DCT

6:20-cv-00636

Demaray LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd A Korean Co

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:20-cv-00636, W.D. Tex., 07/14/2020
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants’ business activities within the Western District of Texas, including the operation of a semiconductor fabrication plant in Austin by Samsung Austin Semiconductor.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s semiconductor manufacturing processes, and the resulting semiconductor products, infringe patents related to biased pulse DC reactive sputtering technology for depositing thin films.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue, magnetron sputtering, is a form of physical vapor deposition (PVD) fundamental to modern semiconductor manufacturing for creating the microscopic, layered structures within integrated circuits.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s principal, Dr. Demaray, met with Samsung representatives in March and April 2017, at which time he identified the asserted patents and explained their relevance to barrier layer deposition in semiconductor products. The Inter Partes Review certificates attached to the patents-in-suit indicate that all asserted claims have previously been challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and were found patentable.

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
2017-03-07 Pre-suit meeting alleged between Plaintiff and Defendant
2017-04-19 Follow-up pre-suit meeting alleged
2020-07-14 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,544,276 - “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of oxide films”

  • Issued: June 9, 2009.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background describes the difficulty of depositing high-quality oxide dielectric films for optical and electronic devices. Conventional RF sputtering often requires ceramic targets that are prone to arcing, which can contaminate the deposited film, and the associated RF power systems can be complex to engineer. (’276 Patent, col. 1:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a sputtering reactor apparatus that combines a pulsed Direct Current (DC) power supply for a metallic target with a Radio Frequency (RF) power supply for the substrate (e.g., a silicon wafer). A key component is a filter positioned between the DC power supply and the target, which is designed to block interference from the RF substrate bias, thereby protecting the DC supply and enabling the dual-power system to function reliably. (’276 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:49-53).
  • Technical Importance: This configuration allows for the deposition of high-quality oxide films from more stable metallic targets, avoiding the arcing issues of ceramic targets, while simultaneously using RF bias to control film properties such as density and uniformity. (’276 Patent, col. 1:4-10).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶26).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • A reactor comprising a target area and an opposite substrate area.
    • A pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, providing alternating negative and positive voltages.
    • An RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate.
    • 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 alleges infringement of "one or more claims," potentially implicating dependent claims. (Compl. ¶25).

U.S. Patent No. 7,381,657 - “Biased pulse DC reactive sputtering of oxide films”

  • Issued: June 3, 2008.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As with the related ’276 Patent, the technology addresses the need for improved methods of depositing oxide films with highly controlled optical and physical properties, avoiding the contamination and complexity associated with prior art techniques. (’657 Patent, col. 1:25-41).
  • The Patented Solution: The patent claims a method for depositing an insulating film. The method uses a reactor configuration similar to that described in the ’276 Patent and involves specific process steps: providing a process gas, applying pulsed DC power to a target through a filter, applying an RF bias to the substrate, providing a magnetic field to the target, and performing a specific two-step "reconditioning" of the target. (’657 Patent, Abstract; col. 23:1-20).
  • Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a controllable and repeatable process for fabricating uniform, low-defect films, which is critical for high-performance semiconductor devices that rely on precise layer characteristics. (’657 Patent, col. 1:42-51).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 1. (Compl. ¶51).
  • Essential elements of claim 1 include:
    • Providing a process gas between a conductive target and an insulating substrate.
    • Providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band rejection filter.
    • Providing an RF bias to the substrate at a frequency corresponding to the filter.
    • Providing a magnetic field to the target.
    • Reconditioning the target by first performing reactive sputtering in a "metallic mode" and then in a "poison mode."
  • The complaint alleges infringement of "one or more claims." (Compl. ¶50).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The complaint accuses Samsung's use of Reactive Magnetron Sputtering (RMS) reactors, including but not limited to those in the Endura product line from Applied Materials, Inc., to manufacture semiconductor products. (Compl. ¶¶27-28). The resulting semiconductor products, specifically Samsung’s K4A8G085WC-BCRC 8 Gb DDR4 SDRAM, are identified as containing infringing layers. (Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused RMS reactors perform physical vapor deposition (PVD) to deposit thin films, such as tantalum nitride (TaN) barrier layers and titanium nitride (TiN) hardmask layers, onto silicon wafers during semiconductor fabrication. (Compl. ¶¶28, 53). The complaint alleges these reactors are configured for use with both pulsed DC power applied to a sputtering target and RF bias power applied to the substrate wafer. (Compl. ¶¶36, 39). The complaint provides an example image of an Endura CuBS RFX PVD system used for such processes. (Compl. ¶28, p. 9).

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; Samsung’s RMS reactors comprise a target area that holds the source material (e.g., tantalum) to be deposited. ¶30 col. 2:54-56
a substrate area opposite the target area for receiving a substrate; The reactors include an area opposite the target for holding the substrate (e.g., a silicon wafer) onto which the film is deposited. ¶33 col. 2:50-53
a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area, the pulsed DC power supply providing alternating negative and positive voltages... Samsung configures the reactors with a pulsed DC power supply coupled to the target area. ¶36 col. 2:49-51
an RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate; The reactors are configured with an RF power supply to apply a bias to the substrate. ¶39 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, a filter is used to protect the pulsed DC power supply from feedback from the RF bias power supply. ¶¶42-43 col. 2:50-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The complaint’s allegation for the "narrow band-rejection filter" is made on "information and belief" and describes its function as protecting the DC power supply. (Compl. ¶43). A key factual question for the court will be whether discovery confirms that the accused reactors physically contain a component that meets this limitation and is coupled "between" the DC power supply and the target area as required by the claim.
    • Evidentiary Question: The complaint supports its allegations regarding the reactor's power systems with a diagram from a technical presentation showing a generic "Ionized PVD" setup with a "DC" power input. (Compl. ¶38, p. 14). The court will have to determine what evidence connects this generalized depiction to the specific configuration and operation of the reactors used by Samsung.

’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; Samsung uses a process gas including nitrogen to deposit tantalum nitride (TaN) films from a tantalum target onto a silicon substrate. ¶¶54-55 col. 3:4-10
providing pulsed DC power to the target through a narrow band rejection filter such that the target alternates between positive and negative voltages; Samsung fabricates products using a method that provides pulsed DC power to the target through a filter. ¶¶56-57 col. 2:49-51
providing an RF bias at a frequency that corresponds to the narrow band rejection filter to the substrate; Samsung's method includes applying an RF power supply to the substrate area to bias the substrate. ¶¶60-61 col. 2:51-53
providing a magnetic field to the target; The accused RMS process involves using magnets (a magnetron) to provide a magnetic field to the target. ¶¶63-64 col. 5:19-24
and reconditioning the target; wherein reconditioning the target includes reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and then reactive sputtering in the poison mode. Samsung removes impurities from the target by sputtering first without the reactive nitrogen gas (metallic mode) and then in its presence (poison mode). ¶¶66-69 col. 9:64-col.10:3
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: The claim requires a specific, two-step "reconditioning" process. A central dispute may be whether Samsung's standard procedures for target cleaning or "burn-in" between deposition runs meet the claim's definition of first sputtering in a "metallic mode" (without reactive gas) and then in a "poison mode" (with reactive gas).
    • Technical Question: The complaint infers the use of the infringing method from an "inspection of a cross-section of the copper interconnects with metal nitride barrier layers" in the final product. (Compl. ¶54). This raises an evidentiary question of how directly the characteristics of a finished product can prove that a specific multi-step manufacturing process, particularly the reconditioning step, was performed. The complaint provides a diagram illustrating the presence of a "Magnetron" in an ionized PVD system. (Compl. ¶65, p. 23).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "narrow band-rejection filter" (’276 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This structural limitation is central to the apparatus claim. Its construction will determine whether a wide or narrow range of electronic components found in the accused reactors can satisfy the claim. The complaint’s allegation for this element is based on "information and belief," suggesting it may be a point of non-literal infringement or a heavily contested factual issue. (Compl. ¶43).

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract describes the filter functionally, stating it "filters out the effects of a bias power applied to the substrate." (’276 Patent, Abstract). Plaintiff may argue this supports a construction covering any component that performs this protective filtering function, regardless of its specific design.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discusses an embodiment using a "2 MHz band rejection filter" to correspond with a 2 MHz RF power supply. (’276 Patent, col. 5:60-63). Defendant may argue this ties the term to a specific type of filter designed to reject the fundamental frequency of the RF bias, rather than any generic protective circuit.

  • The Term: "reconditioning the target" (’657 Patent, Claim 1)

  • Context and Importance: This term defines a key step in the asserted method claim. The claim itself contains a "wherein" clause that defines what the step must include. The infringement analysis for the ’657 patent will likely turn on whether Samsung’s actual manufacturing procedures meet this specific definition.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent does not provide a standalone definition of "reconditioning." Plaintiff may argue that any routine target preparation or cleaning process that happens to involve sputtering first without and then with a reactive gas falls within the scope, even if Defendant uses a different name for the process.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendant may argue the claim language itself acts as the definition, limiting the term to only those processes that include "reactive sputtering in the metallic mode and then reactive sputtering in the poison mode." The detailed description contrasts the "metallic mode" with the "poisoned mode," linking them to the amount of reactive gas present and the resulting voltage on the target, which could be used to argue for a narrow, technical definition of what constitutes these modes. (’657 Patent, col. 12:5-20).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes allegations of induced and contributory infringement, asserting that Samsung supplies or causes to be supplied components of the infringing semiconductor manufacturing equipment. (Compl. ¶25).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on pre-suit knowledge. The complaint specifically alleges that the Plaintiff’s founder, Dr. Demaray, met with Samsung representatives on March 7, 2017, and April 19, 2017, and presented the asserted patents and their applicability to Samsung's products. (Compl. ¶71). The complaint further alleges that Samsung has frequently cited patents and applications by the named inventors in its own patent filings. (Compl. ¶72).

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

  • A core issue will be one of component identification: does discovery on Samsung’s manufacturing equipment reveal a discrete component that meets the structural and functional requirements of the "narrow band-rejection filter" as claimed in the ’276 patent, or will the dispute center on a technical debate over the doctrine of equivalents?
  • A key question of process definition will likely decide infringement of the ’657 patent: does Samsung’s standard procedure for preparing sputtering targets between depositions meet the specific, two-part "reconditioning" limitation of claim 1, or is it a technically distinct, non-infringing cleaning process?
  • Given the specific allegations of pre-suit meetings where the patents were identified, a central issue for willfulness will be one of scienter: what was Samsung’s state of mind regarding its continued use of the accused processes after being expressly notified of the patents-in-suit by the inventor?