DCT

2:23-cv-00212

Greenthread LLC v. OmniVision Tech Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:23-cv-00212, E.D. Tex., 11/16/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant maintains regular and established places of business within the Eastern District of Texas and has committed acts of infringement in the District, including manufacturing accused products at its facilities there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor devices infringe six patents related to the use of graded dopant regions to create internal electric fields that improve device performance.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns fundamental semiconductor device architecture, where varying the concentration of impurities (dopants) in silicon is used to control charge carrier movement, thereby increasing speed and efficiency in products ranging from processors to memory chips and sensors.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that the inventor of the patents-in-suit, Dr. G.R. Mohan Rao, is a former Senior Vice President and Senior Fellow of Defendant Texas Instruments. The complaint also states that Greenthread’s claim constructions for the asserted patent family have been adopted by multiple district courts in prior litigation against other parties, including Samsung and Intel.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-09-03 Priority Date for all six Patents-in-Suit
2009-08-06 Filing date of a Texas Instruments patent application during which, Plaintiff alleges, Defendant was made aware of the Greenthread patent family's parent application
2013-04-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 Issues
2015-04-27 Inventor Dr. Rao assigns the then-issued patents to Plaintiff Greenthread
2015-11-17 U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 Issues
2019-12-17 U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842 Issues
2020-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 Issues
2021-09-14 U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222 Issues
2022-04-26 U.S. Patent No. 11,316,014 Issues
2023-11-16 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,421,195 - "Semiconductor Devices with Graded Dopant Regions," issued April 16, 2013 (’195 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section describes performance limitations in conventional semiconductor devices that arise from using uniformly doped regions. These limitations include slow switching speeds in transistors, poor data retention (refresh time) in DRAMs, and image quality degradation in sensors, often caused by the uncontrolled movement of unwanted minority charge carriers. (’195 Patent, col. 1:47-53, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention introduces a non-uniform, or "graded," dopant concentration within specific regions of a semiconductor device, such as a "drift layer" beneath the active circuitry. This gradient creates a built-in static electric field that can be used to control the movement of charge carriers, such as by sweeping unwanted minority carriers away from the sensitive surface circuitry and deep into the substrate, thereby improving device performance. (’195 Patent, col. 3:56-65; Fig. 5(b)).
  • Technical Importance: This approach provides a method to enhance device speed, efficiency, and reliability at a fundamental architectural level without necessarily adding new physical components. (Compl. ¶1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one unspecified claim. Independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶48).
  • Independent Claim 1: A CMOS semiconductor device comprising:
    • a surface layer;
    • a substrate;
    • an active region including a source and a drain;
    • a single drift layer between the surface layer and the substrate with a graded concentration of dopants, creating a first static unidirectional electric drift field to aid minority carrier movement from the surface layer to the substrate; and
    • at least one well region in the drift layer, also with a graded concentration of dopants, creating a second static unidirectional electric drift field to aid minority carrier movement from the surface layer to the substrate.
  • The complaint does not specify assertion of dependent claims but reserves the right to modify its allegations. (Compl. ¶46).

U.S. Patent No. 9,190,502 - "Semiconductor Devices with Graded Dopant Regions," issued November 17, 2015 (’502 Patent)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the same family, the patent addresses the same technical problems as the ’195 Patent, namely performance degradation in semiconductor devices like DRAMs and imaging ICs due to spurious minority carriers and dark current. (’502 Patent, col. 2:1-10).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent again discloses using a graded dopant region to create a "drift field" that actively sweeps unwanted charge carriers away from the device's active surface regions. The specification describes this as a "novel technique" to control minority carriers in Very Large Scale Integrated (VLSI) circuits where other methods, like creating "subterranean" recombination centers, are not practical. (’502 Patent, col. 4:1-10).
  • Technical Importance: The invention offers a solution to persistent performance issues in high-density integrated circuits by controlling charge carriers at the substrate level. (Compl. ¶1).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of at least one unspecified claim. Independent claim 1 is representative. (Compl. ¶55).
  • Independent Claim 1: A semiconductor device comprising:
    • a surface layer;
    • a substrate;
    • an active region including a source and a drain;
    • a single drift layer between the surface layer and the substrate, with a graded concentration of dopants that generates a first static unidirectional electric drift field to aid minority carrier movement from the substrate to the surface layer; and
    • at least one well region in the drift layer, with a graded concentration of dopants that generates a second static unidirectional electric drift field to aid minority carrier movement from the substrate to the surface layer.
  • The complaint does not specify assertion of dependent claims but reserves the right to modify its allegations. (Compl. ¶54).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842 (’842 Patent)

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,510,842, "Semiconductor Devices with Graded Dopant Regions," issued December 17, 2019.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues to describe the use of graded dopant concentrations in semiconductor devices to create drift fields. These fields improve performance by controlling the movement of charge carriers, such as by sweeping unwanted carriers from the active surface into the substrate. (’842 Patent, Abstract, col. 4:35-44).
    • Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim; Claim 1 is independent. (Compl. ¶62).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor products include and utilize regions with graded dopant concentrations that meet the claim limitations. (Compl. ¶43, 62).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481 (’481 Patent)

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 10,734,481, "Semiconductor Devices with Graded Dopant Regions," issued August 4, 2020.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent further covers semiconductor devices employing graded dopant regions. The described solution creates built-in electric fields to enhance device performance across applications like logic, DRAM, and imaging ICs by managing charge carrier movement. (’481 Patent, Abstract, col. 3:50-65).
    • Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim; Claim 1 is independent. (Compl. ¶69).
    • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor products are fabricated with graded dopant concentrations that infringe the patent. (Compl. ¶43, 69).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222 (’222 Patent)

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,121,222, "Semiconductor Devices with Graded Dopant Regions," issued September 14, 2021.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent continues the theme of using graded dopant concentrations to improve semiconductor device performance. The invention focuses on creating drift fields within the device structure to accelerate or redirect charge carriers to increase speed and reduce electrical noise. (’222 Patent, Abstract, col. 3:36-53).
    • Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim; Claim 1 is independent. (Compl. ¶76).
    • Accused Features: The complaint accuses Defendant’s semiconductor products of containing infringing graded dopant regions. (Compl. ¶43, 76).

  • Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 11,316,014 (’014 Patent)

    • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11,316,014, "Semiconductor Devices with Graded Dopant Regions," issued April 26, 2022.
    • Technology Synopsis: This patent also relates to enhancing semiconductor device performance by grading dopant concentrations. The resulting internal electric fields are described as improving operational frequency, refresh time in memories, and visual quality in image sensors. (’014 Patent, Abstract).
    • Asserted Claims: At least one unspecified claim; Claim 1 is independent. (Compl. ¶83).
    • Accused Features: The complaint targets Defendant’s semiconductor products as having infringing graded dopant regions. (Compl. ¶43, 83).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as a broad category of "Texas Instruments Accused Products," including, but not limited to, amplifiers, processors, converters, various types of integrated circuits (ICs), and sensors. (Compl. ¶11). An exemplary product, the BQ25123 battery charge management solution, is specifically identified. (Compl. ¶40, 42).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges that the accused products are semiconductor devices fabricated using processes that create regions with graded dopant concentrations, which allegedly practice the patented inventions. (Compl. ¶32, 43). The complaint asserts that Texas Instruments is a major global semiconductor company that supplies components to approximately 100,000 customers, including prominent electronics manufacturers such as Apple. (Compl. ¶5, 38). A screenshot from the website of Mouser, an authorized distributor, shows the exemplary BQ25123 product offered for sale. (Compl. p. 13).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references an Exhibit 8 that purportedly "demonstrates how exemplary TI Accused Products meet the claim limitations" and "meet each and every element of at least one claim of the Greenthread Patents." (Compl. ¶12, 42, 48). However, this exhibit was not attached to the filed complaint document.

The complaint’s narrative infringement theory posits that the accused semiconductor products, by their nature and manufacturing process, necessarily contain the claimed structures. (Compl. ¶34, 43). It alleges on "information and belief" that the products are fabricated using processes that result in regions with graded dopant concentrations, and that these structures are "substantially similar" to the exemplary BQ25123 product detailed in the missing exhibit. (Compl. ¶43). The infringement is alleged to be inherent to the physical and chemical composition of the transistors within the accused devices, which cannot be modified by an end-user. (Compl. ¶34).

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Evidentiary Questions: A primary point of contention will be factual and evidentiary. The complaint alleges infringement based on the general nature of the accused products and manufacturing processes. A central question for the court will be what evidence, such as through reverse engineering or discovery into Defendant’s fabrication processes, Plaintiff can present to demonstrate that the accused products actually contain the specific "graded concentration of dopants" that generates the "static unidirectional electric drift field" required by the claims.
    • Scope Questions: The dispute may also turn on the scope of the claims. The asserted patents describe the invention's application in various specific devices (e.g., IGBTs, DRAMs). A question for claim construction may be whether terms like "drift layer" are limited to the structures of the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification or can be read more broadly to cover analogous regions within the wide array of accused product types.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "graded concentration of dopants"

  • Context and Importance: This term is the central inventive concept of the patents-in-suit. Its construction will determine the type of dopant profile that constitutes infringement. The dispute will likely focus on whether any non-uniform dopant profile meets this limitation or if a more specific, engineered gradient is required.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states that the gradient "can be linear, quasi linear, exponential or complimentary error function," suggesting that the term is not limited to a single type of gradient profile. (’195 Patent, col. 3:1-3).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patents consistently tie the "graded concentration" to the function of creating a "suitable aiding drift electric field." (’195 Patent, col. 3:3-5). A party could argue this functional requirement implies that an incidental or uncontrolled variation in doping from a manufacturing process would not qualify, and that the gradient must be intentionally designed to achieve the claimed function.

  • The Term: "drift layer"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the physical location of the claimed "graded concentration." How this term is construed will be critical for mapping the claim elements onto the physical structures of the accused integrated circuits.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that the drift region "can also be a non-epitaxial silicon substrate" and that different layers "can be transferred through wafer to wafer bonding," suggesting the term is not limited to a single method of formation or a traditional epitaxial layer. (’195 Patent, col. 3:27-31).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific structural contexts, such as the "emitter-drift epitaxial base region junction of the punch-through IGBT." (’195 Patent, col. 3:12-14). This could support an argument that the term "drift layer" should be construed as a structurally distinct region with the primary purpose of facilitating carrier drift, rather than any general region within a substrate.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, asserting that Defendant designs and sells the accused products with knowledge of the patents and with the intent that its customers and distributors (e.g., Apple, Mouser, Digi-Key) will directly infringe by using, selling, or importing the products. (Compl. ¶33, 37-41). The complaint alleges this intent is shown by Defendant designing products with an infringing chemical makeup that cannot be modified by a user. (Compl. ¶35).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on Defendant’s purported knowledge of the Greenthread patents. The complaint specifically alleges this knowledge arises "at least through the USPTO's citation of Greenthread's application as prior art during prosecution of Texas Instrument's U.S. Patent No. 8,278,683," which was filed in 2009, prior to the issuance of any of the patents-in-suit. (Compl. ¶44).

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

This dispute appears to center on highly technical questions of semiconductor physics and manufacturing, alongside legal questions of claim scope and pre-suit knowledge. The key questions for the court will likely be:

  • A central evidentiary question will be one of physical characterization: What proof can be adduced that the accused Texas Instruments semiconductor devices, which span a wide range of product categories, contain the specific "graded concentration of dopants" that generates the "static unidirectional electric drift field" required by the asserted claims?
  • A key legal issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "drift layer," which is described in the context of specific device embodiments in the patents, be construed broadly enough to read on the varied and complex physical structures of the numerous accused integrated circuits?
  • A critical question for willfulness will be one of imputed knowledge: Does a prior art citation to a patent application during the prosecution of a defendant’s own, unrelated patent constitute the requisite knowledge of the subsequently issued patents-in-suit to support a claim for pre-suit willful infringement?