DCT

6:22-cv-00151

Arigna Technology Ltd v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:22-cv-00151, W.D. Tex., 02/10/2022
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because each Defendant either is a foreign corporation subject to personal jurisdiction or maintains a regular and established place of business in the district, has committed acts of infringement in the district, and conducts substantial business through sales, employees, and physical offices within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ smartphones, laptops, and other mobile devices, which incorporate specific semiconductor components, infringe a patent related to an integrated short-circuit protection function for power transistors.
  • Technical Context: The technology concerns semiconductor-level power management, specifically methods for protecting power transistors from damaging short-circuit events without requiring bulky external components, a critical consideration for compact consumer electronics.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants Samsung, Apple, and Google had actual knowledge of the patent-in-suit as of January 6, 2022, due to a document production in a separate, unidentified lawsuit. For all other defendants, knowledge is alleged to have begun no later than the filing date of this complaint, forming the basis for allegations of willful infringement.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2004-01-06 ’835 Patent Priority Date
2007-02-27 ’835 Patent Issue Date
2017-10-19 Google Pixel 2 XL Teardown Date Cited in Complaint
2018-03-16 Samsung Galaxy S9+ Teardown Date Cited in Complaint
2022-01-06 Alleged Pre-Suit Knowledge Date for Samsung, Apple, and Google
2022-02-10 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,183,835 - "Semiconductor Device Which Realizes a Short-Circuit Protection Function Without Shunt Resistor, and Semiconductor Device Module," issued February 27, 2007

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes that conventional power modules, such as those used to drive motors, required a separate, external "shunt resistor" to monitor the main electrical current and detect a short-circuit. This external component and its associated wiring made the overall device larger, more complex, and susceptible to electrical noise and voltage surges (’835 Patent, Background of the Invention, col. 1:20-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a short-circuit protection circuit that is integrated directly within the semiconductor control device. Instead of monitoring the main power current, the circuit monitors the voltage of the control output signal being sent to the gate of the power transistor (e.g., an Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor, or IGBT). The circuit is designed to recognize the signature of a short-circuit event—specifically, the absence of a normal, brief "clamp" period in the gate voltage waveform—and immediately force the driver to shut down the transistor, thereby protecting it without needing an external shunt resistor (’835 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:19-27; Fig. 5).
  • Technical Importance: By integrating the protection function and eliminating the external shunt resistor, the invention enabled the creation of smaller, less complex, and more reliable power control modules (’835 Patent, col. 7:32-44).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts infringement of independent claim 1.
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 are:
    • A semiconductor device for controlling an insulated gate transistor.
    • A driver that outputs a control signal to the transistor.
    • A short-circuit protection circuit that detects the control signal and forces the driver to stop if the signal's voltage exceeds a reference voltage "before a predetermined period passes" after the transistor turns on.
    • The protection circuit includes a "pulse generation circuit" that creates a first pulse signal defining the "predetermined period."
    • It also includes a "comparator" that creates a second pulse signal when the control signal voltage exceeds the reference voltage.
    • Finally, it includes a "logical circuit" that uses both the first and second pulse signals to generate a "stop signal" for the driver.
  • The complaint focuses exclusively on independent claim 1 but notes the infringement allegations are illustrative, suggesting the right to assert other claims may be reserved (Compl. ¶65, n.24).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint accuses a wide range of smartphones, tablets, and laptops sold by the Defendants, including various models of the Samsung Galaxy, Apple iPhone and iPad, Google Pixel, Lenovo ThinkPad, Microsoft Surface, OnePlus phones, and TCL phones (Compl. ¶60). The direct infringement allegations center on semiconductor components within these devices, specifically the "Qualcomm QET4100," "Qualcomm QET5100," and "Qorvo QM81009" envelope tracking modules (Compl. ¶¶63, 82, 91).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint alleges these Qualcomm and Qorvo chips are "envelope tracking modules" that control the power supplied to a power amplifier in the accused devices (Compl. ¶¶65, 91). The complaint uses third-party teardown reports to evidence the presence of these specific chips on the main logic boards of popular devices. For example, Figure 1 shows a teardown of a Samsung Galaxy S9+ motherboard with the "Qualcomm QET4100 envelope tracker" identified (Compl. p. 18). Similarly, Figure 3 presents a teardown of an Apple iPhone 13 Pro Max, highlighting the "Qualcomm QET5100 Envelope Tracker" (Compl. p. 25). The complaint alleges that the power management and short-circuit protection functions of these modules are essential for the operation of the devices, particularly for power-intensive features like 5G connectivity (Compl. ¶78).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’835 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
[a] semiconductor device controlling a drive of an insulated gate transistor by generating a control output signal on a basis of a control input signal The accused Qualcomm QET4100 and QET5100 are semiconductor devices that control an insulated gate transistor located in a power amplifier or other external component. ¶65 col. 2:52-54
comprising: a driver outputting said control output signal The accused QET4100/QET5100 modules contain a driver that outputs the control output signal. ¶66 col. 3:26-31
and a short-circuit protection circuit detecting said control output signal and controlling and forcing said driver to stop said control output signal when a detecting voltage of said control output signal exceeds a predetermined reference voltage before a predetermined period passes... The accused modules contain a short-circuit protection circuit that detects the control output signal, compares it to a reference voltage, and forces the driver to stop if an over-voltage condition is met within a specific time period. ¶¶66-67 col. 3:49-51
wherein said short-circuit protection circuit includes: [1] pulse generation circuit receiving said control input signal and outputting a first pulse signal being significant only in said predetermined period... The short-circuit protection circuit in the accused modules includes a pulse generation circuit that receives a control input and generates a first pulse signal for a predetermined period. ¶68 col. 3:55-60
[2] a comparator receiving the detecting voltage of said control output signal, performing a comparison with said reference voltage and outputting a second pulse signal... The short-circuit protection circuit in the accused modules includes a comparator that receives the control output signal's voltage, compares it with a reference voltage, and outputs a second pulse signal upon an over-voltage condition. ¶69 col. 3:35-39
and [3] a logical circuit receiving said first and second pulse signals and outputting a stop signal forcing said driver to stop said control output signal... The short-circuit protection circuit in the accused modules includes a logical circuit that receives the first and second pulse signals and outputs a stop signal, such as an "over-current flag, or OCF," to force the driver to stop. ¶70 col. 6:42-51
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The patent specification is framed entirely around protecting Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistors (IGBTs) within an Intelligent Power Module (IPM) for a three-phase motor application (’835 Patent, Fig. 1). The accused products are "envelope tracking modules" for radio frequency (RF) power amplifiers in smartphones. A central dispute may arise over whether the term "insulated gate transistor" as used in the patent can be construed to cover the different types of transistors typically used in RF applications and whether the claimed "semiconductor device" reads on a modern envelope tracking module.
    • Technical Questions: The patent claims a specific logical operation for detecting a short-circuit: an over-voltage condition (the second pulse) occurring within a "predetermined period" (the first pulse) that corresponds to a normal voltage "clamp" time (’835 Patent, col. 6:32-51). The complaint alleges the accused modules contain the requisite components (pulse generator, comparator, etc.) and generate an "over-current flag" (Compl. ¶70). A key question for the court will be whether the accused modules' protection mechanism actually performs the specific timing-based logical AND operation required by the claim, or if it uses a different technical method for detecting over-current or short-circuit conditions.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "insulated gate transistor"

  • Context and Importance: This term's breadth is critical. The patent's examples focus on IGBTs used in motor drives. The accused products, however, are RF envelope trackers which may drive other types of transistors (e.g., LDMOS). The viability of the infringement claim depends on this term being construed broadly enough to cover the transistors in the accused systems.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is generic. The specification introduces the technology with the phrase "such as an IGBT," which is typically construed as exemplary, not limiting language (’835 Patent, col. 1:16-18).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The entirety of the patent's detailed description, including all figures and embodiments, describes the invention solely in the context of IGBTs used in a power inverter module (’835 Patent, Fig. 1; col. 2:50-52). A defendant may argue this consistent focus limits the term to the disclosed embodiments.

  • The Term: "a predetermined period"

  • Context and Importance: This period is the temporal window during which the protection circuit is active; it is the core of the invention's timing logic. The infringement theory requires showing the accused devices employ an analogous, functionally defined time window.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim defines the period functionally as a time that "passes after said control output signal indicates a conduction of said insulated gate transistor."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides a more specific definition, linking the period to an observable electrical phenomenon: it is "set to be almost equal to a period when the control output signal... is clamped to a certain voltage" during normal operation (’835 Patent, col. 6:38-41; Fig. 5, t1). A defendant may argue that for infringement, the accused device must have a period defined by this specific "clamping" behavior.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement. It asserts that Defendants' marketing materials, product manuals, and website instructions encourage end-users to use the accused products in an infringing manner (e.g., by connecting to 5G networks), with the knowledge and intent that such use will cause infringement (Compl. ¶¶77-79, 102-105). Figure 2, for example, shows Samsung marketing material touting the "Energy efficient processors" for all-day use (Compl. p. 23).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. The complaint alleges Samsung, Apple, and Google received actual notice of the ’835 Patent in a separate lawsuit on January 6, 2022, but continued their infringing conduct (Compl. ¶¶74, 99, 119). For all other defendants, willfulness is alleged based on knowledge gained no later than the filing of the complaint itself (e.g., Compl. ¶138).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "insulated gate transistor", rooted in the patent's disclosure of motor-drive IGBTs, be construed to cover the different types of transistors driven by "envelope tracking modules" in the accused RF systems of modern smartphones?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of technical mechanism: does the accused modules' protection circuitry operate using the specific timing-based logic recited in Claim 1—which compares an over-voltage condition against a "predetermined period" tied to a normal voltage clamp—or is there a fundamental mismatch in the technical method of short-circuit detection?
  • A third question will relate to damages and willfulness: assuming infringement is found, the pre-suit notice alleged against major defendants like Apple and Samsung raises the prospect of enhanced damages, making the specific facts surrounding that notice a potentially critical aspect of the case.