Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v. NuCurrent Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2019-00858
• Patent #: 8,680,960
• Filed: March 22, 2019
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
• Patent Owner(s): NuCurrent, Inc.
• Challenged Claims: 1-8, 10, 12-13, 15-22, and 24-30

2. Patent Overview

• Title: Multi-layer-multi-turn structure for high efficiency inductors
• Brief Description: The ’960 patent relates to an inductor with a plurality of conductor layers separated by insulator layers. The structure is intended for high-efficiency use in electric circuits, particularly those operating in the radio frequency range, by reducing resistance loss.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Claims 1-8, 10, 15-22, and 24-30 are anticipated by Lee under 35 U.S.C. §102

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2007/0267718).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Lee, which discloses a "multilayer winding inductor," teaches every element of the challenged claims. Lee’s first multi-level interconnect structure (Fig. 4C) was mapped to the claimed inductor, with its looped conductive traces (311) serving as the "first" and "second" conductor layers. These layers are shown separated by a dielectric layer (308), meeting the "insulator layer" limitation. Conductive plugs (315) electrically connect the two conductive traces, satisfying the "at least one connector" limitation, and Lee explicitly states these connections can be in parallel. Petitioner contended that Lee's disclosure of using the inductor in radio frequency (RF) circuits, where current inherently varies, combined with the fundamental principles of electromagnetism, inherently teaches that propagating an electrical current generates a magnetic flux and that a change in current generates an inductance. For dependent claims, Petitioner argued Lee’s disclosure of a 0.53 µm copper conductor operating in the RF band (e.g., at 30 GHz) inherently satisfies the claimed thickness-to-skin-depth ratios.

Ground 2: Claim 12 is obvious over Lee in view of Ahn

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2007/0267718), Ahn (Patent 7,030,725).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Lee teaches a multilayer inductor on a semiconductor chip where components are scaled in microns but does not specify an insulator thickness. Claim 12 adds the limitation that the insulating layer thickness is "less than about 5 cm." Ahn, also teaching integrated circuit inductors, expressly discloses insulating layers with a combined thickness of 130-150 µm. This dimension is orders of magnitude less than 5 cm, thus supplying the missing limitation from the prior art.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA designing an on-chip inductor like Lee's would combine these teachings because both references address stacked inductors in semiconductor substrates. As Lee was silent on insulator thickness, a POSITA would look to a reference like Ahn for guidance on conventional dimensions for such components to optimize performance and ensure manufacturability.
  • Expectation of Success: Insulator thickness was a well-understood design parameter and a "result-effective variable." A POSITA would have a high expectation of success in applying Ahn's micron-scale dimensions to Lee's general structure to predictably achieve a functional on-chip inductor, balancing insulation requirements with device miniaturization.

Ground 3: Claims 1-8, 10, 15-22, and 25-30 are obvious over Lee in view of Alldred

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Lee (Application # 2007/0267718), Alldred (a 2006 IEEE publication).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that while Lee’s inductor is for RF circuits, it lacks a specific implementation. Alldred provides this context by describing a 60 GHz radio receiver using on-chip inductors in its low-noise amplifier (LNA). Placing Lee’s inductor into Alldred’s circuit satisfies the claim limitations requiring the generation of magnetic flux and inductance upon a change in current, as the 60 GHz AC signal from Alldred inherently provides this change. This combination also satisfies dependent claims 21 and 22, as Alldred’s LNA is an "electrical circuit operating at about 100 kHz or greater" and is also an "amplifying circuit."
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine the references because they are complementary. Lee teaches how to build an improved on-chip inductor, while Alldred shows a state-of-the-art RF circuit where such an inductor would be used. The combination represented the logical application of an improved component into its intended environment to achieve predictable benefits.
  • Expectation of Success: The process of incorporating a known type of component (an on-chip inductor) into a standard circuit topology (an LNA) was routine for a POSITA. Success was highly predictable, as it involved combining familiar elements according to known design principles to achieve an expected, functional RF circuit.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including for claim 13 over Lee and Kyriazidou (regarding inductor quality factor), for claim 24 over Lee and Partovi (regarding a connectable control circuit), and three-way combinations involving Lee, Alldred, and either Ahn or Kyriazidou.

4. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-8, 10, 12-13, 15-22, and 24-30 of the ’960 patent as unpatentable.