DCT

2:24-cv-00636

President Fellows Of Harvard College v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-00636, E.D. Tex., 08/05/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged on the basis that Samsung, through its subsidiaries, is registered to do business in Texas, has regular and established places of business in the district, has transacted business in the district, and has committed acts of infringement there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor manufacturing processes infringe patents related to novel chemical precursors and methods for depositing thin metallic films.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns advanced materials and processes for forming highly uniform and adhesive metallic layers used for wiring and other components in modern microprocessors and memory chips.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendant has had knowledge of the ’189 Patent since at least September 16, 2014, the issue date of a Samsung patent that cites the ’189 Patent, which may be relevant to the allegation of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2002-07-12 U.S. Patent No. 7,560,581 Priority Date
2007-04-09 U.S. Patent No. 7,973,189 Priority Date
2009-07-14 U.S. Patent No. 7,560,581 Issued
2011-07-05 U.S. Patent No. 7,973,189 Issued
2014-09-16 Alleged Date of Knowledge for ’189 Patent by Defendant
2024-08-05 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,973,189 - "Cobalt nitride layers for copper interconnects and methods for forming them" (Issued Jul. 5, 2011)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As semiconductor features shrink, conventional methods for creating barrier and adhesion layers for copper wiring, such as sputtering tantalum, fail to create uniform coatings inside very deep and narrow trenches. This "poor conformality" can lead to voids and electromigration, compromising device reliability and performance (Compl. ¶22; ’189 Patent, col. 1:52 - col. 2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses using a layer of cobalt nitride (CoₓN) as an alternative adhesion and barrier layer. It proposes forming this layer via chemical vapor deposition (CVD) using novel cobalt amidinate precursors. This process allows for highly conformal coatings on which smooth and highly conductive copper layers can be deposited, solving the uniformity problem in high-aspect-ratio structures (’189 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:35-45).
  • Technical Importance: This technology provides a method to create more reliable microscopic wiring in advanced integrated circuits, a critical step for manufacturing smaller and more powerful electronic devices (’189 Patent, col. 2:57-62).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 12 (Compl. ¶42).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 12:
    • A method of forming a metal-comprising layer by chemical vapor deposition comprising:
    • exposing a substrate to a gaseous mixture comprising vapors of one or more metal amidinate;
    • wherein the metal amidinate is selected from a list of metals including lithium, sodium, potassium, and others, including cobalt.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶40).

U.S. Patent No. 7,560,581 - "Vapor Deposition of Tungsten Nitride" (Issued Jul. 14, 2009)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent notes that prior art methods for depositing tungsten nitride (WNₓ), another critical barrier material, often used tungsten hexafluoride (WF₆). This precursor and its reaction byproduct, hydrogen fluoride (HF), can attack underlying silicon or silicon dioxide substrates and leave fluorine contamination, which impairs the adhesion and performance of subsequent layers (’581 Patent, col. 2:41-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a new class of fluorine-free tungsten precursor compounds, specifically tungsten bis(alkylimide)bis(dialkylamide), and processes for using them in vapor deposition. These precursors are described as non-corrosive and allow for the deposition of highly uniform and conformal tungsten nitride films without damaging the substrate or leaving behind harmful contaminants (’581 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:12-20).
  • Technical Importance: This invention provided a fluorine-free chemical pathway for creating high-quality tungsten nitride barrier layers, addressing a key reliability challenge in advanced semiconductor manufacturing (’581 Patent, col. 2:15-20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts composition claim 1 and process claim 23 (Compl. ¶66-67).
  • Essential elements of independent claim 1:
    • A compound having a specific chemical formula with a metal center (Met) and surrounding R-groups.
    • Met is tungsten (W) or molybdenum (Mo).
    • R-groups are defined as various alkyl and substituted groups.
    • The claim includes specific provisos that exclude certain combinations of R-groups.
  • Essential elements of independent claim 23:
    • A process for depositing a material.
    • The process comprises introducing a compound as claimed in claim 1 to a surface.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶64).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are Samsung's semiconductor fabrication processes used to manufacture microprocessors and memory chips (Compl. ¶25). The complaint identifies two exemplary product lines made with these processes:

  1. Microprocessors, such as the Qualcomm Snapdragon 8, which is allegedly fabricated by Samsung (Compl. ¶32).
  2. Memory devices, such as Samsung's LPDDR5X DRAM (Compl. ¶56).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused processes allegedly use chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to form thin layers containing cobalt (for microprocessors) or tungsten (for memory chips) (Compl. ¶43, ¶68). These layers function as parts of the interconnects, gates, and bitlines within the semiconductor devices (Compl. ¶44-45, ¶71, ¶73). A teardown image provided in the complaint shows a cobalt layer as part of an M1 interconnect in a Snapdragon 8 chip (Compl. ¶47). Another set of images shows tungsten layers in the gate and bitlines of a LPDDR5X DRAM chip (Compl. ¶72, ¶74).
  • The complaint alleges that Samsung is the world's largest semiconductor manufacturer by revenue and that the accused products are incorporated into high-volume consumer electronics, such as the Samsung Galaxy S22 and Galaxy Z Flip5 smartphones (Compl. ¶23, ¶37, ¶61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’189 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 12) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
The method of forming a metal-comprising layer by chemical vapor deposition comprising: Samsung performs a process for making a metal-comprising layer by chemical vapor deposition (CVD) as part of its manufacturing of Snapdragon 8 chips. ¶43 col. 5:46-49
exposing a substrate to a gaseous mixture comprising vapors of one or more metal amidinate selected from the metals lithium, sodium, potassium, beryllium, calcium, strontium, barium, scandium, yttrium, lanthanum and the other lanthanide metals, titanium, zirconium, hafnium, vanadium, niobium, tantalum, molybdenum, tungsten...cobalt...and bismuth. Upon information and belief, Samsung's CVD process uses a gaseous mixture comprising vapors of a cobalt amidinate to form a cobalt layer. Analysis of a Snapdragon 8 chip shows a metal interconnect that includes cobalt. ¶46, ¶47, ¶49 col. 8:35-42

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The complaint's allegation that Samsung uses a "cobalt amidinate" precursor is made "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶49). While teardown analysis showing a cobalt layer is provided, a central question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that the specific process used to deposit that layer involves a cobalt amidinate, as required by the claim, or if an alternative, non-infringing chemistry was used. The teardown image provided shows the elemental mapping of a metal interconnect where a cobalt layer is indicated by a yellow outline (Compl. ¶47).
  • Scope Question: The term "metal amidinate" is a chemical classification. The parties may dispute the precise scope of this term and whether the specific precursor allegedly used by Samsung, if identified in discovery, falls within its definition as understood in the context of the patent.

’581 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 23) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A process for depositing a material, the process comprising: Samsung utilizes a process for depositing a material, specifically a film of tungsten, as part of its manufacturing of LPDDR5X DRAM memory chips. ¶68 col. 10:41-42
introducing a compound as claimed in claim 1 to a surface. Upon information and belief, Samsung's process utilizes a tungsten compound matching the formula of claim 1 to deposit tungsten layers in the gates and bitlines of its LPDDR5X DRAM memory. ¶68, ¶77 col. 10:27-40

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: Similar to the '189 patent, the infringement allegation rests on "information and belief" that Samsung uses the specific compound class recited in claim 1 of the ’581 Patent (Compl. ¶77). A key factual question will be what chemical precursor Samsung actually uses. The complaint provides teardown images, such as a TEM-EDX analysis showing tungsten (indicated by magenta coloring) in a memory chip gate, to support its allegation (Compl. ¶72).
  • Scope Question: Claim 1 includes negative limitations (provisos) that explicitly exclude certain compounds from its scope. A primary point of contention will be whether the specific tungsten precursor allegedly used by Samsung, once identified, falls within the precise chemical structure defined by the claim or is instead one of the excluded compounds.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

’189 Patent: "metal amidinate" (Claim 12)

  • Context and Importance: The infringement theory for the ’189 Patent hinges on the allegation that Samsung uses a "cobalt amidinate" (Compl. ¶49). The construction of this chemical term will define the universe of accused precursors.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent claims a method using a metal amidinate selected from a very long list of metals, suggesting the term is meant to be a broad chemical classification not limited to a few specific examples (’189 Patent, col. 8:35-42). The specification discusses amidinates as a general class of compounds suitable for vapor deposition (’189 Patent, col. 7:51-57).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a specific chemical structure (Formula 3) for certain cobalt amidinate compounds (’189 Patent, col. 7:58-65). A party could argue that the term should be understood in light of these more specific embodiments.

’581 Patent: "A compound having a formula..." (Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This is a Markush claim defining a specific genus of chemical compounds. Infringement of claims 1 and 23 requires a finding that Samsung uses a compound falling within this exact definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because the claim includes explicit "provisos" that carve out specific chemical structures, making the claim's boundary a likely point of dispute.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification notes that alkyl groups within the formula "may be linked to form cyclic compounds, and that the groups may contain some degree of unsaturation" (’581 Patent, col. 4:51-54), which could be argued to expand the scope of permissible R-groups.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself contains explicit negative limitations, such as "when Met is W and R2 and R4-R10 are methyl, then R1 and R3 are not both methyl or both ethyl" (’581 Patent, col. 10:35-40). This language provides a clear basis for arguing that compounds matching these descriptions are not covered by the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Samsung induces infringement by manufacturing chips with the accused processes and then selling products (e.g., Galaxy smartphones) containing those chips to partners and end-users, while providing instructions and technical support for their use (Compl. ¶37, ¶61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Samsung's infringement is willful. For the ’189 Patent, it alleges pre-suit knowledge since at least September 16, 2014, based on a Samsung-owned patent that cites the ’189 Patent (Compl. ¶35). For the ’581 Patent, knowledge is alleged "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶58).

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

  • A central issue will be one of evidentiary proof: will discovery substantiate the "information and belief" allegations that Samsung’s fabrication processes use the specific chemical precursors required by the asserted claims, or will the evidence show the use of non-infringing alternative chemistries?
  • For the ’581 patent, a key question will be one of definitional precision: assuming a specific tungsten precursor used by Samsung is identified, does its exact chemical structure fall within the boundaries of the Markush group defined by Claim 1, particularly in light of the explicit negative limitations ("provisos") that carve certain compounds out of the claim's scope?
  • Finally, a key issue for damages will be willfulness: for the ’189 Patent, will the court determine that Samsung’s citation to the patent in its own prosecution history is sufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of infringement, thereby exposing Samsung to potential enhanced damages?