DraftKings Inc v. WinView Inc

1. Case Identification

• Case #: IPR2022-01351
• Patent #: 10,410,946
• Filed: August 11, 2022
• Petitioner(s): Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
• Patent Owner(s): Demaray LLC
• Challenged Claims: 1, 2, 4–10, 12, and 13

2. Patent Overview

• Title: High Density Plasma Reactor for Dielectric Etching and Deposition
• Brief Description: The ’946 patent describes a plasma processing reactor for semiconductor manufacturing. The technology centers on using an inductively coupled plasma (ICP) source that includes a planar coil antenna with multiple, individually controllable planar coils to generate a uniform, high-density plasma over a large-area substrate for processes like etching and deposition.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Collins and Holland - Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are obvious over Collins in view of Holland.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Collins (Patent 5,844,205), Holland (Patent 5,656,123).
• Core Argument for this Ground:
  • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Collins disclosed the fundamental components of a plasma processing reactor as claimed in independent claim 1, including a vacuum enclosure, a substrate support, and a planar coil antenna positioned over a dielectric window. However, Collins taught a single, spiral planar coil. Petitioner asserted that Holland remedied this deficiency by disclosing an ICP source with multiple planar coils (a "plurality of coils") connected to an RF power source through an impedance matching network. Holland explicitly taught using multiple coils to improve plasma uniformity, directly addressing a known objective in the field. Dependent claims were allegedly met as Collins taught the claimed pressure ranges (claim 2), chamber configurations (claims 4, 5, 12), and gas distribution (claim 13), while Holland’s disclosure of controlling power to its coils met the power source limitations (claims 6, 7, 9, 10).
  • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine Collins and Holland to improve the plasma uniformity of the Collins reactor. Holland was directed to the precise problem of non-uniformity in ICP reactors and proposed a multi-coil solution. A POSITA would have recognized the benefit of replacing Collins's single coil with Holland’s more advanced multi-coil antenna to achieve better process control over large substrates.
  • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying known principles of plasma generation and RF power delivery. Integrating Holland’s multi-coil source into a standard reactor like Collins’s was a predictable modification with a high expectation of success for achieving improved uniformity.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Collins, Patrick, and Barnes - Claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9, 10, 12, and 13 are obvious over Collins in view of Patrick and Barnes.

• Prior Art Relied Upon: Collins (Patent 5,844,205), Patrick (Patent 5,534,289), Barnes (Patent 5,614,055).

• Core Argument for this Ground:

  • Prior Art Mapping: This ground presented an alternative combination to teach the multi-coil antenna of claim 1. As in Ground 1, Collins provided the basic reactor framework. Patrick was cited for its disclosure of an ICP source using a flat, multi-turn planar coil antenna. Barnes was introduced to explicitly teach an antenna comprising multiple, independently powered concentric coils designed to radially control plasma uniformity. Petitioner argued that the combination of Patrick's planar coil structure with Barnes's multi-coil uniformity control scheme disclosed all elements of claim 1 when implemented in the Collins reactor. The combination also allegedly rendered the dependent claims obvious for reasons similar to those in Ground 1.
  • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would be motivated to combine these references to enhance the performance of the Collins reactor. The goal of achieving radial plasma uniformity was a significant concern in the industry, and Barnes provided a direct solution with its multi-coil configuration. A POSITA would have readily applied the control scheme of Barnes to a planar coil antenna like that in Collins or Patrick to create a more capable and uniform plasma source.
  • Expectation of Success: The principles of using multiple coils to shape and control plasma were well-established. A POSITA would have reasonably expected that integrating the teachings of Patrick and Barnes into the Collins system would successfully yield a reactor with improved plasma uniformity control.

• Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted an additional obviousness challenge for claim 8 (requiring coils wound in series) based on the combination of Collins, Holland, and Welsh (Patent 6,369,514), where Welsh was used to supply the teaching of a series-wound coil configuration.

4. Arguments Regarding Discretionary Denial

• Petitioner argued that discretionary denial under §314(a) based on the Fintiv factors would be inappropriate. The co-pending district court litigation was in an early stage, with no trial date set and minimal discovery completed, weighing against denial.
• Petitioner further contended that the invalidity grounds in the IPR were substantially similar to those in the district court, meaning Board review would simplify, not complicate, the parallel proceeding.
• To mitigate concerns of duplicative efforts, Petitioner submitted a stipulation that, if IPR is instituted, it would not pursue in the district court any ground that was raised or could have been reasonably raised in the petition.

5. Relief Requested

• Petitioner requested the institution of an inter partes review and the cancellation of claims 1, 2, 4–10, 12, and 13 of Patent 10,410,946 as unpatentable under §103.