DCT
6:20-cv-00634
Demaray LLC v. Intel Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Demaray LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Intel Corporation (Delaware)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Irell & Manella LLP; McGinnis Lochridge LLP
- Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00634, W.D. Tex., 07/14/2020
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Intel maintains a regular and established place of business in the district and has allegedly committed acts of infringement there.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor manufacturing processes utilize reactive magnetron sputtering equipment that infringes patents related to methods and apparatus for depositing thin films.
- Technical Context: The technology at issue is physical vapor deposition (PVD), a fundamental process in semiconductor manufacturing used to deposit extremely thin layers of material onto silicon wafers.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any significant procedural events such as prior litigation between the parties or administrative challenges to the patents-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2002-03-16 | Priority Date for ’276 and ’657 Patents |
| 2008-06-03 | ’657 Patent Issued |
| 2009-06-09 | ’276 Patent Issued |
| 2014-09-05 | Approximate Launch of Intel Broadwell Processors |
| 2020-07-14 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 - Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of oxide films
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276, “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of oxide films,” issued June 9, 2009 (Compl. ¶17).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in depositing high-quality insulating oxide films. Conventional radio frequency (RF) sputtering often requires ceramic targets, which can be prone to arcing that contaminates the deposited film. Additionally, engineering the low-capacitance RF power distribution systems for these reactors can be complex ( ’276 Patent, col. 2:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a sputtering reactor that uses a more robust metallic target instead of a ceramic one. It pairs a pulsed direct current (DC) power supply for the target with a separate RF power supply that applies a bias to the substrate (the silicon wafer). A key component is a filter placed between the DC power supply and the target, which is designed to protect the DC supply from interference from the RF bias power, enabling the dual-power system to function effectively ('276 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-53).
- Technical Importance: This reactor configuration was designed to allow for the deposition of high-quality, uniform oxide films using reliable metallic targets, addressing contamination and power delivery issues associated with prior art systems (Compl. ¶11; ’276 Patent, col. 1:13-24).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶23).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- A target area for receiving a target;
- A substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a substrate;
- A pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target;
- An RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; and
- A narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power supply, coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target area.
- The complaint states that Intel infringes "one or more claims" of the patent, reserving the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶22).
U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 - Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of oxide films
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657, “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of oxide films,” issued June 3, 2008 (Compl. ¶42).
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: Similar to its divisional counterpart, the ’276 Patent, this patent addresses the difficulties in forming high-quality oxide and oxynitride films for semiconductor and optical devices, particularly the arcing and contamination associated with ceramic targets used in conventional RF sputtering (’657 Patent, col. 2:26-44).
- The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for depositing a film using a reactor configuration like the one claimed in the ’276 Patent. The method involves providing a process gas (e.g., argon and a reactive gas like nitrogen or oxygen), applying pulsed DC power to a conductive target through a filter, applying an RF bias to the substrate, and providing a magnetic field to the target. A specific step for "reconditioning the target" between depositions is also claimed (’657 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:45-53).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a process for reliably manufacturing uniform, low-defect thin films, which are critical components of advanced electronic devices like microprocessors (Compl. ¶3, ¶11).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least Claim 1 (Compl. ¶48).
- The essential elements of independent claim 1 are:
- Providing a process gas between a conductive target and the substrate;
- Providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band rejection filter such that the target alternates between positive and negative voltages;
- Providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate;
- Providing a magnetic field to the target; and
- Reconditioning the target, wherein this reconditioning includes reactive sputtering in the "metallic mode" and then reactive sputtering in the "poison mode."
- The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims," reserving the right to assert others (Compl. ¶47).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused instrumentalities are semiconductor manufacturing equipment, specifically "reactive magnetron sputtering reactors" ("Intel RMS reactors"), and the methods of using them in Intel's fabrication plants (Compl. ¶24, ¶49). The complaint identifies reactors in the Endura product line from Applied Materials, Inc. as an example of equipment configured and used by Intel (Compl. ¶25). An overview image shows an example of an Endura CuBS RFX PVD system (Compl. p. 8).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused reactors are alleged to be used by Intel to deposit thin films, such as Tantalum Nitride (TaN) barrier layers and Titanium Nitride (TiN) hardmask layers, onto silicon wafers (Compl. ¶25, ¶50). These layers are critical components of copper interconnects in Intel's processors, including its 14nm Broadwell Processors (Compl. ¶26, ¶52). A micrograph provided in the complaint highlights a barrier layer within the complex structure of an Intel processor (Compl. p. 9). The complaint alleges that Intel configures these reactors with specific process kits for depositing these materials (Compl. ¶25).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
’276 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| a target area for receiving a target; | The Intel RMS reactors comprise a target area that receives a metal target, such as tantalum, which is the source material for deposition. | ¶27-29 | col. 5:28-30 |
| a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a substrate; | The reactors comprise a substrate area, which holds a silicon wafer, positioned opposite the target area when the chamber lid is closed. | ¶30-32 | col. 2:50-51 |
| a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, the pulsed DC power supply providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target; | The Intel RMS reactors allegedly comprise a pulsed DC power supply that is coupled to the target area and delivers alternating voltages. | ¶33-35 | col. 2:45-50 |
| an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; | The reactors are alleged to include an RF bias power supply coupled via a Pedestal Integration Box to the substrate to apply a bias. | ¶36-38 | col. 2:51-53 |
| and a narrow band-rejection filter that rejects at a frequency of the RF bias power supply coupled between the pulsed DC power supply and the target area. | On information and belief, the reactors are configured with a narrowband filter between the DC power supply and the target area to protect the DC supply from feedback from the RF bias power supply. | ¶39-40 | col. 2:48-50 |
’657 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| providing a process gas between a conductive target and the substrate; | Intel's process allegedly uses a process gas containing nitrogen in the chamber between a tantalum target and a silicon substrate to deposit a TaN film. | ¶51-53 | col. 3:5-9 |
| providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band rejection filter such that the target alternates between positive and negative voltages; | Intel's method allegedly uses a pulsed DC power unit coupled to the target through a narrowband filter, which provides alternating voltages. | ¶54-57 | col. 3:1-4 |
| providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate; | Intel's process allegedly uses an RF power supply to apply an RF bias to the substrate. The complaint provides a photograph of an RF power connection to the substrate area via a Pedestal Integration Box (Compl. p. 14). | ¶58-60 | col. 3:1-4 |
| providing a magnetic field to the target; | The accused method allegedly involves the use of magnets (a magnetron) to provide a magnetic field to the target during the RMS process. A diagram from an Applied Materials presentation illustrates a magnetron above the target in an ionized PVD system (Compl. p. 12). | ¶61-63 | col. 5:18-24 |
| and reconditioning the target; wherein reconditioning the target includes reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and then reactive sputtering in the poison mode. | On information and belief, Intel's process removes impurities from the target surface by first sputtering without the nitrogen process gas ("metallic mode") and then sputtering in the presence of nitrogen ("poison mode"). | ¶64-67 | col. 10:45-48 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Scope Questions: A potential issue may arise concerning the term "narrow band-rejection filter." The infringement analysis may hinge on whether the accused reactors contain a component that meets the specific structural and functional requirements of this claimed element, versus a more general form of circuit protection that might be integrated into the power supply itself.
- Technical Questions: For the ’657 patent, a central question will be evidentiary and definitional: what proof demonstrates that Intel's alleged target cleaning procedure follows the specific two-step sequence of "reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and then reactive sputtering in the poison mode" as required by the claim? The case may turn on whether Intel's actual process maps onto the patent’s technical definitions of these distinct operating modes.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "narrow band-rejection filter" (’276 Patent, Claim 1; ’657 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: This term defines a specific electrical component that is critical to the claimed invention's architecture. Its construction will be central to determining infringement, as the dispute may focus on what type of component satisfies this limitation.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the filter's purpose as protecting the DC power supply from the RF bias power ('276 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:48-50). A party could argue that any component performing this filtering and protection function meets the claim limitation, regardless of its specific implementation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: An exemplary embodiment describes a "2 MHz band rejection filter" with a specific bandwidth of "approximately 100 kHz" ('276 Patent, col. 5:58-63). A party could argue this language limits the claim scope to filters with similar, specific frequency and bandwidth characteristics.
The Term: "reconditioning the target" (’657 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: Infringement of this method step is governed by the specific definition provided within the claim itself. The dispute will likely focus on whether Intel's alleged process meets the precise, two-part sequence defined in the "wherein" clause.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term "reconditioning" is not explicitly defined elsewhere in the specification, which might suggest its plain and ordinary meaning of preparing the target for a subsequent deposition could be argued.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim itself provides its own definition: "wherein reconditioning the target includes reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and then reactive sputtering in the poison mode." This clause strongly suggests that "reconditioning" must include this specific two-step sequence. The specification further describes the "metallic mode" and "poison mode" by referencing the target's voltage response to reactive gas flow, providing technical benchmarks for these modes ('657 Patent, FIG. 5; col. 11:3-12:9).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement of the ’276 Patent (Compl. ¶22). However, the factual allegations primarily describe Intel’s own direct use of the accused reactors in its facilities (Compl. ¶24).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on knowledge of the asserted patents "at least as of the filing of this Complaint" (Compl. ¶68). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willfulness only, as no facts supporting pre-suit knowledge are alleged.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
The resolution of this dispute may turn on the following central questions:
- A primary issue will be one of component identity and evidence: What is the specific electrical architecture of the accused reactors, and does it contain a component that meets the definition of a "narrow band-rejection filter" coupled in the manner required by the claims? The complaint alleges this on "information and belief," suggesting this will be a focus of discovery.
- A second core issue will be one of process definition: Does Intel's actual manufacturing process for cleaning sputtering targets precisely map onto the claimed "reconditioning" step, which requires a specific sequence of "metallic mode" followed by "poison mode" sputtering? The case will likely involve detailed analysis of Intel's process parameters against the technical descriptions of these modes in the patent.