Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corporation et al
Filing
243
ORDER re: 189 , 188 Markman Briefing and hearing. See Order for additional detail. Signed by Judge David G Campbell on 8/9/2017. (DGC, nvo)
1
WO
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Continental Circuits LLC,
Plaintiff,
10
11
ORDER
v.
12
No. CV16-2026 PHX DGC
Intel Corporation, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15
16
Plaintiff Continental Circuits LLC asserts claims for patent infringement against
17
Defendants Ibiden U.S.A. Corp., Ibiden Co. Ltd., and Intel Corp. The Court held a
18
Markman hearing on August 4, 2017. This order will set forth the Court’s ruling on the
19
issues addressed during the hearing and in the parties’ briefs.
20
I.
Background.
21
Defendant Ibiden produces layered electronic devices at its facilities overseas. See
22
Doc. 133, ¶¶ 51, 110.1 These layered devices are used in computer electronics, including
23
computer processors manufactured by Defendant Intel. See id., ¶¶ 49-51.
24
The devices are made of alternating layers of conductive and non-conductive
25
materials. See id., ¶ 29. When adhesion between the layers is poor, the layers can
26
separate, creating problems for or failure of the electronic product in which they are
27
28
1
Page citations are to numbers placed at the top of each page by the Court’s
CM/ECF system rather than the document’s original page numbers.
1
incorporated. See id. In the 1990s, four employees of Continental Circuits, Inc., a now-
2
defunct circuit-board manufacturer, invented a “novel surface roughening technique”
3
using etching to create a “non-uniformly roughened surface” that allows for stronger
4
adhesion between layers. Id., ¶¶ 28-29, 120. The four co-inventors applied to patent the
5
surface-roughening technology in 1997, and two patents were issued in 2000 and 2004.
6
Id., ¶¶ 12-13. Those patents are not at issue in this case. A continuation application was
7
filed by early 2005, and eventually resulted in the issuance of the four patents that are at
8
issue here: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,501,582 (2009), 8,278,560 (2012), 8,581,105 (2013), and
9
9,374,912 (2016) (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”). See id., ¶¶ 14-17, 35-36. Copies of
10
these patents can be found at Doc. 188-3, Exs. 1-4.
11
Plaintiff Continental Circuits LLC is a non-operating entity that was formed in
12
2016 and owns the patents-in-suit. Doc. 49, at 11 n.8; Doc. 133, ¶ 19. The day after the
13
last of the patents-in-suit was issued, Plaintiff filed this action. See Doc. 1. Plaintiff
14
alleges that Defendants have infringed the patents-in-suit.
15
The parties have filed a joint claim construction statement that identifies the patent
16
terms to be addressed in this order. Doc. 177. The statement identifies three categories
17
of claims to be construed, each of which includes a number of closely related claims
18
found in the patents. Id. It also identifies four terms that Defendants claim are indefinite
19
and therefore invalid. Id. The parties have filed briefs on claim construction. Docs.
20
188, 189, 199, 200. At the Court’s request, the parties filed additional memoranda
21
regarding the ramifications of their claim construction positions. Docs. 225, 230.2
22
II.
Legal Standard.
23
A patent includes two basic components: (1) a written description of the invention,
24
referred to as the “specification” of the patent, and (2) the patent claims. The claims
25
define the scope of the invention covered by the patent. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d
26
27
28
2
Some of the parties’ filings are redacted to remove trade secrets. Unredacted
versions have been filed under seal at Docs. 234-238.
-2-
1
1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Claim construction is a matter of law to be
2
decided by the Court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996).
3
Words of a claim are generally given the ordinary and customary meaning the
4
words would have for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
5
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the
6
claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term
7
appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. The
8
specification is also highly relevant. The Federal Circuit has characterized it as “the
9
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 (quotation marks and
10
citation omitted).
A court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history.
11
at 1317. “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the
12
PTO and the inventor understood the patent.”
13
prosecution history are commonly referred to as “intrinsic evidence.”
Id.
Id.
The claims, specification, and
14
Extrinsic evidence may also be used in claim construction. Extrinsic evidence
15
consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history, including expert
16
and inventor testimony, dictionaries, learned treatises, and other patents. Id. Extrinsic
17
evidence is viewed as less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in
18
determining how to read claim terms. Id. at 1318.
19
III.
Category 1 Terms.
20
Category 1 in the parties’ joint claim construction statement concerns a number of
21
claims in the patents-in-suit that address the etching of the dielectric or epoxy layer of an
22
electronic circuit board or comparable device. Doc. 177 at 4-9. Some of the claims
23
simply refer to “etching the epoxy,” while others refer to “etching the dielectric
24
material,” “removal of a portion of the dielectric material,” “removal of some of the
25
dielectric material,” “a surface of a layer of a dielectric material,” “a surface of a
26
dielectric material,” and “a dielectric material comprising a surface.”
27
contends that these phrases require no construction. Defendants contend that each phrase
28
-3-
Id.
Plaintiff
1
should be construed to include a requirement that the etching, removal, or modification of
2
the dielectric material be “produced by a repeated desmear process.” Id.
3
As Plaintiff correctly notes, Defendants do not contend that the actual words of the
4
claims provide this additional meaning. Rather, Defendants seek to add a limitation to
5
the claims – namely, that the etching or alteration of the dielectric material occur through
6
a repeated desmear process. Because the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrases at
7
issue does not include Defendants’ proposed limitation, Defendants carry a heavy burden.
8
The Federal Circuit has explained that there are only two exceptions to the rule that
9
claims are given their plain and ordinary meaning: “1) when a patentee sets out a
10
definition and acts as his own lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full
11
scope of a claim term either in the specification or during prosecution.” Thorner v. Sony
12
Computer Entm’t Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
13
Defendants must meet for either of these exceptions is “exacting.” Id. at 1366.
The standard
14
“To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must ‘clearly set forth a definition of
15
the disputed claim term’ other than its plain and ordinary meaning.” Id. at 1365 (quoting
16
CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)). “It is not
17
enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same
18
manner in all embodiments, the patentee must ‘clearly express an intent’ to redefine the
19
term.” Id. (quoting Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381
20
(Fed. Cir. 2008)).
21
A disavowal also must be “clear and unmistakable.” Id. at 1367. “‘Where the
22
specification makes clear that the invention does not include a particular feature, that
23
feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims of the patent, even though the
24
language of the claims, read without reference to the specification, might be considered
25
broad enough to encompass the feature in question.’” Id. at 1366 (quoting SciMed Life
26
Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).
27
“‘The patentee may demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed
28
meaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest
-4-
1
exclusion or restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope.’” Id. (quoting
2
Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
3
4
After careful review of the patents-in-suit, the Court concludes that Defendants
have met the exacting standard required to adopt their proposed limitation.
5
A.
The Patents’ Disavowal of Prior Art.
6
The Federal Circuit has found disavowal when a patent “repeatedly disparaged an
7
embodiment as ‘antiquated,’ having ‘inherent inadequacies,’ and then detailed the
8
‘deficiencies [that] make it difficult’ to use.”
9
AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Chi. Bd. Options Exch.,
10
Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). For example, in
11
Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir.
12
2006), the Federal Circuit affirmed the construction of “host interface” as a “direct
13
parallel bus interface.” The court noted that the only embodiment disclosed was a direct
14
parallel bus interface and that “the specification emphasizes the importance of a parallel
15
connection in solving the problems of the previously used serial connection.” Id. This
16
discussion demonstrated “what the inventor has described as the invention.” Id. at 1355;
17
see also OpenWave Sys., Inc. v. Apple Inc., 808 F.3d 509, 513-17 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
18
(narrowly construing claim term “mobile device” to exclude communication devices
19
containing a “computer module” based on limiting statements in specification that
20
disparaged prior art communication devices containing such “computer modules”); Fed.
21
Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 653 F.3d 1296, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
22
2011) (limiting scope of syringe “body” to a one-piece body based in part on distinction
23
of prior art syringes composed of multiple pieces); SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1341 (finding
24
disavowal based on disparagement of a particular embodiment and statements that the
25
“present invention” does not include the embodiment).
See GE Lighting Solutions, LLC v.
26
The specification, which is common to all the patents-in-suit, provides this
27
introduction: “The present invention is directed to methods for making or manufacturing
28
an electrical device, and the process, composition, and product thereof.
-5-
More
1
particularly, the present invention involves such multi-layer electrical devices as circuit
2
boards constructed by joining a dielectric material to a subsequently applied conductive
3
material.” ’582 Patent at 1:13-18.3 The purpose of the invention is to improve on multi-
4
layer electrical devices that “suffer from delamination, blistering, and other reliability
5
problems. This is particularly true when the laminates are subject to thermal stress.” Id.
6
at 1:30-32.
7
The specification explains that the patented invention produces a stronger bond
8
between the dielectric layer and the conductive layer by forming teeth in each layer that
9
interlock with each other. “The surface structure is comprised of teeth that are preferably
10
angled or hooked like fangs or canine teeth to enable one layer to mechanically grip a
11
second layer.” Id. at 1:54-57.
12
The specification then proceeds to explain the process by which these teeth are
13
formed in the manufacturing of a multi-layer electrical device. Step 6 is the relevant step
14
for purposes of Category 1 claims. Step 6 “involves the etching [of] cavities, veins,
15
openings, or gaps in the applied dielectric material, or more particularly an outermost
16
surface thereof, to accommodate the teeth.” Id. at 5:37-40. The process by which layers
17
of dielectric material are prepared for boding to a conductive layer is known as a
18
“desmear” process. The ’582 Patent repeatedly distinguishes the process covered by the
19
patent from the prior art and its use of a “single desmear process.” Five portions of the
20
specification are particularly relevant.
21
First, the specification explains that “[o]ne technique for forming the teeth is
22
somewhat similar to what has been known as the swell and etch or desmear process,
23
except that contrary to all known teachings in the prior art, in effect, a ‘double desmear
24
process’ is utilized.” Id. at 5:41-44.4 The description then becomes even more specific:
25
“That is, not merely increasing the times and temperatures and other parameters for the
26
3
27
28
The parties’ Category 1 arguments all focus on the ’582 Patent. The Court will
focus on that patent as well. The Court’s citations to portions of a patent throughout this
order will include a column number and line numbers, separated by a colon.
4
All bolded and italicized emphases in this order have been added by the Court.
-6-
1
desmear process, but instead completing the process a first time, and then completing
2
the process a second time.” Id. at 5:44-48.5
3
Second, the patent explains that “the desmear process as disclosed herein is
4
contrary to the manufacturer’s specification, i.e., a ‘double desmear process,’ rather
5
than the single desmear process of the known prior art.” Id. at 5:60-63. This statement
6
not only equates the prior art with a “single desmear process,” but specifically states that
7
“the desmear process as disclosed herein” is “contrary” to that prior art.
8
Third, the specification explains:
9
the peel strength produced in accordance with the present invention is
greater than the [peel] strength produced by the desmear process of the
prior art, i.e., a single pass desmear process. For example, if a prior art
desmear process is used to produce a 6 lb/in average peel strength, the
present invention may produce an average peel strength on the order of 10
lb/in or more.
10
11
12
13
14
Id. at 7:3-9. This statement again equates the prior art with “a single pass desmear
15
process,” and states that “the present invention” produces a greater strength than that
16
prior art.
17
18
19
20
21
22
Fourth, the patent recommends the use of Probelec XB 7081 for creation of the
dielectric layer. The specification contains this explanation:
Although Probelec XB 7081 apparently was intended for use in the
common desmear (swell and etch) process as used in conventional plated
through hole plating lines, Probelec XB 7081 can alternatively be used in
carrying out the present invention. For example, the present invention
differs from the common desmear process in that sub-steps in the
desmear process are repeated as a way of forming the teeth.
23
24
Id. at 8:45-52. This language explains that although Probelec XB 7081 was intended for
25
the prior art process of single desmear, it “can alternatively be used in carrying out the
26
present invention.” In other words, the prior art single desmear process is not “the
27
5
28
Plaintiff emphasizes that this description applies to “[o]ne technique for forming
the teeth,” arguing that this is only an illustration. The Court will address this argument
below.
-7-
1
present invention.” It also explains precisely how “the present invention” differs from
2
the prior art: “sub-steps in the desmear process are repeated as a way of forming the
3
teeth.”
4
Fifth, the specification contains this strong statement: “In stark contrast with the
5
etch and swell process of the known prior art, however, a second pass through the
6
process (sub-steps A through F) is used. The second pass seems to make use of non-
7
homogeneities in bringing about a formation of the teeth.” Id. at 9:1-9. This language
8
draws a “stark contrast” between the “known prior art” and the current invention’s
9
“second pass through the process.”
10
In summary, these statements identify the “swell and etch” or “single desmear”
11
process as the “prior art,” the “known prior art,” the “common desmear process,” and
12
“the desmear process of the prior art,” and expressly distinguish that prior art from the
13
patented invention. The specification states that the invention is “contrary to all known
14
teachings in the prior art” (id. at 5:43-48), is “contrary” to “the single desmear process of
15
the known prior art” (id. at 5:61-63), “differs from the common desmear process” (id. at
16
8:50-52), and stands in “stark contrast” with the “known prior art” (id. at 9:1-3). These
17
statements are clear and strong. They do not merely point out deficiencies in the prior
18
art, they state with emphasis that this invention is different from the prior art. They make
19
clear that the invention does not include the prior art’s single desmear process.
20
B.
“The Present Invention.”
21
When an inventor describes “the present invention” as including particular
22
elements, it can be viewed as a disavowal of a broader scope that might otherwise apply.
23
See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[W]e
24
have held that disclaimer applies when the patentee makes statements such as ‘the present
25
invention requires . . .’ or ‘the present invention is . . .’ or ‘all embodiments of the present
26
invention are . . .’”); see also Pacing Technologies, LLC v. GarminIntern., Inc., 778 F.3d
27
1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
28
-8-
1
In Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006),
2
the court addressed a “fuel injection system component.” Although the ordinary meaning
3
of a “fuel injection system component” is not limited to a fuel filter, the Federal Circuit
4
found that the proper construction was narrower than the customary meaning and was
5
limited to a filter. The court noted that the specification repeatedly described the fuel
6
filter as “this invention” and “the present invention,” and held that “[t]he public is
7
entitled to take the patentee at his word and the word was that the invention is a fuel
8
filter.” Id.; see also Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed.
9
Cir. 2009) (limiting the claim term “graft” to mean “intraluminal graft” when “the
10
specification frequently describes an ‘intraluminal graft’ as ‘the present invention’ or
11
‘this invention’”).
12
As shown in the quotations above, the specification states that “the peel strength
13
produced in accordance with the present invention is greater than the [peel] strength
14
produced by the desmear process of the prior art, i.e., a single desmear process.” ’582
15
Patent at 7:3-6.
16
different from the single desmear process. The specification also states that “the present
17
invention differs from the common desmear process in that sub-steps in the desmear
18
process are repeated as a way of forming the teeth.” Id. at 8:50-52. This statement
19
clearly asserts that “the present invention” – not just the embodiment discussed in the
20
specification as an example – differs from the prior art because it involves a repeat of the
21
desmear process. The specification further states that “the desmear process as disclosed
22
herein is contrary to the manufacturer’s specifications, i.e., a ‘double desmear process,’
23
rather than the single desmear process of the known prior art.” Id. at 5:59-63. Although
24
this statement is addressing the specifications of the XB 7081, it also states that “the
25
desmear process as disclosed” in the patent is a “double desmear process.”
26
statements unmistakably affirm that “the present invention” differs from the single
27
desmear process of the prior art.
This statement suggests “the present invention” produces results
28
-9-
These
1
C.
Prosecution History and Other Portions of the Patents.
2
As Defendants note, the examiner rejected all pending claims during prosecution
3
of the ‘560 Patent.
4
declaration from Professor C.P. Wong, Ph.D, which included this explanation:
5
6
7
8
9
10
Doc. 188-3 at 155.
In response, the applicants submitted a
As described in this paragraph, performing two separate swell and etch
steps is a technique which forms the teeth. Although how this occurs
within the dielectric material is not recited with in-depth detail, I
understand the specification as informing that the teeth formation results
from the release of some solid content in the first etching pass, forming
irregular recesses and volume displacement. By forming the irregular
releases in the first etching pass, an opening within the dielectric material
would then be enlarged in the second etch pass, making the structure shown
in Figure 1 and recited in the claims[.]
11
12
Doc. 188-3 at 109.
13
This statement clearly describes the patented method as involving two etching
14
processes. Although Plaintiff correctly notes that Dr. Wong refers only to “a technique”
15
as opposed to “the technique,” Dr. Wong explains that the patented teeth are created by
16
the second etching pass. This part of the prosecution history corroborates the conclusions
17
reached above, even if not sufficient on its own to find disavowal.
18
Other portions of the patents also support the conclusions reach above.
For
19
example, the ’582 Patent includes claims which assert that the products produced by the
20
patented process are superior to products created by “a single roughening process,” “a
21
single pass roughening,” or “a single desmear process.” See, e.g., ’582 Patent at 10:25,
22
10:33-34, 11:4, 11:11, 11:48, 11:55, 12:2, 12:15, 12:42-43, 12:59, 14:7, 17:34, 17:38-39,
23
18:1, 18:6, 18:36-37, 18:41-42, 19:10-11, 19:14-15, 19:26. 19:40, 19:66-67, 20:15-16.
24
These claims are not at issue in this case, but both sides agreed during the Markman
25
hearing that the Court can consider them in this order. Their wording confirms that the
26
present invention is different from a single desmear process.
27
Defendants also point to extrinsic evidence that supports the Court’s conclusion.
28
Documents produced by the inventors state that “a two pass desmear cycle doubles the
- 10 -
1
peel strength of a one pass desmear cycle, but varying the times in the cycle do not seem
2
to have that great of an effect.” Doc. 235-2, Ex. 26. The primary inventor of the
3
patented product, Brian McDermott, wrote in a 1998 letter that “we use a double pass
4
desmear to achieve the tooth structure.” Doc. 235-3, Ex. 30. This extrinsic evidence,
5
although not reliable enough to be dispositive, provides helpful corroboration of the
6
Court’s conclusion. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319 (explaining that extrinsic evidence “may
7
be useful to the court”).
8
D.
9
Plaintiff relies on the principle of claim differentiation and argues that references
10
to a repeat desmear process are found in several independent claims, but not in dependent
11
claims. Doc. 189 at 16. Plaintiff notes that “the presence of a dependent claim that adds
12
a particular limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not
13
present in the independent claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315.
14
Plaintiff’s Arguments.
The claim differentiation presumption can be overcome by clear indicia in the
15
specification and prosecution history.
As the Federal Circuit has explained, “claim
16
differentiation is a rule of thumb that does not trump the clear import of the
17
specification.” Edwards, 582 F.3d at 1332; see also Seechange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
18
413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that claim differentiation is “not a hard and
19
fast rule and will be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written
20
description or prosecution history.”).
21
The Court finds, for reasons explained above, that the specification clearly
22
distinguishes between the current invention and the prior art of a single desmear process.
23
The clear and unequivocal rejection of that prior art overcomes any presumption raised
24
by claim differentiation.
25
Plaintiff also notes that the specification begins its discussion of the double
26
desmear process by describing it as “[o]ne technique for forming the teeth[.]” ’582
27
Patent at 5:40-41. Although this is true, the patent then proceeds to explain at length the
28
difference between the current invention and the prior art single desmear process. As
- 11 -
1
already noted, in two places the specification distinguishes this prior art from “the present
2
invention.” Thus, although the specification does include a reference to “one technique,”
3
the subsequent, detailed explanation makes clear that the patented invention is different
4
from the single desmear process.
5
Similarly, the words “for example” in one portion of the specification do not
6
suggest that the double desmear process is only an illustration of one embodiment of the
7
patented invention. Id. at 8:49-50. Rather, the language is used to explain why XB 7081,
8
which is normally made for a single desmear process, “can alternatively be used in
9
carrying out the present invention.”
Id. at 8:48-49.
The specification states: “For
10
example, the present invention differs from the common desmear process in that sub-
11
steps in the desmear process are repeated as a way of forming the teeth.” Id. at 8:49-52.
12
Thus, the example is not one means by which the invention may be embodied, but an
13
explanation of why XB 7081 can be used with the patented product – by repeating the
14
desmear process for which XB 7081 was designed.
15
Plaintiff notes that an early statement in the specification refers to methods of
16
production other than repeated desmearing: “For example, a dielectric material can have
17
a non-homogeneous composition or thickness to bring about an uneven chemical
18
resistance, such that slowed and/or repeated etching will form teeth instead of the
19
uniform etch.” Id. at 2:27-30. Plaintiff argues that this sentence identifies “slowed”
20
etching as an additional method for making the patented invention, in contrast to repeated
21
etching. The word “slowed” does appear once in the specification, but the Court cannot
22
conclude that this single word justifies a finding that the patents include the single
23
desmear process.
24
As explained above, the balance of the specification makes clear that the single
25
desmear process of the prior art is not part of the invention. In fact, it is part of the
26
problem the invention was designed to overcome.
27
Raghavan, also credibly explains in his declaration that a person of ordinary skill in the
28
art would not read the word “slowed” in the context of the patents to mean that the
- 12 -
Defendants’ expert, Dr. Srini
1
patents embrace single-pass desmearing. Doc. 199-3, ¶¶ 15-17. Finally, language in the
2
specification and in the extrinsic evidence suggests that varying the times of a single
3
desmear process does not produce the teeth that are key to the invention. See ’582 Patent
4
at 5:43-47; Doc. 235-2, Ex. 26. For these reasons, the Court cannot accept Plaintiff’s
5
argument that the single word “slowed” constitutes an alternative embodiment of the
6
patented invention. See Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York v. Symantec
7
Corp., 811 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that “[t]his single sentence in the
8
specification cannot overcome the overwhelming evidence in other parts of the
9
specification”).
10
Finally, the Court notes that the boilerplate disclaimer of lexicography and
11
disavowal at the end of the specification does not alter its conclusion. ’582 Patent at
12
9:18-25. The Court finds the detailed and repeated explanation of the specification, not
13
this disclaimer, to be controlling.
14
IV.
Category 2 Terms.
15
The parties’ second category of disputed claims includes the following phrases
16
from the ’560, ’105, and ’912 Patents: “Epoxy dielectric material delivered with solid
17
content,” “epoxy dielectric material . . . the dielectric material delivered with solid
18
content,” “dielectric material delivered with solid content,” “dielectric material that is
19
delivered with solid content,” and “dielectric material delivered with . . . solid content.”
20
Doc. 177 at 12-13. Defendants contend that each of these phrases should be construed to
21
mean dielectric material “delivered with solid particles suspended in a liquid.”
22
Plaintiff contends that no construction is necessary. Alternatively, Plaintiff contends that
23
the phrases should be interpreted to include “dielectric material having solid particles
24
suspended in the dielectric material.” Id. The dispute is whether the patents require the
25
use of liquid dielectric material in manufacturing the multi-layer electronic devices they
26
cover. For several reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is correct – the patents do
27
not require use of a liquid dielectric material.
28
- 13 -
Id.
1
A.
Plain and Ordinary Meaning.
2
As noted above, words of a claim are generally given the ordinary and customary
3
meaning the words would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
4
invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The Court concludes that the plain and ordinary
5
meaning of the words in Category 2 does not require use of a liquid dielectric material.
The parties agree that dielectric material can be applied either in solid or liquid
6
7
form.
Neither side argues that the simple phrase “dielectric material” necessarily
8
specifies one or the other. Given this fact, the Court concludes that the plain and ordinary
9
meaning of “epoxy dielectric material delivered with solid content” or “dielectric
10
material delivered with solid content” is delivery of a dielectric material the content of
11
which is solid. Were it not for other portions of the patents, the Court would be inclined
12
to conclude that the form of dielectric material specified in the claims is solid. This is
13
precisely opposite the argument made by Defendants – that the only form of dielectric
14
material permitted under the claims is liquid. The plain meaning does not support
15
Defendants’ position.
16
B.
17
The specification provides clarification. Dielectric material is applied to the multi-
18
layer electronic device in Step 3 of the process described in the patents. The specification
19
gives this description of Step 3:
20
21
22
23
Specification.
Step 3 includes applying the dielectric material to the outermost
surface of the conductive layer (and the base if appropriate for the circuitry
or electrical device at issue) prepared in accordance with step 2. The
dielectric material can be applied by as [sic] a (dry film), a (liquid)
curtain coating, a (liquid) roller coating, or an analogous application or
bonding technique.
24
25
’582 Patent at 5:15-21.6 This language explains that the patented invention can use either
26
dry or liquid dielectric material. The explanation is unambiguous.
27
6
28
Some sentences in the specification include numbers that refer to specific
components of the figures shown at the beginning of the specification. Quotations
throughout this order omit those numbers.
- 14 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
The specification goes on to provide a preferred embodiment for the invention. It
includes this explanation:
Turning now particularly to the process for forming the teeth and the
cavities for the teeth, the present invention can be carried out by a new use
of a CIBA-GEIGY product known as Probelec XB 7081 as a
photoimagable dielectric material. Generally, and in accordance with its
specifications sheet, Probelec XB 7081 is a single component, 100% epoxy
photodielectric material especially developed for . . . multi-layer boards.
7
8
Id. at 6:41-48.
9
As is clear from this language, the use of XB 7081 is a preferred embodiment, an
10
illustration. The specification says only that the patent “can be carried out” by using this
11
product, which is a liquid, not that it must be carried out in this manner. Later portions of
12
the specification continue discussion of this preferred embodiment.
13
specification describes the method for applying the dielectric material, it again uses
14
XB 7081 as an illustration. Id. at 7:15-37.
When the
15
“[I]t is improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the
16
specification – even if it is the only embodiment – into the claims absent a clear
17
indication in the intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited.”
18
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Unlike the
19
Category 1 phrases discussed above, where the specification clearly distinguishes the
20
invention from the prior art single desmear process, the specification and other intrinsic
21
evidence contain no clear indication that the dielectric material to be used in the patented
22
process must be liquid. Nor does the specification describe “the present invention” as not
23
including solid forms of dielectric material. For a court to find that a specification has
24
disclaimed a particular possible interpretation of the claims, “there must be a clear and
25
unmistakable disclaimer.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366-67; see also Pacing Techs., 778
26
F.3d at 1024. The patents’ preferred embodiment of XB 7081 does not constitute a clear
27
and unmistakable disclaimer of a solid dielectric material.
28
- 15 -
1
C.
Prosecution History.
2
Defendants look to the prosecution history to support their argument that the
3
dielectric material must be applied in liquid form. Doc. 188 at 14-15. But the legal
4
standard for finding a prosecution history disclaimer requires “a clear and unmistakable
5
disavowal of scope during prosecution.” Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharm. Inc., 438
6
F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Ambiguous statements in the prosecution history will
7
not support a finding of disclaimer. SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d
8
1278, 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“There is no ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer if a
9
prosecution argument is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which
10
is consistent with a proffered meaning of the disputed term.”); see also LG Elecs., Inc. v.
11
Bizcom Elecs., Inc., 453 F.3d 1364, 1373-74 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (finding that prosecution
12
history statements were not sufficiently clear to justify limiting claims), reversed on other
13
grounds by Quanta v. LG Elecs., 128 S. Ct. 2109 (2008).
14
Defendants note that the examiner for the ’560 Patent rejected a number of claims
15
because “[i]t is not clear as to what is meant by a dielectric material being delivered with
16
solid content and it is also unclear as to how epoxy uses non-homogeneity with the solid
17
content.” Doc. 183 at 158. The applicants responded with a document submitted on
18
June 25, 2012. Doc. 188-3 at 96-109. The document attached a declaration by Dr.
19
Wong. Id. at 107-109. The relevant portions of the document provide this explanation:
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Dr. Wong testifies that, from the identified passages of the specification of
the subject application, one of ordinary skill would understand that the
specification disclosed the use of a generally liquid epoxy nonhomogeneous dielectric, specifically as noted by the Examiner in the
Action Sentence bridging [pages] 3 and 4. As noted by Dr. Wong, by
describing the epoxy as having a solid content of 58%, one skilled in the art
would understand that Probelec XB 7081 includes solid particles suspended
in a generally liquid epoxy.
***
As discussed above, the specification describes the use of a “dielectric
material” with “non-homogeneous composition . . . to bring out uneven
chemical resistance, such that slowed and/or repeated etching will form
teeth instead of a uniform etch.” The operation of this aspect of the process
of the present application is explained in the Declaration, Paragraph 7. In
addition, the Specification describes the use of an epoxy, e.g., Probelec
- 16 -
1
2
3
XB 7081, having “a solid content of 58%.” By describing the epoxy as
having a solid content of 58%, one skilled in the art would understand that
Probelec XB 7081 includes solid particles in a percentage of 58%
suspended in a generally liquid epoxy and that utilization of an epoxy
“delivered with solid content” similar to Probelec as the applied dielectric
material.
4
5
Id. at 103-104. Defendants also emphasize this paragraph from Dr. Wong’s attached
6
declaration:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I have been asked to comment on the question of disclosure in the original
specification for the claim language requiring an epoxy dielectric material
delivered with solid content . . . . A particular example of this epoxy
having solid content is disclosed as Probelec XB 7081 as described in
paragraphs (0051-0065). Paragraphs (0051 to 0060) describe the various
properties of this epoxy material. In paragraph (0056), McDermott
discloses a “solid content of 58%.” By describing this epoxy as having a
solid content of 58%, I understand that Probelec XB 7081 includes solid
particles suspended in a generally liquid epoxy.
Id. at 108.
Defendants contend that this language amounts to a disclaimer of solid dielectric
material for the patented process. The Court does not agree.
15
Portions of the quoted language simply describe XB 7081, the product used in the
16
specification’s preferred embodiment. These portions state that XB 7081 includes solid
17
particles suspended in a generally liquid epoxy. Such a description of a product used in a
18
preferred embodiment does not constitute a disclaimer of all other possible forms of
19
dielectric material.
20
Other portions of the quoted language refer to epoxy “having a solid content of
21
58%,” and state that one skilled in the art would understand this to mean a liquid
22
containing solid particles. But the reference to 58% does not appear in any of the
23
Category 2 claims to be construed – they all refer to dielectric material “delivered with
24
solid content.” The fact that dielectric material “having a solid content of 58%” suggests
25
a liquid with 58% solid particles, as the statements from the prosecution history say, does
26
not mean that the phrase “delivered with solid content,” standing alone, also means a
27
liquid. At most, the statements are ambiguous.
28
- 17 -
1
The prosecution history does not clearly and unmistakably disavow use of solid
2
dielectric materials. Purdue, 438 F.3d at 1136. As a result, the Court cannot rely on the
3
prosecution history as a basis for concluding that solid dielectric materials are excluded
4
from the patent. To the contrary, the specification expressly states that a dry film
5
dielectric material may be used.
6
V.
Category 3.
7
The parties’ third category of claim terms are “means-plus-function limitations.”
8
Doc. 177 at 2-3. The relevant statute provides that “[a]n element in a claim for a
9
combination may be expressed as a means or a step for performing a specified function
10
without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall
11
be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the
12
specification and equivalents thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). When this statute applies to
13
a claim, the claim is construed by identifying the “function” associated with the plain
14
language, and then identifying the corresponding “structure” in the specification that is
15
associated with that function.
16
The parties have identified three claim terms requiring construction, and agree that
17
each of these terms constitutes a means-plus-function limitation. The parties also agree
18
on the function for each term. The Court’s task, therefore, is to find the corresponding
19
“structure” in the specification for each function.
20
The first limitation, found in the ’582 Patent, is “means for joining the conductive
21
layer to the dielectric material.” Doc. 177 at 15. The parties agree that this claim has the
22
following function: “joining the conductive layer to the dielectric material.” Id.
23
The second claim also comes from the ’582 Patent and reads:
“means for
24
mechanically gripping a conductive layer to the surface of the dielectric material so that
25
the conductive layer is burrowed in and under the top surface of the dielectric material.”
26
Id. The parties agree on the following function for this claim: “mechanically gripping a
27
conductive layer to the surface of the dielectric material so that the conductive layer is
28
burrowed in and under the top surface of the dielectric material.” Id.
- 18 -
1
The third term comes from the ’105 Patent and reads: “means for interlocking a
2
conductor part of the circuitry configured for filling cavities with an epoxy dielectric
3
material disposed in combination with the circuitry and coupled with the conductor part.”
4
Id. at 116. The parties agree on this function: “interlocking a conductor part of the
5
circuitry configured for filling cavities with an epoxy dielectric material disposed in
6
combination with the circuitry and coupled with the conductor part.” Id.
7
The parties disagree on the structure that should correspond to each claim. With
8
respect to the first claim, Plaintiff asserts that the structure should be Figure 1 of the ’582
9
Patent, together with the following statement from the specification: “It could also be
10
said that the layers joined in a saw-toothed manner, i.e., teeth made of both materials in
11
an interlocking bite.” Defendants, on the other hand, contend that the structure should
12
include seven paragraphs from the ’582 Patent specification – paragraphs that discuss the
13
connection between the dielectric material and the conductive layer in considerable
14
detail. These paragraphs include a discussion of teeth, a saw-toothed description of the
15
teeth, a triangular shape description of the teeth, canine or fang-shaped teeth, and
16
preferable sizes and frequencies for the teeth. ’582 Patent at 3:18 to 4:11.
17
18
19
With respect to the second claim term, Plaintiff contends that the corresponding
structure consists of Figure 1 and the following statement:
24
However, the preferred embodiment utilizes a surface of obtuse, canine, or
fang-shaped teeth to help the conductive coating hook under the exterior
surface of the applied dielectric material to mechanically grip the applied
dielectric material. The obtuse, canine, or fang-shaped teeth are in contrast
to the shallower, more rounded surface typically produced by known
roughening techniques. Note in FIG. 2 that roughening techniques can
produce some occasional gouging but nothing on the order of the present
invention.
25
’582 Patent at 3:42-51. Defendants propose the same seven-paragraph structure that they
26
advocate with respect to the first claim.
20
21
22
23
27
28
For the third claim, which is found in the ’105 Patent, Plaintiff proposes that the
structure include Figure 1 and the following language from the specification:
- 19 -
1
5
The invention can be carried by forming cavities in the applied dielectric
material for receiving the teeth, and then forming the teeth from the
conductive coating and metal layer formed thereon. Generally, the teeth
can be of any triangular shape (e.g., equilateral, isosceles, scalene, right,
obtuse, or any combination thereof). Preferably, though, the teeth are
obtuse so as to hook or angle under the exterior surface of the applied
dielectric material.
6
’105 Patent at 3:40-47. Defendants propose the same seven-paragraph structure that they
7
propose for the other claims. Id. at 3:26-4:29.
2
3
4
8
The Federal Circuit has instructed “that corresponding structure must include all
9
structure that actually performs the recited function.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St.
10
Jude Medical, Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Callicrate v.
11
Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that it was error for
12
the district court to limit the corresponding structure to the preferred embodiment and not
13
include “all structure in the specification corresponding to the claimed function”). In
14
light of this guidance, the Court concludes that Plaintiff’s proposed structures are too
15
narrow. Although they include some discussion of the means by which the conductive
16
and dielectric layers adhere to each other, those discussions do not include “all structure”
17
described in the specification “that actually performs the recited function.” Cardiac
18
Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1119. The Court also disagrees with Plaintiff’s suggestion that
19
the words “joining,” “mechanically gripping,” and “interlocking” have different
20
meanings. These terms are not defined in the patents. Each is used to describe the means
21
by which the layers adhere to each other. And, as Defendants note, these terms are used
22
interchangeably in some parts of the specification. See, e.g., ’582 Patent at 1:50-57, 3:21-
23
23.
24
The seven paragraphs identified by Defendants describe the structure by which the
25
dielectric material adheres to the conductive layer in more detail, but even they leave out
26
some structure, and the Court has difficulty understanding how these technical and
27
lengthy paragraphs could be used by a jury to determine whether the accused products
28
infringe. Indeed, both sides acknowledged during the Markman hearing that it would be
- 20 -
1
best to prepare for the jury a short and clear description of the structure that corresponds
2
to the functions identified above.
3
The disagreement between the parties seems to be over which portions of the
4
structure discussed in the specification must be present for a product to infringe. Plaintiff
5
contends that the presence in the accused product of any part of the structure will be
6
sufficient. Defendants argue that at least four different components of the structure must
7
be present before infringement is found.
8
looking to parts of the specification that are not included in their seven paragraphs of
9
proposed structure.
Defendants identify these components by
10
The Court concludes that the parties’ Markman briefs do not provide a sufficient
11
discussion of the law or the specification for the Court to resolve this disagreement. As a
12
result, the Court will require the parties to do the following:
1.
13
Develop an agreed-upon description of each element of structure found in
14
the specification that relates to the adhering function of these claims. This
15
can include separate paragraphs for each element (tooth shape, frequency,
16
size, etc.) or a narrative description of the entire structure. It should be in
17
language suitable for a jury instruction.
2.
18
Brief two questions:
(1) As a legal matter, how many elements of a
19
structure must be present in an accused product for a finding of
20
infringement?
21
elements of structure disclosed in the specification must be present for an
22
accused product to infringe in this case?
3.
23
The parties shall confer and, within 10 days of this order, propose a
schedule for completing these tasks, including page limitations.
24
25
(2) How does that law apply to these patents – what
VI.
Indefiniteness.
26
The relevant statute provides that “[t]he specification shall conclude with one or
27
more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which
28
the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). This requirement ensures
- 21 -
1
that a patentee adequately notifies the public of the scope of his or her invention. “A
2
patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification
3
delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable
4
certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention.” Nautilus v. Biosig
5
Instruments, Inc., 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2123 (2014). At the same time, however, “absolute
6
precision is unattainable.” Id. Courts therefore “must take into account the inherent
7
limitations of language” and allow a “modicom of uncertainty” so as to provide
8
appropriate incentives for innovation. Id. at 2128. Because an indefinite claim is an
9
invalid claim, an accused infringer must prove indefiniteness clearly and convincingly.
10
Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 359 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
11
A.
“A Sample of the Circuitry.”
12
Claims in the ’582 Patent require that “a sample of the circuitry” have a frequency
13
of teeth sufficient to provide at least 5,000 teeth per linear inch. ’582 Patent, Claims 94,
14
95, 122. Defendant contends that the phrase “a sample of the circuitry” is indefinite
15
because it does not provide enough precision for a person skilled in the art to determine
16
the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty. See Nautilus, 134 S.Ct. at 2129.
17
The Court does not agree.
18
The specification begins by identifying the location of the teeth that are critical to
19
the patent. Figure 1 is a magnified photograph of the interface between a conductive
20
layer and a dielectric layer in a device made according to the patent, and clearly
21
illustrates the teeth of the two layers that interlock with each other.
22
magnified photograph of the same interface in a device made by the prior art. The
23
boundary between the two layers is much smoother and lacks the cavities and teeth
24
illustrated in Figure 1. The specification then provides this explanation:
25
26
27
28
Figure 2 is a
FIG. 1 is an illustration of a conductive coating and metal layer on the
applied dielectric material with a desirable tooth structure. In contrast, FIG.
2 is an illustration of a prior art conductive coating and metal layer on the
applied dielectric material with the surface produced by roughening
processes. . . . Compare FIG. 1 and FIG. 2, and note particularly the size,
shape, frequency, and depth of the teeth in FIG. 1 with the surface produced
by roughening in FIG. 2.
- 22 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
’582 Patent at 3:8-17.
The specification proceeds to explain the nature of the teeth called for by the
patents:
As to frequency, the teeth should be quite frequent in number; at
least about 5,000 teeth per linear inch, and preferably about 10,000 per
linear inch; and even better is at least about 15,000 teeth per linear inch.
As to surface area, there should be at least about 25,000 teeth per
square inch, better still is essentially at least about 100,000 per square inch,
and preferably at least about 200,000 per square inch, or even greater.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Id. at 3:62 to 4:2
Having described this tooth frequency, the specification explains:
It should be recognized that the teeth generally are not formed to a
precise dimension. As shown in FIG. 1, some of the teeth are somewhat
differently sized, angled, and proportioned. Thus, a representative sample
of the electrical device should have teeth in about these ranges.
Having at least about 20% of the teeth in one or more of these
ranges, and preferably about 50% is a preferred balance of mechanical grip
without a weakening [of] the integrity of the layer, particularly in
combination.
Id. at 4:3-11.
Several points are apparent from this quoted language. First, the teeth are located
at the interface between the dielectric material and the conductive layer. Second, the
frequency of the teeth should be at least 5,000 per linear inch and 25,000 per square inch.
Although Defendants protest that they don’t know where these teeth are located, Figure 1
and this language makes clear that they are located in the interface between the two
layers. Third, the specification states that “a representative sample of the electrical
device should have teeth in about these ranges.” Id. at 4:6-7.
In light of this specification, claims in the ’582 Patent are not indefinite. Claim 94
states that the patented device includes “a conductive layer of material built up on a
surface on a layer of dielectric materials, the layers joined in a saw-tooth manner made of
both materials in an interlocking bite.” Id. at 18:14-17. The claim then states: “[T]he
conductive layer is a portion of circuitry of an electrical device, the conductive layer is
comprised of teeth such that a sample of the circuitry has a frequency of the teeth
- 23 -
1
sufficient to provide at least 5,000 of the teeth per linear inch.”
Id. at 18:18-22.
2
According to this language, the conductive layer is a portion of the circuitry, and a
3
sample of the circuitry – the conductive layer – should show a frequency of teeth
4
sufficient to provide at least 5,000 teeth per linear inch. In light of the specification’s
5
suggestion that the samples should be “representative,” and its unambiguous explanation
6
that the location of the teeth and the area to be sampled is the interface between the
7
dielectric and conductive layers, the Court concludes that a person reasonably skilled in
8
the art could determine how to obtain such a sample.
9
Defendants argue that the size and location of the sample are not specified in the
10
claim. True, but the size clearly must be large enough to show “a frequency of the teeth
11
sufficient to provide at least 5,000 of the teeth per linear inch,” and, according to the
12
specification, should be a “representative sample.” The parties may disagree on how big
13
that sample ought to be, but the Court cannot conclude that such disagreement makes this
14
claim indefinite. Persons of ordinary skill in the art would understand a sample size large
15
enough to be representative of the interface as a whole.
16
The Court disagrees with Defendants’ argument that the location of the sample is
17
unknown, or that the sample might even be taken from locations in the electronic device
18
other than the interface between the dielectric material and the conductive layer. Reading
19
the specification leaves no doubt as to the meaning of the claim: the interface is the
20
location of the teeth to be sampled, and the teeth in the interface must be shown by
21
sampling to have a frequency of at least 5,000 per linear inch.
22
B.
“Upgrade Slope.”
23
Claims in the ’582 Patent call for the formation of cavities in the dielectric
24
material “wherein at least one of the cavities includes an upgrade slope with respect to
25
the dielectric material, and one of the teeth engages a portion of the dielectric material at
26
the slope.” ’582 Patent at 17:58-61. Defendants claim that the phrase “upgrade slope” is
27
indefinite because a person of ordinary skill could not distinguish when a slope is
28
“upgrade” as opposed to “downgrade,” or where the slope is located. Plaintiff responds
- 24 -
1
that the slope, according to the language of each claim at issue, calls for “an upgrade
2
slope with respect to the surface of the dielectric material.” See, e.g., ’582 Patent,
3
Claims 89, 94. Plaintiff argues that this language shows that “upgrade slope” describes
4
the orientation of cavity walls in relation to the surface of the dielectric material.
5
Doc. 200 at 15.
6
The specification includes this explanation:
7
A further way of articulating the “teeth” concept is to view each
tooth as being substantially triangular in shape, with the base of the triangle
being a plain of the dielectric material before it is etched, or more precisely
by the exterior surface thereof. The invention can be carried out by
forming cavities in the applied dielectric material for receiving the teeth,
and then forming the teeth from the conductive coating and then a layer
formed thereon. Generally, the teeth can be of any triangular shape, e.g.,
equilateral, isosceles, scalene, right, obtuse, or any combination thereof”.
Preferably, though, the teeth are obtuse so as to hook or angle under the
exterior surface of the applied dielectric material.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
The use of any shape of teeth increases the surface area where the
conductive coating is on the applied dielectric material. However, the
preferred embodiment uses a surface of obtuse, canine, or fang-shaped teeth
to help the conductive coating and metal layer hook under the exterior
surface of the applied dielectric material.
’582 Patent at 3:28-46.
17
With this explanation from the specification, the Court concludes that a person of
18
ordinary skill in the industry could understand with reasonable certainty the meaning of
19
the claim at issue: A dielectric material comprising a surface with cavities “wherein at
20
least one of the cavities includes an upgrade slope with respect to the surface of the
21
dielectric material, and one of the teeth engages a portion of the dielectric material at the
22
slope.” The cavities formed in the dielectric material must have sloped sides, relative to
23
the flat surface of the dielectric material, and the teeth formed from the conductive layer
24
must engage a portion of the dielectric material at the sloped side of the cavity.
25
As Plaintiff’s counsel conceded at the Markman hearing, this terminology does not
26
specify any specific slope or angle, and, as a result, every cavity, no matter how small or
27
shallow, would have sides that are sloped relative to the surface of the dielectric material
28
and therefore satisfy this claim requirement. Indeed, even the undulating surface of the
- 25 -
1
prior art as illustrated in Plaintiff’s opening brief (Doc. 189 at 9, lines 13-15) would
2
appear to satisfy this description. As a result, the Court cannot see how this claim
3
language distinguishes the patented invention from the prior art, but that is not a question
4
of definiteness.
5
C.
6
Defendants challenge the ’582 Patent claims that call for “peel strength greater
7
than a peel strength that would be produced by a single desmear process.” Doc. 177
8
at 18. Defendants agree that “peel strength” is a term of art that generally refers to the
9
adhesive strength that exists between two layers. Doc. 188 at 25. Defendants argue,
10
however, that this claim language specifies no method for measuring peel strength and no
11
criteria for determining the peel strength of a product produced by a single desmear
12
process, and therefore leaves a person of ordinary skill in the art with no basis to
13
determine what measurement is intended.
“Peel Strength Greater Than.”
14
Plaintiff asserts with some persuasive force that IPC-TM-650, method 2.4.8, is the
15
standardized method for measuring peel strength by one skilled in the art. Doc. 200-3
16
at ¶ 30. But Plaintiff also argues that any scientifically reasonable method for measuring
17
peel strength could be used, the only requirement being that it show a peel strength in the
18
product made under the patent that is greater than the peel strength of a product made by
19
a single desmear process.
20
The Court agrees with Plaintiff.
Defendants do not contend that the word
21
“greater” is indefinite. And the fact that a particular method of measuring peel strength is
22
not identified does not make the language indefinite. Those skilled in the art know the
23
accepted means for measuring peel strength. Nor is the claim indefinite because the
24
baseline peel strength of a product made with a single desmear process is not specified.
25
No particular peel strength is required; it just must be lower, upon measurement, than the
26
peel strength of the patented product measured by the same method. Persons skilled in
27
the art know how to conduct such measurements and how to locate a product made by a
28
single desmear process.
- 26 -
1
D.
“Substantially Greater.”
2
Claims 14 and 19 of the ’560 Patent and several claims in the ’105 Patent call for
3
cavities in the dielectric layer having “a first cross-sectional distance proximate the
4
[initial] surface” and a “substantially greater cross-sectional distance distant from the
5
[initial] surface.” Doc. 177 at 19. Defendants contend that the intrinsic record is devoid
6
of any objective criteria for determining how much greater is “substantially greater”
7
within the meaning of the claims, and that these limitations therefore are indefinite.
8
Defendants note that the ’912 Patent does not include the word “substantially,” calling
9
simply for a “greater cross-sectional distance.”
As a result, Defendants argue,
10
“substantially” must have some meaning beyond “greater,” a meaning not apparent from
11
the intrinsic evidence.
12
Plaintiff notes that the Federal Circuit has “repeatedly confirmed that relative
13
terms such as ‘substantially’ do not render patent claims so unclear as to prevent a person
14
of skill in the art from ascertaining the scope of the claim.” Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog,
15
LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Plaintiff agrees, however, on the relevant
16
test: “Such a term is not indefinite if the intrinsic evidence provides ‘a general guideline
17
and examples sufficient to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to determine [the
18
scope of the claims].’” Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 599 F.3d 1325, 1335 (Fed.
19
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Plaintiff points to the following language from the specification as providing
guidance on the meaning of “substantially”:
In comparison with the above-mentioned roughening techniques of the
prior art, it is believed that a surface of the teeth is an improvement in that
there is an increase in surface area. However, it is still better to use teeth
that are fang-shaped to enable a mechanical grip that functions in a
different manner than adherence by means of increased surface area. By
using the fanged, angled, canine, or otherwise hooked teeth (in addition to
increased surface area), there is a multidirectional, three dimensional
interlacing and overlapping of layers.
28
- 27 -
1
’582 Patent at 1:58-66. Plaintiff also points to language in the specification stating that
2
“the . . . metal layer is actually burrowed under the dielectric material and vice versa.”
3
Id. at 1:66 to 2:3.
4
5
6
7
8
9
Plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Hoffman, provides this explanation of why this description
is sufficient for one skilled in the art to understand the meaning of “substantially”:
In light of the specification and the art, a person of ordinary skill
would understand that the cross-sectional distance of the interior of a cavity
must exceed a crosssectional distance nearer the opening of a cavity enough
to create the “mechanical grip” described in the patents and allow the
conductive material to burrow “in and under” the dielectric material. See,
e.g., ’582 Patent at 1:58-2:3.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the
cross-sectional distance of the interior of the cavity only exceeds the crosssectional distance of the opening by a very slight amount, the mechanical
grip disclosed in the patents would not be achieved.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would further understand that
the specific difference between comparative cross-sectional distances may
vary based on particular application and material properties. For example,
a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that materials
having high tensile strength will more readily grip copper, meaning that the
degree of undercutting and burrowing (that is to say the amount which the
cross-sectional distance distant the surface is greater than the distance
proximate the surface) can be lesser than a material with lower tensile
strength.
Doc. 200-3 at ¶¶ 35-37.
21
As noted above, the Supreme Court recently held that “a patent’s claims, viewed
22
in light of the specification and prosecution history, [must] inform those skilled in the art
23
about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc., 134 S. Ct. at
24
2129. After Nautilis, the Federal Circuit explained that “[t]he claims, when read in light
25
of the specification and the prosecution history, must provide objective boundaries for
26
those of skill in the art.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1371 (Fed.
27
Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit also explained that “[w]hen a ‘word of degree’ is used,
28
the court must determine whether the patent provides ‘some standard for measuring that
- 28 -
1
degree.’” Biosig inst., Inc. v. Nautilis, Inc., 783 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
2
(quoting Enzo Biochem, 599 F.3d at 1332).
3
Although it is a close question, the Court concludes that the patents satisfy this
4
standard. Language from the specification quoted above explains that the cavities should
5
extend under the surface of the dielectric material (“actually burrowed under the
6
dielectric material”) so that the teeth that fill the cavities “mechanical[ly] grip” the
7
dielectric material. ’582 Patent at 1:58 to 2:3. This suggests that the base of the cavity
8
should not be perfectly aligned with the surface of cavity, the sides of the cavity forming
9
a perpendicular wall, but instead should be sufficiently offset from the surface opening to
10
permit the tooth to engage the dielectric material in a mechanical grip. The Court
11
concludes that one skilled in the art could determine the extent to which the cavity must
12
extend under the dielectric material to permit such a mechanical grip. The claims provide
13
additional guidance by stating that the peel strength formed by these gripping teeth must
14
exceed the peel strength of a layer created by a single-pass desmear process. And Figure
15
1 provides further explanation, illustrating the kinds of cavities and teeth intended by the
16
patent.
17
Admittedly, this language requires some judgment by persons skilled in the art,
18
but it is judgment informed by the intended function of the cavities (to create a
19
mechanical grip), the result that should be realized (peel strength greater than single-pass
20
desmearing creates), and the illustration in Figure 1. As the Federal Circuit explained
21
after Nautilis, “absolute or mathematical precision is not required.” Interval Leasing, 766
22
F.3d at 1370. The Federal Circuit also favorably cited its previous holding that the
23
phrase “not interfering substantially” was not indefinite even though the construction
24
“define[d] the term without reference to a precise numerical measurement.”
25
Biochem, 599 F.3d at 1335.
26
27
28
- 29 -
Enzo
1
E.
Indefiniteness Conclusion.
2
With respect to the claims in Category 4, the Court concludes that Defendants
3
have not satisfied their “clear and convincing” burden of showing that the claims are
4
indefinite.
5
Dated this 9th day of August, 2017.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- 30 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?