DCT
2:16-cv-00541
Lambeth Magnetic Structures LLC v. Western Digital Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Lambeth Magnetic Structures, LLC (Pennsylvania)
- Defendant: Western Digital Corporation (Delaware), HGST, Inc. (Delaware), and various related subsidiaries.
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: The Webb Law Firm; Radulescu LLP
- Case Identification: 2:16-cv-00541, W.D. Pa., 10/11/2016
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper based on Defendants regularly transacting business and selling the accused hard drives directly to consumers within the Western District of Pennsylvania via their commercial websites.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ hard disk drives and the magnetic recording heads within them infringe a patent directed to novel magnetic material structures that enable higher data storage density.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the atomic-level layering of materials within hard drive recording heads to create specific magnetic properties, a critical field for increasing data capacity in digital storage devices.
- Key Procedural History: This First Amended Complaint follows an original complaint filed in May 2016. The patent-in-suit was invented by Dr. David N. Lambeth, a retired Carnegie Mellon University professor, and assigned to the Plaintiff, an entity formed to license these patents.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2001-08-29 | U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988 Priority Date |
| 2006-10-31 | U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988 Issued |
| 2014-11-28 | Date listed on representative accused product (WD10JPVX) |
| 2016-05-01 | Alleged date of Defendants' knowledge (Original Complaint) |
| 2016-10-11 | First Amended Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,128,988 - "Magnetic Material Structures, Devices and Methods"
- Issued: October 31, 2006.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the technical challenge of creating magnetic thin films with a single, predictable magnetic orientation (a "uniaxial anisotropy"). (’988 Patent, col. 1:46-53). For materials with a cubic crystal structure, which are otherwise desirable, achieving this is difficult, often resulting in multiple competing magnetic axes, which leads to signal noise and limits performance in devices like hard drive heads. (’988 Patent, col. 4:35-50).
- The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a method for building a magnetic structure with a highly controlled uniaxial anisotropy. The solution involves depositing a magnetic material with a body-centered cubic derivative (bcc-d) crystal structure onto a non-magnetic layer that provides a "(111) textured hexagonal atomic template." (’988 Patent, Abstract). By using a "symmetry breaking mechanism" during deposition, such as directing the material flow at a specific angle, the inventor claims to be able to select for a specific subset of crystal orientations, thereby creating a predictable, uniaxial magnetic property in the final structure. (’988 Patent, col. 23:31-41, col. 24:31-40).
- Technical Importance: This technique allows for the use of high-magnetization materials like iron-cobalt alloys in high-performance recording heads, enabling increased data storage capacity without increasing the physical size of the hard drive. (Compl. ¶22).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 27. (Compl. ¶29).
- Independent Claim 1, a structure claim, requires:
- 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 the substrate and the bcc-d layer.
- Independent Claim 27 claims a magnetic device incorporating the structure of claim 1.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert dependent claims, specifically identifying claims 3, 6, 8, 17, 19, 28, and 29. (Compl. ¶29).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The complaint accuses a wide range of Western Digital and HGST-branded hard disk drives (HDDs) and solid-state hybrid drives (SSHDs), collectively referred to as the "Accused Western Digital Drives" and "Accused HGST Drives." (Compl. ¶¶ 24, 41). The complaint provides a photograph of a representative Western Digital drive, model WD10JPVX, dated November 28, 2014. (Compl. p. 6). It also includes a photograph of a representative HGST drive, model HTS721010A9E630. (Compl. p. 12).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the accused drives contain magnetic recording heads used to write data to the disk platter. (Compl. ¶25, ¶42).
- The core allegation is that these recording heads are manufactured using the patented three-layer structure. (Compl. ¶26, ¶43). The complaint specifically alleges that the accused heads use a magnetic layer made from an iron-cobalt (FeCo) alloy, which constitutes the claimed "bcc-d layer," and a seedlayer made from Ruthenium (Ru) or a similar material, which constitutes the claimed "layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template." (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28, 44-45).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’988 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a substrate; | Each of the accused drives includes at least one recording head which is built upon a substrate. | ¶26, ¶43 | col. 13:50-55 |
| at least one bcc-d layer which is magnetic, forming a uniaxial symmetry broken structure; | The accused recording heads allegedly use a magnetic layer made from an iron cobalt (FeCo) alloy, which has a bcc-d structure and forms a uniaxial symmetry broken structure as claimed. | ¶27, ¶44 | col. 13:55-58 |
| and at least one layer providing a (111) textured hexagonal atomic template disposed between said substrate and said bcc-d layer. | The accused recording heads allegedly use a layer of Ruthenium (Ru) or other seedlayer material, disposed between the substrate and the magnetic layer, which provides the claimed atomic template. | ¶28, ¶45 | col. 13:58-61 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Question: The complaint's infringement theory is based on "information and belief" regarding the internal material composition and crystalline structure of Defendants' recording heads. A primary point of contention will be a factual one: do the accused products actually contain the specific layered material stack alleged by the Plaintiff?
- Technical Question: Even if the alleged layers (e.g., FeCo on Ru) are present, a key technical dispute will likely arise over whether they possess the specific atomic-level properties required by the claims. This raises the question: what evidence does the complaint provide that the accused FeCo layer forms a "uniaxial symmetry broken structure" or that the accused Ru layer provides a "(111) textured hexagonal atomic template"?
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "uniaxial symmetry broken structure"
Context and Importance: This term appears to be the central inventive concept and is dispositive for infringement. Plaintiff alleges the FeCo layer in the accused heads forms this structure (Compl. ¶27, ¶44). Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether the highly technical, multi-faceted definition in the specification can be mapped onto the physical structure of the accused products.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent defines the "symmetry broken" state functionally, as occurring when variant sets of crystal orientations "do not contain an equal amount" of all possible variants. (’988 Patent, col. 24:36-40). It also describes multiple methods for achieving this, such as deposition angle or an applied magnetic field, which may support an interpretation based on the resulting property rather than a specific physical makeup. (’988 Patent, col. 41:45-50).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides an extensive and highly complex crystallographic analysis of how specific subsets of variants combine to produce the desired uniaxial result (e.g., the E2_a1c2 variant pair). (’988 Patent, col. 19:8-28; Fig. 7). A defendant may argue the term should be limited to these specific, mathematically-defined combinations or that the complexity renders the term indefinite.
The Term: "bcc-d layer"
Context and Importance: This term defines the material of the primary magnetic layer. The dispute may turn on whether the accused FeCo alloys fall within its scope.
Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent explicitly states that the notation ""bcc-d"" is used "to represent either a bcc or a bcc derivative crystal structure," which may support a broad definition covering standard body-centered cubic materials like FeCo. (’988 Patent, col. 13:65-67).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that "derivative" implies a structure different from a standard bcc crystal, potentially limiting the term to specific alloys or ordered structures (e.g., the B2 structure) discussed in the patent. (’988 Patent, col. 12:59-63).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendants actively encourage infringement by third parties, including OEMs (e.g., Apple, Dell), resellers, and their own subsidiaries. (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 49). The alleged inducing acts include providing advertising, marketing materials, sales support, and website information that promote the sale and use of the infringing drives. (Compl. ¶¶ 33, 50).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants had knowledge of the ’988 Patent "at least as of the time of the filing of the original Complaint in May 2016." (Compl. ¶31, ¶48). This allegation, based on post-suit knowledge, forms the basis for the claim of willful infringement and the request for a finding that the case is "exceptional" under 35 U.S.C. § 285. (Compl. ¶39, ¶56).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- An Evidentiary Question of Composition: The case appears to turn significantly on a factual dispute over the internal construction of Defendants' products. A central question will be: does discovery confirm that the accused recording heads are built with the specific layered structure—an FeCo magnetic layer on a Ruthenium-based seedlayer—as alleged in the complaint?
- A Technical Question of Crystallography: Assuming the alleged materials are present, a key technical battle will likely focus on their precise atomic structure. The court will need to resolve whether the Defendants’ FeCo layer actually exhibits the properties of a “uniaxial symmetry broken structure” as defined by the patent’s complex crystallographic framework.
- A Legal Question of Claim Interpretation: A core legal issue will be the construction of the term "uniaxial symmetry broken structure". The outcome may depend on whether this term is interpreted broadly as a functional outcome or narrowly limited to the specific, mathematically-derived crystalline variant combinations detailed in the specification.