DCT

4:07-cv-00109

Raytheon Co v. Indigo Systems Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:07-cv-00109, E.D. Tex., 03/02/2007
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted on the basis that Defendants conduct business in the district, contract with Texas entities, and place the accused products into the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by consumers in the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ infrared detector products, including focal plane arrays and readout integrated circuits, infringe five patents and that Defendants built their competing business by misappropriating trade secrets and hiring former Raytheon employees.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns cooled and uncooled infrared detectors, which are critical components in thermal imaging cameras used for military, industrial, and commercial applications such as night vision and threat detection.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that U.S. Patent No. 5,021,663 survived a re-examination proceeding, which may strengthen its presumption of validity. It also asserts infringement of a reissued patent, RE 34,908, indicating the original patent was surrendered and re-examined by the USPTO to correct a perceived error. The complaint alleges a background of employee departures from Raytheon to found Indigo Systems, which later became a direct competitor, and a prior warning to Indigo regarding infringement of the readout circuit patents.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1988-08-12 Priority Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,021,663
1989-03-27 Filing Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,043,820
1990-03-27 Filing Date for original patent leading to RE 34,908
1991-06-04 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,021,663
1991-08-08 Priority Date for U.S. Patent Nos. 5,449,943 & 5,646,437
1991-08-27 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,043,820
1992-01-22 Issue Date for original patent leading to RE 34,908
1994-01-24 Application for Reissue of patent leading to RE 34,908 filed
1995-04-18 Issue Date for Reissued U.S. Patent No. RE 34,908
1995-09-12 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,449,943
1996-03-01 Indigo Systems Corporation founded by former Raytheon employees
1997-07-01 Re-examination Certificate issued for U.S. Patent No. 5,021,663
1997-07-08 Issue Date for U.S. Patent No. 5,646,437
2004-01-01 FLIR Systems, Inc. acquires Indigo Systems Corporation
2007-03-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 5,021,663 - "Infrared Detector"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of creating uncooled infrared detectors that have high sensitivity (detectivity) comparable to more complex pyroelectric detectors, while retaining the manufacturing advantages of monolithic fabrication on a silicon wafer alongside processing circuitry (’663 Patent, col. 2:1-18, col. 2:31-36).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a monolithic array of bolometers (resistors whose resistance changes with temperature). Each bolometer is a multi-layer stack suspended above the silicon substrate and its processing circuitry. This physical suspension provides thermal isolation, increasing sensitivity (’663 Patent, col. 2:25-28). The gap between the suspended bolometer and a reflective ground plane on the substrate is specifically set to one-quarter of the target infrared wavelength, creating an optical cavity that enhances absorption and further boosts performance (’663 Patent, col. 2:27-31; Fig. 4a).
  • Technical Importance: This architecture enabled the creation of large, high-performance, uncooled focal plane arrays using standard semiconductor manufacturing techniques, reducing the cost and complexity associated with cryogenically cooled or hybrid-assembled infrared imagers (’663 Patent, col. 2:31-36).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims, but independent claims 1, 8, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 28 are available for assertion. Claim 1 is representative.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 (as amended by re-examination) include:
    • A substrate with an array of bolometer circuit element sets.
    • An array of resistors, each having leads and being spaced from the substrate surface by about one quarter wavelength of the center of the spectral range.
    • The resistor and leads are formed from a stack including a first conductive layer, a resistive layer, and a second conductive layer.
    • Each resistor is located over and electrically connected to a corresponding circuit element.
    • The sheet resistance of the conductive layers provides at least 50% absorption in the spectral range.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims, but this is standard practice.

U.S. Patent No. 5,449,943 - "Visible and Infrared Indium Antimonide (InSb) Photodetector with Non-Flashing Light Receiving Surface"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: Conventional indium antimonide (InSb) photodetectors, while effective for infrared, suffer from a "flashing" effect when exposed to visible light. This is caused by hot electrons generated by visible light photons getting trapped in "native oxides" on the detector surface, which degrades the infrared signal. This makes the detectors unusable for applications requiring both visible and infrared sensitivity (’943 Patent, col. 1:17-29, col. 2:55-63).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention solves this by first cleaning the InSb surface to remove the problematic native oxides. Then, a new passivation layer is applied using a material (such as silicon dioxide, silicon nitride, or germanium) that does not react with the InSb to form carrier traps (’943 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:60-68). This "non-flashing" surface allows the photodetector to operate effectively across a wide spectrum, from visible to infrared, without the degradation and blooming effects that plague prior art devices (’943 Patent, col. 3:1-12).
  • Technical Importance: This invention enabled the development of single, wideband photodetector arrays capable of imaging in both visible and infrared light, simplifying the design of multi-spectral sensor systems that would otherwise require separate detectors and complex optics (’943 Patent, col. 2:5-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not identify specific claims, but independent claims 1 and 4 are available for assertion.
  • Essential elements of Independent Claim 1 include:
    • An InSb substrate with a light receiving surface substantially free of native oxides and carrier traps.
    • At least one photosensitive semiconductor junction.
    • A passivation layer on the light-receiving surface made of a material that is substantially transparent to a broadband spectrum and does not produce carrier traps by reacting with the InSb.
    • The detector responds to both visible and IR components of light, with charge carriers (holes) from the IR component moving to the junction without substantial interference from electrons generated by the visible component.
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

U.S. Patent No. 5,646,437 - "Indium Antimonide (InSb) Photodetector Device and Structure for Infrared, Visible and Ultraviolet Radiation"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent is a continuation-in-part of the application that led to the ’943 patent and addresses the same core problem of "flashing" in InSb detectors. It describes a photosensitive structure with a native oxide-free surface and a passivation layer (e.g., silicon dioxide, silicon suboxide, or silicon nitride) that is transparent to a broad spectrum, including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet regions, enabling continuous spectral response (’437 Patent, col. 2:10-21, col. 3:10-24).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are available.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' indium antimonide cooled infrared detectors (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 5,043,820 - "Focal Plane Array Readout Employing One Capacitive Feedback Transimpedance Amplifier for Each Column"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent describes a readout integrated circuit (ROIC) architecture for focal plane arrays. The invention aims to simplify the circuitry within each pixel's "unit cell" to a single transistor, which allows for smaller pixels and higher-density arrays (’820 Patent, col. 2:50-65). A dedicated capacitive feedback transimpedance amplifier is used for each column of the array to process the signals from the simplified unit cells, enabling high-performance readouts (’820 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 6, and 11 are available.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' readout integrated circuits ("ROICs") (Compl. ¶34).

Reissued U.S. Patent No. RE 34,908 - "3-Transistor Source Follower-Per-Detector Unit Cell for 2-Dimensional Focal Plane Arrays"

  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,083,016, discloses an improved ROIC unit cell for radiation detectors. It reduces the number of transistors per pixel to three, an improvement over prior four-transistor designs. A key feature is a novel reset mechanism where the reset for one row of pixels is triggered by the "read" signal for a different, subsequently-read row, which eliminates the need for a dedicated reset clock signal and simplifies the circuit layout (RE ’908 Patent, col. 4:5-11, col. 4:42-50).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint does not specify claims. Independent claims 1, 7, and 10 are available.
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges infringement by Defendants' readout integrated circuits ("ROICs") (Compl. ¶34).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint broadly identifies the accused instrumentalities as "infrared detection products," "focal plane arrays for use in uncooled infrared detectors," "focal plane arrays for use in indium antimonide ('InSb') cooled infrared detectors," and "readout integrated circuits ('ROICs')" made, used, and sold by Defendants Indigo and FLIR (Compl. ¶¶ 17, 19, 25, 28, 34, 39).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint does not describe the specific functionality of any particular accused product. It alleges that these components are used in military and commercial applications, including for major government contracts such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Litening, and Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter programs, as well as in commercial contracts in the automotive and law enforcement sectors (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 14).
  • The complaint alleges that by using Raytheon's patented technology and trade secrets, Defendants were able to enter the market quickly, produce high-quality components, and compete at a significant price advantage, ultimately winning contracts that would have otherwise gone to Raytheon (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 13).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint provides only general, conclusory allegations of infringement for each asserted patent, consistent with the minimal requirements of notice pleading. It states that Defendants "have made, used, offered for sale, and sold products, or used methods that infringe upon RAYTHEON's rights" under the patents-in-suit (Compl. ¶¶ 19, 28, 39). The complaint does not include claim charts, identify specific accused products by name or model number, or map any specific product features to the elements of the asserted patent claims. This lack of detail prevents a substantive, element-by-element analysis of the infringement allegations based on the complaint alone. The core of the infringement theory appears to be that Defendants, allegedly founded by former Raytheon employees with knowledge of Raytheon's technology, developed and sold competing infrared detector components that necessarily practice the inventions covered by Raytheon's patents (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11, 37).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term from the ’663 Patent: "spaced from said surface by about one quarter wavelength of the center of said spectral range" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This limitation defines the precise optical cavity that is central to the ’663 patent's claimed improvement in absorption and sensitivity. The infringement analysis will depend heavily on whether the accused bolometers are constructed with this specific spacing relative to the underlying substrate. Practitioners may focus on this term because the word "about" introduces ambiguity that will likely be a point of contention.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that "about" should be interpreted broadly to cover any spacing that achieves a similar function of enhanced absorption, even if not precisely one-quarter wavelength. The specification's goal is to provide "enhanced infrared absorption," suggesting a functional rather than purely structural definition (’663 Patent, col. 2:30-31).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly and specifically describes the physics of a quarter-wavelength filter (’663 Patent, col. 8:35-40, col. 8:49-54). The Summary of the Invention explicitly states the distance "is one-quarter of the wavelength" (’663 Patent, col. 2:27-31). This may support a construction that limits "about" to very minor deviations from the precise quarter-wavelength value.

  • Term from the ’943 Patent: "passivation layer ... which ... does not produce carrier traps through reacting with InSb" (Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: This negative limitation is the core of the invention, distinguishing it from prior art that suffered from "flashing." The entire infringement case for this patent will turn on whether the accused devices use a passivation layer that meets this requirement of being non-reactive in a way that produces traps.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: An argument could be made that this term covers any passivation layer that functionally avoids the "flashing" problem, regardless of its specific material composition. The claim is defined by its result—not producing carrier traps.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of suitable materials, such as "a semiconductor such as germanium, or silicon dioxide and/or silicon nitride" (’943 Patent, Abstract). A defendant might argue that the claims should be limited to these disclosed materials or those with chemically similar non-reactive properties, rather than encompassing any material that happens to achieve the desired outcome.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not contain specific allegations of indirect infringement (inducement or contributory infringement) in its patent counts. However, the background facts allege that Defendants' success in winning contracts was predicated on using the patented technology, which could form the basis for later inducement claims (Compl. ¶11).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement for all asserted patents. The basis for willfulness includes allegations of pre-suit knowledge. For the ’663, ’943, and ’437 patents, knowledge is alleged "upon information and belief" (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 29). For the ROIC patents (’820 and RE ’908), the complaint alleges more specific knowledge, stating that a co-founder of Indigo was a former Raytheon engineer who worked with the inventors of these patents and that "Raytheon has previously warned INDIGO against infringing these ROIC patents" (Compl. ¶¶ 37, 38).

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

  • A central issue for the ’663 patent will be one of structural equivalence: do the accused uncooled bolometers incorporate a micro-structure suspended at a distance of "about one quarter wavelength" from the substrate, and how broadly will the court construe the term "about" in light of the patent's specific teachings?
  • For the ’943 and ’437 patents, a key question will be one of material science and function: does the passivation layer on the accused InSb detectors have the negative property of not reacting with InSb to form carrier traps, and what evidence will be required to prove or disprove this functional, non-reactive characteristic?
  • Given the complaint’s strong emphasis on the defendants’ origins and alleged hiring of ex-employees, a pervasive question will be the interplay between the patent infringement and trade secret claims: to what extent will Raytheon's case rely on proving its patents were infringed versus proving that its proprietary, unpatented know-how was misappropriated to build a competing enterprise?