throbber
Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 117 Filed 03/29/16 Page 1 of 6
`
`
`STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
`George C. Summerfield
`(summerfield@stadheimgrear.com)
`400 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Telephone: (312) 755-4400
`Facsimile: (312) 755-4408
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`and Third-Party Plaintiff
`DANIEL L. FLAMM
`
`
`
`REDACTED VERSION OF
`DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`LAM RESEARCH CORP,
`
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DANIEL L. FLAMM,
`
`Third-Party Plaintiff,
`
`
`
` v.
`
`GLOBALFOUNDRIES U.S. INC.; INTEL
`CORPORATION; MAXIM INTEGRATED
`PRODUCTS, INC.; and MICRON
`TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`
`
`Third-Party Defendants.
`
`Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Daniel L. Flamm hereby alleges, by way of
`amended third-party complaint against GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc., Intel Corporation,
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., and Micron Technology, Inc. (collectively, “third-party
`defendants”) as follows:
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`
`1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 117 Filed 03/29/16 Page 2 of 6
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`1.
`Dr. Flamm is the owner and inventor (or co-inventor) of United States
`Patent Nos. 5,711,849 entitled “Process Optimization in Gas Phase Dry Etching”;
`6,017,221 entitled “Process Depending on Plasma Discharges Sustained by Inductive
`Coupling”; and RE40,264 entitled “Multi-Temperature Processing” (collectively, “the
`Flamm Patents”). The Flamm Patents involve methods used in the fabrication of
`semiconductors.
`
`PARTIES
`2.
`Dr. Flamm is an individual who resides in Walnut Creek, California.
`3.
`GlobalFoundries U.S., Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of
`the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 2600 Great America Way,
`Santa Clara Gateway, Santa Clara, CA 95054.
`4.
`Intel Corporation is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`Delaware with its principal place of business at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa
`Clara, CA 95054.
`5.
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws
`of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 160 Rio Robles, San Jose,
`CA 95134.
`6.
`Micron Technology, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the
`State of Delaware with its principal place of business at 8000 S. Federal Way, Boise, ID
`83716. Micron Technology maintains a place of business at Tasman Technology Park,
`540 Alder Drive, Milpitas, CA 95035.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`7.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`8.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the third-party defendants
`because each of themhave sufficient minimum contacts with this forum as a result of
`business conducted within the State of California. Personal jurisdiction exists
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 117 Filed 03/29/16 Page 3 of 6
`
`specifically over each of the third-party defendants because each of them, directly or
`through subsidiaries or intermediaries, has done business in the State of California, has
`committed acts of infringement, and continues to commit acts of infringement in the State
`of California, and/or
` within this judicial district, which
`gives rise to Dr. Flamm’s third-party complaint.
`9.
`Venue is proper in this judicial district under 35 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b),
`1391(c), and 1400(b).
`
`FACTS
`Lam filed its Amended Complaint in this action on or about August 28,
`
`10.
`
`2015.
`
`In its Amended Complaint, Lam seeks a declaration of non-infringement
`11.
`of each of the Flamm Patents.
`12.
`Lam further seeks a declaration that: “Lam and its customers do not design
`or use its products in an infringing manner” for each of the Flamm Patents.
`13.
`
`
`
`COUNT I
`Infringement of the ‘849 Patent (Against All Defendants)
`Dr. Flamm hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1
`14.
`through 13, as if fully set forth herein.
`15.
`
`On January 27, 1998, United States Patent No. 5,711,849 (“the ‘849
`
`Patent”) was issued for inventions titled “Process Optimization in Gas Phase Dry
`Etching.” A true and correct copy of the ‘849 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A to
`Lam’s Amended Complaint. Dr. Flamm is the co-inventor and sole owner of the ‘849
`Patent.
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`3
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 117 Filed 03/29/16 Page 4 of 6
`
`16.
`
`Upon information and belief, the third-party defendants directly infringe
`
`the claims of the ‘849
` equipment that the third-party defendants
` and/or by using
`may have purchased from Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Tokyo Electron Ltd. to
`manufacture integrated circuits in a manner that infringes the patents in-suit.
`17.
`The infringement of the ‘849 Patent by third-party defendants has
`damaged Dr. Flamm, and Dr. Flamm is entitled to recover from third-party defendants
`the damages he has suffered as a result of their wrongful acts of infringement in an
`amount subject to proof at trial.
`
`COUNT II
`Infringement of the ‘221 Patent (Against All Defendants)
`Dr. Flamm hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1
`18.
`through 17, as if fully set forth herein.
`19.
`On January 25, 2000, United States Patent No. 6,017,221 (“the ‘221
`Patent”) was issued for inventions titled “Process Depending on Plasma Discharges
`Sustained by Inductive Coupling.” A true and correct copy of the ‘221 Patent is attached
`hereto as Exhibit B to Lam’s Amended Complaint. Dr. Flamm is the inventor and sole
`owner of the ‘221 Patent.
`20.
`Upon information and belief, third-party defendants directly infringe the
`claims of the ‘221 patent by
` equipment that the third-party defendants may
` and/or by using
`have purchased from Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Tokyo Electron Ltd. to manufacture
`integrated circuits in a manner that infringes the patents in-suit.
`21.
`The infringement of the ‘221 Patent by third-party defendants has
`damaged Dr. Flamm, and Dr. Flamm is entitled to recover from third-party defendants
`the damages he has suffered as a result of their wrongful acts of infringement in an
`amount subject to proof at trial.
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`4
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 117 Filed 03/29/16 Page 5 of 6
`
`COUNT III
`Infringement of the ‘264 Patent (Against All Defendants)
`Dr. Flamm hereby incorporates the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1
`22.
`through 21, as if fully set forth herein.
`23.
`On April 29, 2008, United States Patent No. RE 40,264 (“the ‘264
`Patent”) was issued for inventions titled “Multi-Temperature Processing.” A true and
`correct copy of the ‘264 Patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C to Lam’s Amended
`
`Complaint. Dr. Flamm is the inventor and sole owner of the ‘264 Patent.
`24.
`Upon information and belief, third-party defendants directly infringe the
`
`b)
`
`claims of the ‘264 patent
` equipment that the third-party defendants may
` and/or by using
`have purchased from Applied Materials, Inc. and/or Tokyo Electron Ltd. to manufacture
`integrated circuits in a manner that infringes the patents in-suit.
`25.
`The infringement of the ‘264 Patent by third-party defendants has
`damaged Dr. Flamm, and Dr. Flamm is entitled to recover from third-party defendants
`the damages he has suffered as a result of their wrongful acts of infringement in an
`amount subject to proof at trial.
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`WHEREFORE, Dr. Flamm prays for entry of judgment:
`a)
`that third-party defendants have infringed one or more claims of the ‘849
`Patent;
`that third-party defendants have infringed one or more claims of the ‘221
`Patent;
`that third-party defendants have infringed one or more claims of the ‘264
`Patent;
`awarding Dr. Flamm sufficient damages to compensate Dr. Flamm for
`such infringement;
`
`c)
`
`d)
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`5
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`Daniel L. Flamm hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
`
`
`January 15, 2016
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 5:15-cv-01277-BLF Document 117 Filed 03/29/16 Page 6 of 6
`
`
`
`e)
`f)
`g)
`
`
`awarding Dr. Flamm his attorneys’ fees incurred in this action;
`awarding costs to Dr. Flamm; and
`such further relief as the Court deems appropriate.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
`By: /s/ George C. Summerfield
`George C. Summerfield
`(summerfield@stadheimgrear.com)
`STADHEIM & GREAR, LTD.
`400 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2200
`Chicago, Illinois 60611
`Telephone: (312) 755-4400
`Facsimile: (312) 755-4408
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Daniel L. Flamm
`
`AMENDED THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT
`Case No. 4:15-cv-01277-BLF
`
`
`6
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket