DCT

3:18-cv-00323

Kokusai Semiconductor Equipment Corp v. ASM Intl NV

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 3:18-cv-00323, D. Or., 02/20/2018
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendants allegedly committing acts of infringement in the District of Oregon and maintaining a regular and established place of business in the district, including a regional service office.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ semiconductor processing equipment, including batch vertical furnaces and single-wafer deposition systems, infringes four patents related to substrate processing apparatuses and methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns equipment for semiconductor manufacturing, specifically for processes like Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) and Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD), which are fundamental to creating the microscopic structures on silicon wafers that form integrated circuits.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings, or licensing history between the parties related to the asserted patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2000-01-20 ’627 Patent Priority Date
2000-09-19 ’869 Patent Priority Date
2003-02-04 ’869 Patent Issue Date
2003-08-07 ’076 and ’007 Patents Priority Date
2004-08-31 ’627 Patent Issue Date
2009-11-24 ’007 Patent Issue Date
2014-03-18 ’076 Patent Issue Date
2018-02-20 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,673,076 - "Substrate Processing Apparatus and Semiconductor Device Producing Method"

  • Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,673,076, Issued March 18, 2014. (Compl. ¶12).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's specification describes how gas-introducing nozzles in vertical Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) furnaces can become clogged with reaction byproducts. This clogging deteriorates process performance and necessitates frequent maintenance, which in turn reduces equipment uptime and manufacturing throughput. (’076 Patent, col. 1:21-59).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a specifically designed gas nozzle to mitigate this clogging. The nozzle features a vertical portion that sits inside the heated reaction zone and a horizontal portion that connects to the furnace wall. The key innovation is that the flow-path cross-sectional area of the vertical portion is larger than that of the horizontal portion, which is intended to reduce the buildup of deposits. The patent further specifies that this vertical portion has a "substantially elliptic shape" to maintain a consistent clearance from the stacked wafers, and includes a "second portion" with a different, circular cross-section in areas not opposed by the heater. (’076 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:5-43).
  • Technical Importance: This design aims to extend the maintenance cycle of batch vertical furnaces, a critical piece of equipment in semiconductor fabrication, thereby increasing operational efficiency and throughput. (’076 Patent, col. 2:1-7).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶15).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A substrate processing apparatus with a reaction container, a heater, and at least one nozzle.
    • The nozzle has a horizontal portion penetrating the container sidewall and a vertical portion rising inside the container.
    • The vertical portion has a "first portion" (opposed to the heater) and a "second portion" (not opposed to the heater).
    • The flow-path cross-sectional area of the first portion is greater than that of the horizontal portion.
    • The first portion has a "substantially elliptic shape," while the second portion has a smaller area and a "circular shape."
    • The short axis of the elliptic shape is substantially equal to the diameter of the circular shape, creating an equivalent lateral clearance to the substrates. (Compl. ¶16).

U.S. Patent No. 7,622,007 - "Substrate Processing Apparatus and Semiconductor Device Producing Method"

  • Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,622,007, Issued November 24, 2009. (Compl. ¶38).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a parent to the ’076 Patent, this patent addresses the same technical challenge: reaction byproduct clogging gas nozzles in vertical batch furnaces, leading to increased downtime for maintenance. (’007 Patent, col. 1:47-2:7).
  • The Patented Solution: The solution is similar to that of the ’076 Patent but is directed to an apparatus with a plurality of nozzles that have different lengths. This configuration allows for tailored gas delivery to different zones within the large vertical stack of wafers. Each nozzle incorporates the anti-clogging design where the vertical portion has a larger, elliptically shaped cross-section compared to the horizontal portion. (’007 Patent, Abstract; col. 5:6-24).
  • Technical Importance: The invention seeks to improve both the operational uptime (via the anti-clogging nozzle shape) and the film-thickness uniformity across a large batch of wafers (via the multi-nozzle, varied-length configuration). (’007 Patent, col. 2:8-13).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶41).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A substrate processing apparatus with a reaction container, a heater, and a plurality of nozzles having different lengths.
    • Each nozzle has a horizontal portion and a vertical portion.
    • The flow-path cross-sectional area of the vertical portion (opposed to the heater) is greater than that of the horizontal portion.
    • The flow-path cross-sectional shape of the vertical portion is "substantially elliptic" with its short axis oriented toward the center of the substrate. (Compl. ¶42).

U.S. Patent No. 6,514,869 - "Method for Use in Manufacturing a Semiconductor Device"

  • Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,514,869, Issued February 4, 2003. (Compl. ¶62).

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the problem of temperature variations within a single-wafer processing apparatus between process runs, which can harm the quality and uniformity of deposited films. (’869 Patent, col. 2:30-49). The invention is a manufacturing method that introduces a "pretreatment stage" between wafer processing cycles; during this stage, the heater unit is maintained at a specific position between the wafer loading/unloading position and the substrate processing position to stabilize the thermal environment of the chamber before the next wafer is introduced. (’869 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 1 is asserted. (Compl. ¶66).

Accused Features

The complaint accuses the methods performed by the Pulsar XP ALD, EmerALD XP ALD, Eagle XP8 PEALD, and Dragon XP8 PECVD systems. (Compl. ¶65). The allegations focus on the systems' sequential processing of wafers and the movement of a heating unit (e.g., a susceptor) between a loading/unloading position and a processing position, which is alleged to constitute the claimed pretreatment and continuous processing stages. (Compl. ¶68-69).

U.S. Patent No. 6,783,627 - "Reactor with Remote Plasma System and Method of Processing a Semiconductor Substrate"

  • Identification: U.S. Patent No. 6,783,627, Issued August 31, 2004. (Compl. ¶83).

Technology Synopsis

This patent addresses the need to reduce processing temperatures in semiconductor manufacturing, as high temperatures can damage sensitive device structures. (’627 Patent, col. 1:36-44). The invention describes a reactor that uses a "remote plasma system," where reactant gases are ionized into a plasma outside of the main processing chamber. These highly reactive, ionized gases are then injected into the chamber, enabling film deposition at lower temperatures while isolating the delicate wafer from potentially damaging direct contact with the plasma-generating field. (’627 Patent, Abstract).

Asserted Claims

Independent claim 11 is asserted. (Compl. ¶87).

Accused Features

The accused products are the XP8 system and EmerALD XP products. (Compl. ¶86). The complaint alleges these products are reactors that include a housing, a plasma generator, and a gas injector (e.g., a showerhead) supported in the reactor's cover that injects ionized gas into the processing chamber, thereby meeting the claim limitations. (Compl. ¶88-90).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint names two categories of accused products: the A412 batch vertical furnace system, and a suite of single-wafer processing systems including the Pulsar XP ALD, EmerALD XP ALD, Eagle XP8 PEALD, and Dragon XP8 PECVD systems. (Compl. ¶2).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The A412 batch vertical furnace is described as a system for "simultaneous thermal processing" of a "large stack of wafers." (Compl. ¶17). It is allegedly used for processes including Low-Pressure Chemical Vapor Deposition (LPCVD) and Atomic Layer Deposition (ALD). (Compl. ¶19).
  • The XP8 and EmerALD XP systems are described as single-wafer tools for plasma-enhanced processes like PEALD and PECVD. (Compl. ¶67, ¶88). The complaint highlights their use of a central robot and "Dual Chamber Modules (DCM)" to achieve high-productivity processing. (Compl. ¶68). The complaint includes a diagram illustrating the DCM architecture, which shows a central robot transferring wafers to and from multiple processing chambers. (Compl. ¶68, p. 30). This architecture is central to the allegations of infringement against the '869 patent.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

A notable aspect of the infringement allegations for the ’076 and ’007 patents is their heavy reliance on figures and descriptions from U.S. Patent No. 7,629,256, a patent assigned to the Defendant, ASM International. The complaint uses this ASM patent (attached as Exhibit B) as evidence of how the accused A412 furnace allegedly operates. (Compl. ¶18, ¶20). For instance, a schematic of a gas injector from Defendant's '256 patent is presented as illustrative of the nozzle in the accused A412 furnace. (Compl. ¶20-21, p. 8).

’076 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a reaction container to process a plurality of substrates; a heater to heat said plurality of substrates; and at least one nozzle through which reaction gas is to be supplied into said reaction container... The A412 system is alleged to be a substrate processing apparatus containing a reaction container for processing wafers, a heater for thermal processing, and at least one gas nozzle for supplying reaction gas. ¶17-19 col. 4:64-5:4
wherein said nozzle includes a horizontal portion extending in a horizontal direction and a vertical portion rising in a vertical direction, said horizontal portion is attached to a sidewall of said reaction container with said horizontal portion penetrating the sidewall of said reaction container, said vertical portion is disposed in said reaction container apart from an inner wall... The A412 nozzle is alleged to include horizontal and vertical portions, with the horizontal portion attached to and penetrating the sidewall of the reaction container, based on illustrations from Defendant's '256 patent. ¶20-21 col. 5:5-15
a flow-path cross-sectional area of a first portion of said vertical portion that is opposed to at least said heater is greater than a flow-path cross-sectional area of said horizontal portion, The complaint alleges that the A412 nozzle has a vertical portion with a cross-sectional area greater than its horizontal portion, citing figures from Defendant's '256 patent. ¶22 col. 5:25-29
a flow-path cross-sectional shape of said first portion of said vertical portion that is opposed to at least said heater is formed into a substantially elliptic shape with a short axis thereof oriented toward a central portion of the substrate, The complaint alleges, based on figures in Defendant's '256 patent, that the cross-sectional shape of the A412 nozzle's vertical portion is substantially elliptic. An illustration from Defendant's '256 patent is provided showing this cross-sectional shape. (Compl. ¶22, p. 9). ¶22 col. 5:30-34
said vertical portion that is not opposed to said heater includes a second portion, wherein a flow-path cross-sectional area of said section portion is smaller than the flow-path cross-sectional area of said first portion, and a flow-path cross-sectional shape of said second portion is formed into a circular shape, and the short axis of the substantially elliptic shape ... is substantially equal to the diameter of the circular shape... The complaint alleges that the A412's nozzle includes a second, circular-shaped portion with a smaller cross-sectional area. It further alleges the short axis of the elliptic portion is substantially equal to the diameter of the circular portion, citing figures from Defendant's '256 patent. An illustration from Defendant's '256 patent is provided showing the side view of the nozzle. (Compl. ¶23-24, p. 9). ¶23-24 col. 5:35-6:6

’007 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A substrate processing apparatus, comprising: a reaction container...; a heater...; and a plurality of nozzles having different lengths through which reaction gas is to be supplied into said reaction container... The A412 system is alleged to contain a reaction container, a heater, and a plurality of nozzles of different lengths for supplying reaction gas. ¶43-45 col. 14:63-col. 15:1
wherein each of said plurality of nozzles includes a horizontal portion extending in a horizontal direction and a vertical portion rising in a vertical direction, The A412's nozzles are alleged to each include horizontal and vertical portions, based on figures from Defendant's '256 patent. ¶46 col. 15:2-4
said horizontal portion is attached to a sidewall of said reaction container... said vertical portion is disposed in said reaction container apart from an inner wall of said reaction container... The complaint alleges, based on figures from Defendant's '256 patent, that the horizontal portion of each nozzle is attached to the container sidewall and the vertical portion is disposed apart from the inner wall. ¶47 col. 15:5-10
a flow-path cross-sectional area of the portion of said vertical portion... is greater than a flow-path cross-sectional area of said horizontal portion, and It is alleged that the vertical portion of the A412 nozzles has a greater cross-sectional area than the horizontal portion, as shown in figures from Defendant's '256 patent. ¶48 col. 15:11-13
a flow-path cross-sectional shape of the portion of said vertical portion... is formed into a substantially elliptic shape with a short axis thereof oriented toward a central portion of the substrate. The complaint alleges that the cross-sectional shape of the vertical portion of the A412 nozzles is substantially elliptic, referencing figures from Defendant's '256 patent. A visual from Defendant's patent is included to support this allegation. (Compl. ¶48, p. 20). ¶48 col. 15:14-16

Identified Points of Contention

  • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention may be factual. The complaint's allegations regarding the A412 furnace's internal structure rely on a separate ASM patent ('256 patent) rather than direct analysis of the accused product. This raises the question of whether Plaintiffs can prove that the commercially sold A412 product is in fact identical to the embodiments described in Defendant's '256 patent.
  • Scope Questions: The dispute may center on the meaning of "substantially elliptic shape." The parties could contest whether the accused nozzles' actual cross-sectional geometry, which may not be a perfect ellipse, falls within the scope of this term as it is used in the patents.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

Term: "a flow-path cross-sectional shape ... formed into a substantially elliptic shape"

  • (Asserted in claim 1 of both the ’076 and ’007 patents)
  • Context and Importance: This term is a core structural limitation defining the geometry of the anti-clogging portion of the nozzle. The infringement analysis for the A412 furnace will depend heavily on whether its nozzles are found to have this specific shape. Practitioners may focus on this term because its indefiniteness ("substantially") creates a clear area for dispute over its scope.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification of the parent ’007 Patent suggests some flexibility, noting that cross-sectional shapes are not limited to "circular, long circular or elliptic shape" and that other shapes are possible "only if the flow-path cross section can be enlarged." (’007 Patent, col. 9:35-41). This language could be used to argue that the term encompasses other non-circular, elongated shapes that achieve the same anti-clogging function.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself adds a specific functional constraint: "with a short axis thereof oriented toward a central portion of the substrate." (’007 Patent, col. 15:14-16). Defendants may argue this ties the term's meaning tightly to the specific embodiments shown in figures like Fig. 4A of the ’007 Patent, which depict a distinct oval shape with a clear short and long axis, potentially excluding other elongated shapes.

Term: "plurality of nozzles having different lengths"

  • (Asserted in claim 1 of the ’007 patent)
  • Context and Importance: This limitation distinguishes the ’007 Patent from the single-nozzle claims of the related ’076 Patent and is essential for proving infringement of the ’007 Patent. The dispute will be whether the accused A412 furnace utilizes multiple nozzles and if those nozzles can be characterized as having "different lengths" in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: On its face, the term could be interpreted broadly to mean any collection of two or more nozzles where at least two have non-identical lengths, regardless of the reason for the difference.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that the purpose of using nozzles with different lengths is to supply reaction gas to different "zones" within the vertical wafer stack to ensure uniformity. (’007 Patent, col. 5:29-39). A defendant could argue that, in this context, "different lengths" should be construed to require a set of nozzles with intentionally and structurally distinct lengths designed to correspond to these specific processing zones, not minor or incidental variations in length.

VI. Other Allegations

Indirect Infringement

The complaint alleges that Defendants induce infringement of all four asserted patents. The factual basis for inducement includes allegations that Defendants provide the accused products to customers with the specific intent that they be used in an infringing manner, supported by advertising, providing instruction manuals and installation materials, and offering customer training and technical support. (Compl. ¶26-30, ¶50-54, ¶71-75, ¶92-96). For the '869 method patent, the complaint further alleges that Defendants are liable for their customers' direct infringement through theories of divided infringement, asserting that Defendants direct or control their customers' performance of the claimed method steps. (Compl. ¶65).

Willful Infringement

The complaint alleges willful infringement for all four patents, asserting that Defendants knew or should have known of the patents and their infringement. The complaint alleges knowledge of the ’076 patent since its issue date (March 18, 2014) and knowledge of the ’007 and ’869 patents since specific dates in 2012. (Compl. ¶25, ¶49, ¶70). For the ’627 patent, knowledge is alleged as of the filing of the complaint. (Compl. ¶91).

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

This case presents a multifaceted dispute across different semiconductor equipment technologies. The litigation will likely focus on three central questions:

  • A question of evidentiary linkage: For the '076 and '007 patents, can Plaintiffs successfully prove that Defendants' commercially sold A412 furnace embodies the specific nozzle structures depicted in a separate patent (the '256 patent) that Plaintiffs have used as a proxy for the accused product's design?
  • A question of definitional scope: Will the term "substantially elliptic shape," which is central to the '076 and '007 patents, be construed narrowly to match the patent's drawings, or more broadly to encompass any elongated nozzle cross-section that serves a similar anti-clogging purpose?
  • A question of attribution: For the '869 method patent, can Plaintiffs show that Defendants exercise sufficient "direction or control" over their customers' use of the accused single-wafer systems to hold Defendants liable for performing the patented method, a key hurdle in divided infringement cases?