Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.

423 F. Supp. 2d 624, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15677
CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Texas
DecidedMarch 22, 2006
DocketCiv.A. 2:05CV94
StatusPublished

This text of 423 F. Supp. 2d 624 (Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 624, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15677 (E.D. Tex. 2006).

Opinion

423 F.Supp.2d 624 (2006)

TESSERA, INC., Plaintiff
v.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. et al., Defendants.

No. Civ.A. 2:05CV94.

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Marshall Division.

March 22, 2006.

*625 Harry Lee Gillam, Jr, Melissa Richards Smith, Gillam & Smith, L.L.P., Franklin Jones, Jr, Jones & Jones, Marshall, TX, Benjamin W. Hattenbach, Charles E. Elder, Edward Hsieh, Ellisen S. Turner, Jonathan H. Steinberg, Joseph M. Lipner, Morgan Chu, Peter Shimamoto, Trevor V. Stockinger, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Elizabeth L. Derieux, Sidney Calvin Capshaw, III, Brown McCarroll, Thomas John Ward, Jr, Law Office of T. John Ward Jr PC, Longview, TX, Jack Wesley Hill, Otis W. Carroll, Jr, Ireland Carroll & Kelley, PC, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff.

David L. Witcoff, Matthew David Kellam, Stacy Ann Bairn, Jones Day, Chicago, IL, Adrian Mary Pruetz, Diane Cafferata Hutnyan, Dominic Surprenant, Gerald Edward Hawxhurst, John B. Quinn, Jon Robert Steiger, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Allen Franklin Gardner, Michael Edwin Jones, Potter Minton PC, Tyler, TX, Kajeer *626 Yar, Michael J. Newton, Jones Day, Gregory Neugebauer, Roger Knapp, Stephen Wyse, Slater & Matsil, Dallas, TX, Michelle K. Fischer, Robert H. Rawson, Jr, Jones Day, Cleveland, OH, Eric Miller Albritton, Attorney at Law, Longview, TX, Gregory S. Arovas, John M. Desmarais, Thomas D. Pease, Kirkland & Ellis, New York, NY, Thomas J. Lang, Kirkland & Ellis, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

LOVE, United States Magistrate Judge.

This claim construction Opinion construes terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,679,977 ("the '977 patent"); 5,852,326 ("the '326 patent"); 6,133,627 ("the '627 patent"); 6,433,419 ("the '419 patent"); 6,465,893 ("the '893 patent").

Background

The patents in suit collectively deal with semiconductor packaging, the technology that protects delicate semiconductor chips ("chips") from the outside environment while allowing the chips to connect to other semiconductor chips and with the devices they support, such as cell phones or computers. Signals emanating from inside the chip are conducted to electrical contacts that are connected to terminals, which are situated on the outside of the package and facilitate communication with the outside. As technology advanced, chips became smaller, faster, and hotter, meaning chip packages had to shrink while resolving the problems posed by cyclical heating and cooling caused by turning devices on and off.

As chips got smaller, the area available to arrange terminals on the packages also shrank, and package engineers developed the ball grid array package ("BGA") which uses tiny solder balls to electrically and mechanically connect the terminals to a substrate on the host device, such as a printed circuit board ("PCB"). These solder balls enable communication between the chip and the device that relies on the chip, so if the solder balls fail, the device fails.

The most common cause of solder ball failure is stress resulting from thermal cycling, the repeated heating and cooling of devices. When a device is turned on, it heats up and the internal components expand to different degrees depending on their coefficients of thermal expansion ("CTE"). The silicon chip embedded in the chip package has a lower CTE than the PCB, thus, the chip package as a whole has a lower CTE than the PCB. Therefore, the solder balls are situated between two components that, when heated, expand at significantly different rates and wrench the solder balls out of shape until the device cools, allowing the solder balls to return to their original size and shape. Over time, this repeated stress can lead solder balls to crack and fail.

Tessera's inventions aim to reduce the stress on the solder balls by allowing the chip package, and the terminals situated thereon, to expand more independently of the chip when heated. A piece of flexible or compliant material is placed between the chip and the package substrate so that the package substrate is less restricted from expanding when heated. The flexible interposer or compliant layer facilitates this expansion, and allows the terminals situated on the package substrate to move relative to the chip contacts. Flexible leads connecting the chip contacts to the terminals enable the relative movement between these components, and may be encased in a compliant encapsulant that protects the leads, but does not prevent them from moving to accommodate the relative shift between the contacts and terminals.

*627 Applicable Law

"It is a `bedrock principle' of patent law that the claims of a patent' define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.Cir.2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent's intrinsic evidence to define the patented invention's scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed.Cir.2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed.Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed.Cir. 2003).

The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term's context in the asserted claim can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim's meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term's meaning. Id. For example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.

Claims "must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Id. (quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 978 (Fed.Cir. 1995)). "[T]he specification `is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2002).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Curtiss-Wright Flow Control, Corp. v. Velan, Inc.
438 F.3d 1374 (Federal Circuit, 2006)
Vitronics Corporation v. Conceptronic, Inc.
90 F.3d 1576 (Federal Circuit, 1996)
Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corporation
156 F.3d 1182 (Federal Circuit, 1998)
Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc.
381 F.3d 1352 (Federal Circuit, 2004)
Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Technologies Corp.
182 F. Supp. 2d 580 (E.D. Texas, 2002)
Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.
423 F. Supp. 2d 624 (E.D. Texas, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
423 F. Supp. 2d 624, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tessera-inc-v-micron-technology-inc-txed-2006.