DCT

4:23-cv-00609

Bell Semiconductor LLC v. Texas Instruments Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 4:23-cv-00609, E.D. Tex., 06/28/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendant’s regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas, including a 150 mm semiconductor fabrication facility in Sherman, Texas, and the commission of infringing acts within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor devices infringe patents related to semiconductor package design and manufacturing methods aimed at improving thermal reliability, power distribution, and signal integrity.
  • Technical Context: The technologies at issue concern fundamental aspects of semiconductor packaging, addressing challenges that arise as integrated circuits become smaller, more powerful, and more complex.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint notes Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to a large patent portfolio developed by Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies, Agere Systems, and LSI Corporation. A review of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office records for the provided patent documents indicates that on February 18, 2024, after the filing of the complaint, the assignee filed a disclaimer for claims 7 and 9-12 of the ’245 patent, which may narrow the scope of that patent in this litigation.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-10-08 ’245 Patent Priority Date
2006-04-06 ’091 Patent Priority Date
2008-03-18 ’245 Patent Issued
2008-05-15 ’375 Patent Priority Date
2010-01-12 ’091 Patent Issued
2013-01-08 ’375 Patent Issued
2023-06-28 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,345,245 - "Robust High Density Substrate Design for Thermal Cycling Reliability," issued March 18, 2008

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes how advances in silicon technology, particularly the use of thin core substrates for high-density signal routing in Ball Grid Array (BGA) packages, lead to increased susceptibility to warpage during thermal cycling. This creates high-stress concentrations under the corners of the semiconductor die, which can cause cracks to initiate at the edges of ball pads and propagate into the signal traces on adjacent layers, leading to reliability hazards and functional failures (Compl. ¶22; ’245 Patent, col. 1:8-23).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a design rule to improve thermal cycling reliability by routing signal traces away from these high-stress areas. Specifically, the patent teaches creating a keep-out zone by ensuring that no signal traces on the bottom routing layer are placed directly over ball pads located within a defined area near the corner of the die, thereby preventing cracks that originate at the pads from damaging the critical signal paths (’245 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:39-54).
  • Technical Importance: This approach offers a method to mitigate a common failure mode in high-density packages, enhancing product reliability without requiring more complex manufacturing steps or a complete redesign of the package substrate (Compl. ¶25; ’245 Patent, col. 4:56-59).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶24).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A semi-conductor package comprising:
    • a top layer with a die mounted on it, the die having a corner;
    • a plurality of layers below the top layer, which include a bottom routing layer with signal traces and a ball pad layer below that;
    • the ball pad layer has a plurality of ball pads;
    • wherein none of the signal traces on the bottom routing layer are located over ball pads that are within "an area within two ball pad pitches of the corner of the die."

U.S. Patent No. 8,530,375 - "Flipchip Bump Patterns for Efficient I-Mesh Power Distribution Schemes," issued January 8, 2013

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The complaint suggests the technology addresses challenges in achieving efficient power distribution and signal routing in flip-chip semiconductor designs, particularly with respect to power mesh performance and manufacturability (Compl. ¶34).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent, as described in the complaint, discloses a flip-chip scheme where power and ground bumps are organized in a "striped configuration" of alternating lines. Each line of bumps is interconnected by a respective "mesh core bus" that is wider than the bumps themselves. This structure allegedly improves power delivery and allows for signal routing between the lines of power and ground bumps (Compl. ¶32-33).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration is alleged to improve power mesh performance and manufacturability, potentially reducing or eliminating the need for metal on a second top-most metal layer (Compl. ¶34).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶33).
  • The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
    • A portion of a flipchip scheme comprising:
    • a metal layer with power and ground bumps in a "striped configuration";
    • the configuration includes a plurality of lines of power bumps and a plurality of lines of ground bumps;
    • each line of power bumps is interconnected by a "mesh core power bus" on the metal layer, shorted across the line;
    • each line of ground bumps is interconnected by a "mesh core ground bus" on the metal layer, shorted across the line;
    • each mesh core power bus is wider than the power bumps connected to it.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,646,091 - "Semiconductor Package and Method Using Isolated Vss Plane to Accommodate High Speed Circuitry Ground Isolation," issued January 12, 2010

  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses electrical noise and "ground bounce" that occurs in integrated circuits having both high-speed and low-speed circuitry that share a common ground plane (Compl. ¶39). The invention teaches using separate, electrically isolated ground planes for the high-speed and low-speed circuitry within the same package to reduce cross-talk and improve system performance (Compl. ¶40, 42).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶41).
  • Accused Features: The complaint alleges that the TI 66AK2E05XABD device infringes one or more claims of the ’091 patent (Compl. ¶58).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The complaint identifies the exemplary accused products as the TI 66AK2E05XABD and TI 66AK2H05 semiconductor devices (Compl. ¶1).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The complaint alleges these products are manufactured using the patented inventions in their "production, packaging, and/or features" (Compl. ¶1). It further alleges that Defendant manufactures semiconductors for automotive, commercial, military, and space applications at its fabrication facility in the district (Compl. ¶13). The complaint does not provide further technical detail regarding the specific operation or internal architecture of the accused devices. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits D, E, and F) that were not provided with the filed document (Compl. ¶45, 52, 59). The following analysis is therefore based on the narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint.

  • ’245 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the TI 66AK2E05XABD infringes the ’245 patent by embodying a semiconductor package that avoids placing signal traces over ball pads located in the high-stress area under the die corner, thereby improving thermal cycling reliability as claimed (Compl. ¶23, 44).
  • ’375 Patent Infringement Allegations: The complaint alleges that the TI 66AK2H05 infringes the ’375 patent by utilizing a flip-chip power distribution scheme consistent with claim 1, including power and ground bumps arranged in a striped configuration interconnected by wide mesh core buses (Compl. ¶32, 51).
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A central question for the ’245 patent will be the proper construction of the phrase "an area within two ball pad pitches of the corner of the die." The case may turn on how this geometric area is defined and measured. For the ’375 patent, a key question may be the definition of "mesh core power bus" and whether the accused product's interconnects meet that definition.
    • Technical Questions: A factual dispute for the ’245 patent will be whether the accused product’s physical layout, once examined, actually has "none of the signal traces" located over the proscribed ball pads. For the ’375 patent, a key evidentiary question will be whether the accused product’s power grid is, in fact, arranged in a "striped configuration" and whether its buses are "wider" than the bumps to which they connect, as required by the claim.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • Term (’245 Patent): "an area within two ball pad pitches of the corner of the die"

    • Context and Importance: This phrase defines the physical boundaries of the claimed "keep-out" zone. The precise size and shape of this area are critical to determining whether the accused product's layout infringes.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the problem in terms of a "high stress area" and "regions of stress concentration," which could suggest a more functional or flexible interpretation not strictly limited by a precise geometric measurement (’245 Patent, col. 1:18-20; col. 2:34-38).
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language itself provides the specific "two ball pad pitches" metric. This is reinforced by the abstract, which states, "Preferably the high stress area is defined as two ball pitches away from the corner of the die," and the detailed description, which also refers to this distance, suggesting it is a specific and intended limitation (’245 Patent, Abstract; col. 4:25-29).

  • Term (’375 Patent): "mesh core power bus"

    • Context and Importance: This term is a central structural element of the claimed power distribution scheme. Its construction will determine what types of interconnect structures fall within the scope of the claim.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation: The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of this term from intrinsic evidence, as the full patent specification was not available for review.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support claims of induced or contributory infringement, such as allegations that Defendant instructs its customers to use the products in an infringing manner. The infringement counts cite 35 U.S.C. § 271, et seq., which leaves open the possibility of pursuing such claims later (Compl. ¶47, 54, 61).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful," but for each asserted patent, it alleges that Defendant's infringement is "exceptional" and requests attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285 (Compl. ¶48, 55, 62). Such allegations are typically predicated on claims of egregious or willful conduct. The complaint does not specify whether this conduct is based on pre- or post-suit knowledge.

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

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: For the ’245 patent, can the phrase "an area within two ball pad pitches of the corner of the die" be defined with sufficient precision, and does the accused product's physical layout fall within that definition?

  2. A second central issue will be one of factual correspondence: Does the internal architecture of the accused TI devices, upon technical inspection, actually embody the specific "striped configuration" and "mesh core bus" structures required by the claims of the ’375 patent, or does it utilize a different, non-infringing design for power distribution?

  3. Finally, a key evidentiary question will be whether the plaintiff, having filed the complaint on "information and belief" without including technical evidence, can develop sufficient proof through discovery to demonstrate that the accused products meet every limitation of the asserted claims.