Semicaps PTE Ltd v. Hamamatsu Corporation et al

Filing 75

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 66 Defendant's Motion for Leave to File a Motion for Reconsideration. Signed on 11/5/2019. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SEMICAPS PTE LTD,

8

Plaintiff,
v.

9

HAMAMATSU CORPORATION, et al.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-03440-DMR
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Re: Dkt. No. 66

Plaintiff SEMICAPS Pte Ltd. (“SEMICAPS”) filed this patent case against Defendants

12
13

Hamamatsu Corporation, Hamamatsu Photonics K.K., and Photonics Management Corp.

14

(collectively, “Hamamatsu”), alleging that Hamamatsu infringes the claims of U.S. Patent No.

15

7,623,982 (the “‘982 patent”). Hamamatsu moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the

16

asserted claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. On August 16, 2019, the court

17

denied Hamamatsu’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Hamamatsu now moves for leave to file a

18

motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 16, 2019 order. For the following reasons, the

19

motion is denied.

20

I.

21

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The ‘982 patent is titled “Method of Testing an Electronic Circuit and Apparatus Thereof.”

22

The court recited the relevant details of the technology and asserted claims at length in its order

23

denying the motion to dismiss. SEMICAPS Pte Ltd. v. Hamamatsu Corp., 393 F. Supp. 3d 802,

24

804-06 (N.D. Cal. 2019). In brief, the ‘982 patent relates to a method of and apparatus for testing

25

electronic circuits using a laser in order to determine the location of defects on a semiconductor

26

circuit. The ‘982 patent’s background information describes the problem the patent seeks to solve,

27

explaining that advances in integrated circuit technology have reduced the detection sensitivity of

28

laser induced techniques to perform fault localization testing. Conventional approaches to

1

improve detection sensitivity, such as increasing the power of the laser beam and using lock-in

2

amplifiers, have not been entirely successful. The ‘982 patent attempts to increase detection

3

sensitivity in laser-based fault detection systems without increasing the power of the laser beam or

4

using lock-in amplifiers. Id. The claimed method “comprises radiating a laser beam onto the

5

electronic circuit, and determining a plurality of samples of a response signal output by the

6

electronic circuit during the period when the laser beam is radiated.” Id. at 805 (quotation

7

omitted). “A signal processor process[es] the sample measurements of the response signal of the

8

electronic circuit under test by accumulat[ing] the plurality of samples to generate a value, and

9

then generat[ing] a test result based on the value generated.” Id. (quotation omitted). “Based on
the generated value, a fault on the electronic circuit may appear as a bright spot, bright line, or

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

bright area at a pixel location corresponding to the location of the fault on the electronic circuit.”

12

Id. (quotation omitted).

13

Hamamatsu moved pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the

14

complaint, arguing that the asserted claims of the ‘982 patent are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for

15

failing to claim patent-eligible subject matter.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

In its order denying the motion to dismiss, the court set forth the Supreme Court’s two-part
test for determining whether a claim’s subject matter falls outside Section 101:
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us?” To answer that question, we consider
the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered
combination” to determine whether the additional elements
“transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application.
We have described step two of this analysis as a search for an
“‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements
that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Id. at 808-09 (quoting Alice Corp. Pty. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (internal

24
citations omitted, alterations in original).
25
At the first step of the Alice inquiry, Hamamatsu argued that the representative claims are
26
directed to the abstract idea of collecting data and processing it to generate a test result. It asserted
27

“that this case is similar to those that found that the claims are abstract where they are directed to

28
2

1

some combination of collecting and/or analyzing information and presenting the results of those

2

processes,” including Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.

3

2016). Id. at 810 (quotation omitted). Hamamatsu also argued that “the inclusion of hardware and

4

software components in the asserted claims does not change the abstract focus of the claims.” Id.

5

at 812. In response, SEMICAPS disputed Hamamatsu’s framing and argued that the claims are

6

“directed to a specific technological problem, namely, improving fault detection sensitivity in

7

laser-based testing of integrated circuits,” and that the patent “describes and claims a specific

8

solution to that problem.” Id. at 812 (quotations omitted).
The court found that “Hamamatsu’s characterization of the ‘982 patent as directed to the

9

processes of collecting and analyzing information and presenting the results of those processes

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

[was] overly reductive” and “ignore[d] the technical context of the patent and the claimed

12

improvements over the prior art.” Id. at 814. The court described the asserted claims as follows:
The ‘982 patent explains how advancements in integrated circuits,
including the use of more metallization layers and materials with
lower thermal conductivity, have resulted in the need for increased
fault detection sensitivity. It describes the problems inherent with
existing approaches and sets forth a new system for testing integrated
circuits that enables the detection of otherwise undetectable response
signals. Claim 1 describes the claimed method, which involves
radiating a laser beam onto the electronic circuit, determining a
plurality of samples of a response signal output during the period the
laser is radiated, accumulating the plurality of samples to generate a
value, and generating a test result based on the value. Claim 21 sets
forth the claimed apparatus, comprised of a laser beam source to
radiate a laser beam onto the electronic circuit, a control system to
direct the laser beam source to dwell on a certain location on the
electronic circuit, a measuring circuit to determine a plurality of
samples, and a signal processor to accumulate the plurality of samples
to generate a value and a corresponding test result.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

These claims describe a method and apparatus that enable the
detection of response signals that were otherwise undetectable using
prior art methods due to insufficient sensitivity, and the corresponding
analysis of such response signals in order to determine the location of
a fault on an electronic circuit.

23
24
25

Id. at 814-15. The court distinguished the claims of the ‘982 patent from the claims at issue in

26

Electric Power Group, which involved “accumulating existing data from disparate sources,

27

analyzing it, and displaying the results.” Id. at 815. In contrast with the Electric Power Group

28

claims,
3

the method disclosed in the ‘982 patent is not merely a process of
collecting readily observable data in the form of response signals and
analyzing it to localize faults on the circuit. Instead, the asserted
claims of the ‘982 patent describe a method of detecting response
signals that are otherwise undetectable using prior art methods. They
are therefore directed to a “new and useful technique” for performing
the specified task of using a laser to perform fault localization testing
of an electronic circuit.

1
2
3
4
5

Id. (citation omitted).
The court concluded that the asserted claims of the ‘982 patent are not directed to an

6

abstract idea, but instead “focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant

8

technology’ and are therefore directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101.” Id. at

9

817 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).

10

Accordingly, as the claims satisfied the step one Alice inquiry, the court did not reach the step two

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

analysis and denied the motion to dismiss. Id. (quoting Alice, 573 U.S. at 217).
Hamamatsu now seeks leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court’s August 16,

12
13

2019 order.

14

II.

LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-9, a party may seek leave to file a motion for reconsideration of

15
16

an interlocutory order at any time before judgment. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). A motion for

17

reconsideration may be made on one of three grounds: (1) a material difference in fact or law

18

exists from that which was presented to the court, which, in the exercise of reasonable diligence,

19

the party applying for reconsideration did not know at the time of the order for which

20

reconsideration is sought; (2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law; or (3) a

21

manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments presented

22

before such order. Civ. L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). The moving party may not reargue any written or oral

23

argument previously asserted to the court. Civ. L.R. 7-9(c). Whether to grant leave to file a

24

motion for reconsideration under Rule 7-9 is committed to the court’s sound discretion. See

25

Montebueno Mktg., Inc. v. Del Monte Corp.—USA, 570 Fed. App’x 675, 676 (9th Cir. 2014)

26

(citing Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007)).

27

III.

28

DISCUSSION
Hamamatsu argues that reconsideration is appropriate under Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), which
4

1

provides that reconsideration of an order may be granted upon a showing of the court’s “manifest

2

failure . . . to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the

3

Court before” the order. It argues that the order “was premised on a factual misunderstanding of

4

how the claimed invention operates compared to conventional systems known in the prior art.”

5

Mot. 1. Specifically, Hamamatsu asserts that the court erred in its conclusion that the claims are

6

directed to a technological improvement in the operation of a laser-induced testing system, that is,

7

“the improve[ment] [of] an existing technological process by which previously undetectable

8

response signals may be detected and analyzed to pinpoint the location of a fault on an electronic

9

circuit.” Id. (quoting SEMICAPS, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 815 (emphasis added)). According to

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Hamamatsu, this characterization of the invention is “factually incorrect.” Id. at 2.
Hamamatsu states that the “response signal” to which the ‘982 patent refers is a voltage or

12

current running through the electronic circuit being tested, and that voltage and current are the

13

types of response signals that conventional laser-induced testing systems were designed to detect.

14

Id. It notes that the ‘982 patent identifies prior art systems that measure response signals in the

15

form of voltage or current, and states that because the ‘982 patent “measures the same type of

16

response signals as conventional prior-art systems, it does not detect ‘response signals that are

17

otherwise undetectable’ or ‘previously undetectable.’” Id. Hamamatsu further contends that the

18

concept of “previously undetectable response signals” does not appear in the patent, and that the

19

patent does not propose improvements that would allow the claimed system to detect “previously

20

undetectable response signals.” Instead, Hamamatsu asserts, “[t]he claimed invention simply

21

collects more data by taking multiple samples of the voltage or current, and processes this data to

22

generate a test result.” Id. Hamamatsu contends that the court’s finding that the claimed invention

23

enables the detection of “previously undetectable response signals” led it to determine incorrectly

24

that the claims of the ‘982 patent are not abstract, and repeats its argument that the reasoning in

25

Electric Power Group applies here. Id. at 3.

26

Hamamatsu’s argument boils down to word choice rather than material factual error. As

27

set forth in the order, the ‘982 patent discusses how conventional approaches to improve the

28

detection sensitivity of laser induced techniques, such as increasing the power of the laser beam
5

1

and using lock-in amplifiers, “have not been entirely successful.” Specifically, the patent explains

2

that increasing the power of the laser beam carries the potential for “laser induced damage on the

3

integrated circuit under test,” and that “lock-in amplifiers are not used in a real-time integrated

4

circuit testing environment because accurate calibration and fine control of the lock-in amplifier

5

parameters is typically difficult to achieve in practice.” SEMICAPS, 393 F. Supp. 3d at 804-05

6

(quotations omitted). The patent then identifies a new system for testing integrated circuits that

7

improves detection sensitivity without using those conventional approaches. Id.
The court acknowledges that it is not entirely accurate to characterize the claimed method

8

as a process by which “previously undetectable response signals may be detected.” It is more

10

precise to state that the ‘982 patent claims a method that improves the detection sensitivity of

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

laser-based fault detection systems. In fact, the order repeatedly describes it as such. See id. at

12

804, 805, 815; see also id. at 810, 814 (describing SEMICAPS’s assertion that the representative

13

claims are directed to “improving fault detection sensitivity”).
Employing a more accurate description does not drive a different substantive outcome.

14
15

The court’s analysis under Alice still stands. However, in order to dispel any confusion, the court

16

will issue an amended order on Hamamatsu’s motion to dismiss that clarifies that the ‘982 patent

17

“sets forth a new system for testing integrated circuits that improves detection sensitivity of

18

response signals,” “describe[s] a method and apparatus that enable the detection of response

19

signals due to improved detection sensitivity,” describes “a method of achieving improved

20

detection sensitivity of response signals”; and “claim[s] a step-by-step method to improve an

21

existing technological process by which response signals may be detected and analyzed to

22

pinpoint the location of a fault on an electronic circuit.” See id. at 815.

23

//

24

//

25

//

26

//

27

//

28
6

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Hamamatsu’s motion for leave to file a motion for

2
reconsideration is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: November 5, 2019
6

9
10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

FO

H

ER

LI

RT

8

______________________________________
Donna M. Ryu . Ryu
nna M
Unitedudge Do
J States Magistrate Judge

NO

7

DERED

O OR
IT IS S

R NIA

UNIT
ED

4

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

3

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7

A

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C