DCT

2:14-cv-01526

Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Toshiba Corp

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:14-cv-01526, W.D. Pa., 06/24/2016
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants doing business in the district and committing alleged acts of infringement, including placing infringing products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge and expectation that they will be sold to consumers within the judicial district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hard disk drive components, specifically those used for perpendicular magnetic recording (PMR), infringe a patent related to specialized magnetic material structures.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns methods of layering thin films of magnetic materials to create specific crystalline structures that increase data storage density and performance in hard disk drives.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant TDK Corporation, parent company of Defendants SAE and Headway, filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition on October 5, 2015, seeking to invalidate the patent-in-suit. The outcome of this parallel proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board could significantly impact the scope and validity of the claims asserted in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2001-08-29 ’988 Patent Priority Date
2006-10-31 ’988 Patent Issue Date
2014-11-06 Alleged notice date for Defendants SAE, Headway, and TDK
2014-11-19 Alleged notice date for Defendant Toshiba Corporation
2014-12-11 Alleged notice date for Defendants TAIS, TAEC, and Toshiba Canada
2015-08-24 Alleged notice date for Defendants Headway, TDK Corp, and TDK America (via subpoena)
2015-10-05 Defendant TDK Corporation files inter partes review petition against the ’988 Patent
2016-06-24 Third Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988, Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods, issued October 31, 2006.
  • The Invention Explained:
    • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the difficulty of controlling the magnetic properties of thin films used in data storage. (’988 Patent, col. 1:29-35). Conventional high-magnetization materials, such as those with a body-centered cubic (bcc) crystal structure, are desirable but tend to form with multiple competing magnetic orientations ("axes"), which leads to instability, signal noise, and reduced storage density. (’988 Patent, col. 5:47-55).
    • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a multi-layer structure that forces a bcc magnetic material to grow with a single, predictable magnetic orientation ("uniaxial anisotropy"). This is achieved by first depositing a "(111) textured hexagonal atomic template" layer, which serves as a crystallographic guide. (’988 Patent, Claim 1). A magnetic "bcc-d layer" (e.g., an iron-cobalt alloy) is then grown on this template. By employing a "symmetry breaking mechanism," such as depositing the material at a specific angle, only a select subset of the possible crystal orientations ("variants") is formed, creating a "uniaxial symmetry broken structure." (’988 Patent, Abstract; col. 21:18-27).
    • Technical Importance: This method allows for the use of powerful bcc magnetic materials in devices like hard disk drive heads while avoiding the noise and data density limitations previously associated with them. (Compl. ¶33).
  • Key Claims at a Glance:
    • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 (a material structure) and 27 (a magnetic device). (Compl. ¶32).
    • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
      • a substrate;
      • at least one bcc-d layer which is magnetic, forming a uniaxial symmetry broken structure; and
      • at least one layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template disposed between said substrate and said bcc-d layer.
    • Claim 27 recites a magnetic device incorporating the same three-element structure. The complaint also reserves the right to assert various dependent claims. (Compl. ¶¶37-38).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies "Hard Disk Drive Devices" and their internal components as the accused instrumentalities. (Compl. ¶30). The allegations focus on Perpendicular Magnetic Recording ("PMR") components, including "PMR heads," "PMR wafers," "PMR sliders," and "PMR HGAs" (Head Gimbal Assemblies). (Compl. ¶¶74-75). Specific accused product families include the Toshiba Canvio series and various internal hard drive models (e.g., DT01ACA-series, MK-series). (Compl. ¶¶35, 53, 77).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The accused components are fundamental parts of modern hard disk drives responsible for writing data to and reading data from magnetic platters. (Compl. ¶¶28-29). The complaint alleges these components are manufactured by certain defendants (e.g., SAE, Headway) and incorporated into hard disk drives sold by other defendants (e.g., Toshiba), which are in turn supplied to computer manufacturers like Dell for inclusion in consumer and enterprise products. (Compl. ¶¶41, 86). The complaint provides a photograph of a Toshiba hard drive that was removed from a Dell laptop computer. (Compl. p. 11). This visual illustrates the alleged supply chain, where the accused component is integrated into a widely sold end-product. A separate visual from the product packaging identifies Defendant Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. as the supplier for the accused Canvio Desk drive. (Compl. p. 12).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’988 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a substrate The accused PMR heads, wafers, and sliders are built upon a substrate within the magnetic head assembly. ¶80 col. 28:9-12
at least one layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template disposed between said substrate and said bcc-d layer The accused PMR components allegedly use a layer of Ruthenium (Ru) or another "seedlayer material" to serve as the required hexagonal atomic template. ¶82 col. 13:55-61
at least one bcc-d layer which is magnetic, forming a uniaxial symmetry broken structure The accused PMR components allegedly use a magnetic layer made from an iron-cobalt (FeCo) alloy that has a bcc-d structure and forms the claimed "uniaxial symmetry broken structure." ¶81 col. 13:48-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The central dispute may focus on the meaning of "uniaxial symmetry broken structure." The patent defines this through a specific crystallographic mechanism involving the preferential growth of a subset of six possible "variants." A question for the court will be whether this term requires the specific six-variant formation process described in the patent, or if it can be construed more broadly to cover any bcc-d layer that is ultimately manufactured to have a single magnetic axis, regardless of the underlying atomic mechanism.
    • Technical Questions: A key evidentiary question will be whether the defendants' manufacturing processes actually create the structure claimed. The complaint alleges that layering FeCo on Ru achieves this result (Compl. ¶¶81-82), but the patent teaches that a "symmetry breaking mechanism" (such as angled deposition) is required. (’988 Patent, col. 21:18-27). The litigation will likely involve a battle of materials science experts analyzing the precise atomic structure of the accused components to determine if they meet the patent's specific definition of a "symmetry broken" material.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "uniaxial symmetry broken structure"
  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patent and appears in every independent claim. The infringement case hinges on whether the accused products possess this specific structure, making its construction determinative. Practitioners may focus on this term because it appears to be a term of art coined by the inventor with a very specific definition provided in the specification.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party could argue the term should be understood by its stated purpose—to "promote oriented uniaxial magnetic properties." (’988 Patent, Abstract). This might support a functional interpretation where any structure achieving that result through the patent's general layering approach could be covered.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a precise structural definition, stating a "symmetry broken" material exists when "individual, variant sets do not contain an equal amount of all six of the (110) textured bcc-d variants." (’988 Patent, col. 23:39-44). This language, tied to the patent's detailed discussion of a six-variant system and a "symmetry breaking mechanism," suggests the term has a specific, limited structural meaning rather than a broad functional one.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that defendants supply infringing components (e.g., PMR heads) to other manufacturers (e.g., Toshiba, Dell) with the knowledge that they will be incorporated into infringing end-products like hard drives and computers. (Compl. ¶¶42, 85-86). The allegations are supported by claims that defendants knew of the patent and its relevance to their products. (Compl. ¶¶40, 85).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge of the ’988 patent. The complaint provides specific dates on which each defendant group allegedly became aware of the patent and their infringement, with the earliest notice date being November 6, 2014. (Compl. ¶¶71, 84, 100, 118). The allegations also state that defendants infringed despite an "objectively high likelihood" that their actions constituted infringement, language that aligns with the legal standard for willfulness. (Compl. ¶¶89, 105).

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

  • A core issue will be one of "structural identity": Can Plaintiff prove that the accused PMR heads—allegedly composed of an iron-cobalt alloy on a ruthenium seedlayer—possess the specific, complex crystallographic arrangement that the patent defines as a "uniaxial symmetry broken structure"? This determination will likely depend on sophisticated materials science evidence and expert testimony regarding the atomic-level characteristics of the accused products.
  • A dispositive question will be the "impact of the parallel IPR proceeding": The complaint acknowledges that an inter partes review of the ’988 patent was initiated by Defendant TDK. The outcome of that review, including any claim construction adopted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or any finding of invalidity, will have a significant, and potentially preclusive, effect on this litigation.
  • A key evidentiary question for willfulness will be one of "knowledge and intent": To prove willfulness, Plaintiff must establish not just that Defendants were aware of the ’988 patent, but that they knew or should have known that their specific manufacturing processes created the patented crystalline structure. The technical complexity of the invention may present a high bar for proving the requisite level of culpable knowledge.