DCT
3:10-cv-00150
Delphon Industries LLC v. Ic Chip Packaging LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Delphon Industries, LLC (Delaware / California)
- Defendant: IC Chip Packaging LLC (Texas / Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Haynes and Boone, L.L.P.
- Case Identification: 3:10-cv-00150, N.D. Tex., 01/27/2010
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Northern District of Texas on the basis that the defendant resides in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s integrated circuit prototyping and assembly services infringe a patent related to a method for creating open-cavity packages by reconstructing pre-existing plastic packages.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns methods for rapidly and inexpensively prototyping new integrated circuit (IC) designs, a critical step in the semiconductor product development cycle.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events relevant to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1993-02-01 | '926 Patent Priority Date |
| 1994-06-07 | '926 Patent Issue Date |
| 2010-01-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 5,318,926 - Method For Packaging An Integrated Circuit Using A Reconstructed Plastic Package, issued June 7, 1994.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the cost and time delays associated with prototyping new integrated circuit (IC) designs, which historically required either using expensive and time-consuming offshore packaging services or using substitute ceramic packages that may not accurately simulate the final product's performance (’926 Patent, col. 1:41-62; col. 2:1-11).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a method to rapidly create a testable prototype by starting with a standard, pre-fabricated plastic package. The method involves removing the encapsulating material to form a cavity, thereby exposing the internal die attach pad and wire bond pads of the lead frame. A new IC chip can then be mounted, wire-bonded, and re-encapsulated, resulting in a low-cost prototype that is mechanically identical to a mass-produced part (’926 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:21-38). The process is depicted in a flowchart in Figure 7 of the patent.
- Technical Importance: This method provided a way to shorten development cycles and reduce costs by enabling quick-turnaround, in-house prototyping of ICs in packages that accurately reflect final production units (’926 Patent, col. 2:12-18).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted but makes a general allegation against the patent as a whole (Compl. ¶10). Independent method claim 1 is representative of the core invention.
- Independent Claim 1 requires the following steps:
- (a) obtaining a pre-fabricated package, the package having a lead frame encapsulated in a first polymeric insulating material, the lead frame having a die attach pad and a plurality of fingers, each finger having a wire bond pad thereon;
- (b) exposing the die attach pad and the wire bond pads by removing the encapsulating material thereover;
- (c) mounting a chip onto the exposed die attach pad, the chip having a plurality of contact pads thereon;
- (d) connecting a plurality of wire bonds between the plurality of contact pads on the chip and a respective one of the plurality of wire bond pads; and
- (e) encapsulating the chip and the plurality of wire bond pads in a second polymeric insulating material.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The accused instrumentalities are Defendant's "Open Cavity Packaging Assembly services" (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that Defendant "provides and sells integrated chip assembly and prototyping services to the semiconductor, opto-electronics, and microelectromechanical systems industries" (Compl. ¶6). The complaint does not provide specific technical details about the operational steps of Defendant’s services, instead relying on the general description of the services and their alleged embodiment of the patented invention (Compl. ¶10).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint makes a general allegation of infringement without providing a detailed, element-by-element mapping. The following chart summarizes the infringement theory as can be inferred from the complaint's allegations against the accused "Open Cavity Packaging Assembly services."
’926 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a) obtaining a pre-fabricated package... encapsulated in a first polymeric insulating material... | The complaint does not contain a specific allegation for this step, but it is a necessary predicate for the accused "Open Cavity Packaging Assembly services." | ¶10 | col. 2:29-34 |
| b) exposing the die attach pad and the wire bond pads by removing the encapsulating material thereover; | The name of the accused "Open Cavity" services suggests that they perform a step of creating a cavity by removing material to expose internal components. | ¶10 | col. 6:32-46 |
| c) mounting a chip onto the exposed die attach pad... | The accused "Assembly services" are alleged to involve the installation of an integrated circuit. | ¶10 | col. 7:24-29 |
| d) connecting a plurality of wire bonds... | The accused "Assembly services" are alleged to include the interconnection of the installed integrated circuit. | ¶10 | col. 7:30-35 |
| e) encapsulating the chip and the plurality of wire bond pads in a second polymeric insulating material. | The accused "Packaging Assembly services" are alleged to complete the packaging process by applying an encapsulant. | ¶10 | col. 7:36-44 |
No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Evidentiary Questions: The complaint lacks specific factual allegations detailing how the accused services operate. A central issue for the court will be what evidence Plaintiff can produce to show that Defendant’s services, as actually performed, meet each and every limitation of the asserted claims.
- Technical Questions: A key technical question will concern the "exposing" step of claim 1(b). The patent emphasizes that the material removal should be done "without damaging the plating material on the lead frame," describing this as a "very critical parameter" (’926 Patent, col. 2:40-45). The court may need to determine if Defendant's material removal technique meets this limitation, both literally and under the doctrine of equivalents.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of specific claim term disputes. However, based on the technology, the following terms may become central to the case.
The Term: "pre-fabricated package"
- Context and Importance: This term defines the starting material of the claimed method. Its construction is critical because it determines what types of components fall within the scope of the claims. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if it is limited to unused "dummy" packages or if it can also read on packages containing existing, functional chips that are subsequently replaced.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification states the method applies to "any pre-fabricated plastic package (with or without an existing silicon chip and wires inside)" (’926 Patent, col. 2:24-26).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The background discusses the use of "dummy" packages, which are "produced and sold routinely and quite inexpensively... primarily for the purpose of adjusting... automatic handling equipment" (’926 Patent, col. 3:55-61), which could suggest a more limited scope.
The Term: "exposing the die attach pad and the wire bond pads by removing the encapsulating material"
- Context and Importance: This limitation is the core of the "reconstruction" process. The dispute will likely center on the characteristics of the removal process and the condition of the pads after exposure.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself does not specify a particular method of removal or a required level of preservation for the underlying pads.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly highlights the importance of preserving the lead frame plating, stating it would be "extremely difficult (if not impossible) to connect the new wire bonds" without this step (’926 Patent, col. 2:42-45). A defendant could argue this language implicitly limits the scope of "exposing" to only those methods that achieve this result.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The prayer for relief seeks to enjoin "indirectly infringing, or inducing or contributing to the infringement," but the body of the complaint does not contain factual allegations to support claims for either induced or contributory infringement, such as knowledge or specific intent (Compl. Prayer ¶A).
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant’s infringement is "willful, knowing, and deliberate" (Compl. ¶12). This allegation is not supported by any specific facts, such as alleged pre-suit notice of the patent or other conduct.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A primary issue will be one of evidentiary proof: Given the complaint’s lack of specific factual allegations, can Plaintiff produce sufficient evidence to establish that Defendant’s "Open Cavity Packaging Assembly services" perform each step of the asserted method claim as required by the patent?
- The case will also likely involve a question of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "exposing... by removing," and will the evidence show that Defendant's technical process for creating open cavities—particularly regarding the preservation of lead frame plating as described in the patent's specification—falls within that construction?