DCT

6:23-cv-00008

Advanced Plasmonics Inc v. Uhnder Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 6:23-cv-00008, W.D. Tex., 01/06/2023
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Western District of Texas because Defendant Uhnder, Inc. has a physical principal place of business in the District and has allegedly committed acts of infringement within the District.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Radar-on-Chip products infringe a patent related to using an ultra-small structure to couple electromagnetic signals through a waveguide layer within a microcircuit.
  • Technical Context: The technology addresses signal transmission delays in high-speed integrated circuits, a fundamental bottleneck in semiconductor performance.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any significant procedural history, such as prior litigation involving the patent-in-suit, Inter Partes Review proceedings, or a prior licensing relationship between the parties.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2006-05-05 ’589 Patent Priority Date (Filing)
2008-04-15 ’589 Patent Issue Date
2023-01-06 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,359,589, “Coupling electromagnetic wave through microcircuit” (April 15, 2008)

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the problem of signal propagation delay in high-speed microcircuits. In conventional designs using metal conductors, as clock speeds increase, signals can become "smeared or dispersed in time" because different frequency components travel at different speeds. This "loss in synchronization" limits the overall performance of the microcircuit. (’589 Patent, col. 2:25-44).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a structure where an "ultra-small resonant structure" (URS) emits an electromagnetic (EM) signal, such as a clock signal, into a non-conductive "waveguide layer" (e.g., silica) on a substrate. Multiple circuits formed on this layer can then operatively connect to it to receive the EM signal, bypassing the speed limitations of traditional metal conductors. (’589 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-21; Fig. 1).
  • Technical Importance: This approach seeks to overcome a fundamental physical bottleneck in semiconductor design, where the performance of metal interconnects fails to keep pace with the increasing speed of transistors. (’589 Patent, col. 2:6-8, 2:41-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claim 11. (Compl. ¶18, ¶21). Claims 1 and 18 are also identified as independent. (Compl. ¶17).
  • Independent Claim 11 is a method claim with the following essential elements:
    • providing a plurality of circuits operatively connected to a waveguide layer; and
    • emitting, by an ultra-small resonant structure, an electromagnetic signal into said waveguide layer, whereby said signal may be obtained by each of said plurality of circuits.
  • The complaint’s prayer for relief and general allegations concerning "one or more claims" suggest a reservation of the right to assert other claims, including dependent claims. (Compl. ¶28, ¶32).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "digital radar devices including, but not limited to, the S80 77 GHz 4D Digital Imaging Radar-on-Chip, and any and all prior or current versions thereof" (collectively, "Accused Products"). (Compl. ¶21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The Accused Products are described as a Radar-on-Chip (RoC) system. The complaint provides a block diagram of the accused S80 Radar-on-Chip, illustrating its various functional components, such as the CPU, DSP, and analog/digital front ends. (Compl. ¶22). This diagram is presented as an "exemplary depiction of the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶22).
  • The complaint alleges that Defendant touts the use of "ultra-small structures," specifically that its products are "implemented in a CMOS 28nm HPC technology," as a feature of its products. (Compl. ¶12).
  • The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Defendant has "sought to displace and undercut AP products in the market with the Accused Products." (Compl. ¶29).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references a claim chart in "Exhibit B" to support its infringement allegations but does not attach the exhibit. (Compl. ¶23, ¶24). The narrative infringement theory presented in the complaint is as follows:

Plaintiff alleges that the Accused Products, including the S80 RoC, perform the method of at least claim 11 of the ’589 Patent. (Compl. ¶21, ¶25). The complaint asserts that the various functional blocks depicted in the product’s diagram, such as the "CPU Platform" and "DSP Platform," satisfy the "plurality of circuits" limitation. (Compl. ¶22, ¶23). The infringement theory for the "ultra-small resonant structure" element appears to be based on Defendant's public statements that its products use "28 nanometer technology," which Plaintiff contends "is an ultra-small structure as covered by the ’589 Patent." (Compl. ¶12). The complaint alleges this structure "emits, by an ultra-small resonant structure, an electromagnetic signal into said waveguide layer, whereby said signal may be obtained by each of said plurality of circuits." (Compl. ¶24).

Identified Points of Contention

  • Technical Question: The complaint alleges that the use of "28nm HPC technology" meets the "ultra-small resonant structure" limitation. (Compl. ¶12). A central technical question will be what evidence demonstrates that a feature within the accused chip, by virtue of being fabricated at a 28nm scale, performs the claimed function of resonantly emitting an electromagnetic signal into a waveguide for distribution, as opposed to operating as a conventional transistor or interconnect.
  • Scope Question: The patent describes a "waveguide layer" for propagating an electromagnetic signal. (’589 Patent, col. 3:22-29). The infringement analysis raises the question of whether the conventional dielectric layers within a standard CMOS integrated circuit can be construed as the claimed "waveguide layer," or if the term requires a structure specifically designed and used for optical-style wave propagation to avoid the electrical delay issues described in the patent's background.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "ultra-small resonant structure"

  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the claimed invention and the infringement dispute. Its construction will determine whether the mere use of a small-scale manufacturing process (e.g., 28nm) is sufficient to meet this limitation, or if a specific, purpose-built emitting structure is required.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s glossary defines the term functionally as "any structure of any material, type or microscopic size that by its characteristics causes electrons to resonate at a frequency in excess of the microwave frequency." (’589 Patent, col. 4:63-65).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent also states that "the ultra-small structures are employed in a vacuum environment." (’589 Patent, col. 5:7-8). Further, the detailed description references specific resonant structures disclosed in related patent applications, suggesting the term may refer to a discrete, engineered component rather than an incidental feature of a manufacturing process. (’589 Patent, col. 3:10-15).

The Term: "waveguide layer"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the medium for signal propagation. The viability of the infringement case depends on whether the dielectric material in the accused chip functions as a "waveguide layer" in the manner claimed.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the layer as "non-conductive" and gives silica (SiO2) as an example, a common material in semiconductor manufacturing. (’589 Patent, col. 3:4-6, 3:23-25).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s background focuses on overcoming the limitations of electrical conductors by using a different propagation mechanism. (’589 Patent, col. 2:1-51). Figure 1 depicts the "Transparent layer" (104) as a distinct medium through which the wave (W) travels, separate from the "Circuitry" (108) that receives the signal, which may suggest a more specific structure than a standard inter-metal dielectric layer. (’589 Patent, Fig. 1).

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and (c). The inducement allegation is based on Defendant allegedly instructing customers on how to use the Accused Products via marketing materials. (Compl. ¶36). The contributory infringement allegation claims that the components sold by Defendant are not capable of substantial non-infringing uses. (Compl. ¶37).
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged for both direct and indirect infringement. The basis for knowledge in the direct infringement count is post-suit notice from the filing of the complaint. (Compl. ¶26). For indirect infringement, the complaint alleges "pre-suit knowledge" without providing specific supporting facts. (Compl. ¶39).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "ultra-small resonant structure", which the patent describes as an active emitter, be construed to cover generic features of a "28nm" manufacturing process without specific evidence that such features were designed for or perform the claimed resonant emission function?
  • A second key issue will be evidentiary and technical: what proof can be offered that the accused Radar-on-Chip operates by propagating an electromagnetic signal through a "waveguide layer", as claimed, rather than by conventional electrical transmission along conductors, which is the very problem the patent purports to solve?
  • A third question relates to claim limitation: does the patent's statement that "the ultra-small structures are employed in a vacuum environment" (’589 Patent, col. 5:7-8) impose a requirement on the claims that would affect the infringement analysis for a packaged semiconductor device?