaposition." The infringement analysis will raise the question of which, if either, of these architectures is embodied in the accused Nikon scanners. This distinction may form a basis for a non-infringement defense against at least one of the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "complementary exposures in an overlap region" ('257 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the '257 patent's claimed solution for creating a "seamless" exposure. The construction of this term will determine the specific technical requirements for how doses from adjacent scans must interact. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition could either broadly cover various seam-smoothing techniques or be narrowly limited to a specific mathematical relationship.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent's summary describes the concept as providing exposures "in such a way that a seam characteristic... is totally absent" ('257 Patent, col. 2:53-57). This functional language could support an interpretation that covers any method achieving a seamless result, regardless of the precise mechanism.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description and Figure 4 present a specific geometric and dosimetric model where the tapering triangular portions of two overlapping hexagons sum to a constant dose ('257 Patent, col. 5:26 - col. 6:34). This explicit embodiment may support a narrower construction limited to this or a similar mathematically complementary relationship.

The Term: "fixed juxtaposition" ('236 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core structural innovation of the '236 patent: a single, integrated stage for both the mask and substrate. The infringement determination for the '236 patent will likely depend heavily on whether the accused Nikon scanners have a stage architecture that meets the definition of "fixed juxtaposition."
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue the term means functionally locked or moving as a single unit, even if composed of multiple components mounted on a common gantry, as long as the relative positions are fixed during the scan.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent contrasts its single-stage approach with prior art requiring synchronization of separate stages. The figures, such as Figure 1 showing mask 14 and substrate 10 on a single stage 12, could support an interpretation requiring a monolithic, non-separable physical structure for holding both the mask and substrate.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Sharp induced infringement by its customers and also contributed to infringement (Compl. ¶23, ¶33, ¶43, ¶53, ¶63). The factual basis alleged is that Sharp "works in concert with its customers to import and sell into the United States infringing LCD panels" and "possesses a specific intent to encourage direct infringement" (Compl. ¶9).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all five patents, asserting that Sharp had "actual and constructive notice" of the patents but "nevertheless continued its infringing conduct" (Compl. ¶25, ¶35, ¶45, ¶55, ¶65).

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

  • A threshold issue for the case will be one of evidentiary demonstration: given the complaint’s lack of technical specifics, what evidence can Anvik produce to prove that the accused Nikon FX-Series scanners practice the detailed methods of creating "seamless" overlapping exposures as required by the claims, or will discovery reveal a fundamental operational mismatch?
  • A central legal question will be one of architectural scope: does the accused manufacturing process utilize a system with separate, synchronized stages (as claimed in the '257 patent), a single integrated stage holding the mask and substrate in "fixed juxtaposition" (as claimed in the '236 patent), or another architecture entirely? The answer will be critical to determining infringement of the lead patents.
  • The outcome may also depend on claim construction: can the term "complementary exposures," which is described in the '257 patent with a specific geometric example, be construed broadly enough to read on the potentially different seam-blending technique used in the accused scanners?