Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No.
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
`Korean business entity,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
`California corporation,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., a New York corporation,
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company, and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Elm 3DS”), by its attorneys,
`
`for its complaint against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and its U.S.
`
`subsidiaries and related entities Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Austin
`
`Semiconductor, LLC (individually or collectively “Defendants” or “Samsung”) hereby
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., for infringing the following Elm 3DS patents:
`
`1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS, LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No.
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
`Korean business entity,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a
`California corporation,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., a New York corporation,
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company, and
`SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
`LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Elm 3DS”), by its attorneys,
`
`for its complaint against Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and its U.S.
`
`subsidiaries and related entities Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, and Samsung Austin
`
`Semiconductor, LLC (individually or collectively “Defendants” or “Samsung”) hereby
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., for infringing the following Elm 3DS patents:
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 2
`
`(a)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,193,239 (“Leedy ’239 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Integrated Circuit,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations,
`
`LLC (attached as Ex. 1);
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 7,504,732 (“Leedy ’732 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 2);
`
`(c)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,035,233 (“Leedy ’233 patent”), entitled “Adjacent
`
`Substantially Flexible Substrates Having Integrated Circuits That Are Bonded
`
`Together By Non-Polymeric Layer,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 3);
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 8,410,617 (“Leedy ’617 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 4);
`
`(e)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,629,542 (“Leedy ’542 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 5);
`
`(f)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,653,672 (“Leedy ’672 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 6);
`
`(g) U.S. Patent No. 8,796,862 (“Leedy ’862 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 7);
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 3
`
`(h) U.S. Patent No. 8,824,159 (“Leedy ’159 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 8);
`
`(i)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,841,778 (“Leedy ’778 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” owned by Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC
`
`(attached as Ex. 9).
`
`2.
`
`The Elm 3DS patents cover foundational semiconductor technologies in
`
`the design and manufacture of three-dimensional integrated circuits such as memory,
`
`processors, and image sensors. These fundamental technologies reduce manufacturing
`
`costs while improving speed and efficiency. Among other things, the Elm 3DS patents
`
`disclose technologies that enable semiconductor manufacturers to stack multiple
`
`integrated circuits (“die”) on top of one another within one integrated circuit package,
`
`and to form interconnect circuitry for communication among the stacked die, including
`
`interconnect circuitry passing through silicon substrates in stacked integrated circuits.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung has infringed and continues to infringe the Elm 3DS patents,
`
`directly and indirectly, by making using, selling, offering for sale, and/or importing
`
`into the United States, semiconductor products with multiple stacked die and/or
`
`electronics products containing the same; and by encouraging third parties to use, sell,
`
`offer for sale, and/or import into the United States, Samsung semiconductor products
`
`with multiple stacked die and/or electronics products containing the same, with
`
`knowledge of the Elm 3DS patents and in the infringement resulting therefrom.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 4
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`4.
`
`Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company with
`
`its principal address at 26147 Carmelo Street, Carmel, California 93923. Elm 3DS owns
`
`patents, originally issued to its President, inventor Glenn J. Leedy, covering Mr. Leedy’s
`
`groundbreaking technology for thinning, vertically stacking and interconnecting
`
`integrated circuits.
`
`5.
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a Korean business entity that lists
`
`its global headquarters as 129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si, Gyeonggi-do,
`
`Republic of Korea. On information and belief, SEC is the global leader in the electronics
`
`market, which includes computer memory and consumer electronics products such as
`
`mobile phones and tablet computers. On information and belief, SEC is the second
`
`largest semiconductor manufacturer in the world, and the leader in DRAM, NAND
`
`Flash, solid state drives (“SSDs”), mobile DRAM and graphics memory. On
`
`information and belief, SEC designs, manufactures, has manufactured, uses, offers for
`
`sale, sells and/or imports into the United States—including into Delaware—billions of
`
`dollars of computer memory and consumer electronics each year.
`
`6.
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) is a New York corporation
`
`that lists its headquarters as 85 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660.
`
`SEA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEC. On information and belief, SEA markets,
`
`uses, offers for sale, sells and/or imports into the United States—including into
`
`Delaware—various electronics products including, plasma TVs and cameras; computer
`
`monitors, laser printers and solid state drives; and handheld wireless smartphones.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 5
`
`7.
`
`Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“SSI”) is a California corporation that lists
`
`its headquarters as 3655 North First Street, San Jose, California 95134. SSI is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of SEC. On information and belief, SSI manufactures, has
`
`manufactured, uses, offers for sale, sells and/or imports into the United States—
`
`including into Delaware—various semiconductor products including DRAM, NAND
`
`Flash, SSDs, mobile DRAM, graphics memory, and system logic.
`
`8.
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company that lists its headquarters as 1301 East Lookout Drive,
`
`Richardson, Texas 75082. STA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SEC and SEA. On
`
`information and belief, STA markets, sells, or offers for sale, and/or imports into the
`
`United States—including into Delaware—a variety of personal and business
`
`communication devices, including mobile phones and tablet computers.
`
`9.
`
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC (“SAS”) is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company that lists its headquarters as 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, TX
`
`78754. On information and belief, SAS operates as a subsidiary of SSI. On information
`
`and belief, SAS operates a semiconductor fabrication plant in Austin, TX, where it
`
`manufactures, has manufactured, uses, offers for sale, sells and/or imports into the
`
`United States—including into Delaware—NAND flash memory and system logic.
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`10.
`
`This is an action for patent infringement, over which this Court has
`
`subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 6
`
`11.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants
`
`consistent with the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the United States
`
`Constitution and the Delaware Long Arm Statute. On information and belief, each
`
`Defendant transacts substantial business in Delaware, and/or has committed and
`
`continues to commit acts of patent infringement in Delaware as alleged in this
`
`Complaint. In addition, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and Samsung
`
`Austin Semiconductor, LLC are incorporated under the laws of Delaware. Further, on
`
`information and belief, the Defendants have admitted or not contested proper personal
`
`jurisdiction in this District in other patent infringement actions.
`
`VENUE
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391 (b)-(d) and
`
`1400(b) because Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, each has
`
`committed acts of patent infringement in this District, each has purposefully availed
`
`itself of the rights and benefits of Delaware law and regularly does and solicits business
`
`in Delaware, and each derives substantial revenue from things used or consumed in
`
`this District. Further, on information and belief, the Defendants have admitted or not
`
`contested proper venue in this District in other patent infringement actions.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`The Elm 3DS Patents
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff solely owns all rights, titles, and interests in and to the following
`
`United States patents (collectively, the “Elm 3DS Patents”), including the exclusive
`
`rights to bring suit with respect to any past, present, and future infringement thereof:
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 7
`
`(a)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 7,193,239 (“Leedy ’239 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Integrated Circuit,” which was duly and legally
`
`issued on March 20, 2007, from a patent application filed July 3, 2003, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’239 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`(b) U.S. Patent No. 7,504,732 (“Leedy ’732 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`March 17, 2009, from a patent application filed August 19, 2002, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’732 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`(c)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,035,233 (“Leedy ’233 patent”), entitled “Adjacent
`
`Substantially Flexible Substrates Having Integrated Circuits That Are Bonded
`
`Together By Non-Polymeric Layer,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`October 11, 2011, from a patent application filed March 3, 2003, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’233 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 8
`
`(d) U.S. Patent No. 8,410,617 (“Leedy ’617 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`April 2, 2013, from a patent application filed July 4, 2009, with Glenn J.
`
`Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’617 patent claims priority from
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued on June 22,
`
`1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with Glenn J. Leedy
`
`as the named inventor;
`
`(e) U.S. Patent No. 8,629,542 (“Leedy ’542 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`January 14, 2014, from a patent application filed March 17, 2009, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’542 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`(f)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,653,672 (“Leedy ’672 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`February 18, 2014, from a patent application filed May 27, 2010, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’672 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 9
`
` (g) U.S. Patent No. 8,796,862 (“Leedy ’862 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`August 5, 2014, from a patent application filed August 9, 2013, with Glenn
`
`J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’862 patent claims priority
`
`from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued on June
`
`22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with Glenn J.
`
`Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`(h) U.S. Patent No. 8,824,159 (“Leedy ’159 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`September 2, 2014, from a patent application filed March 31, 2009, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’159 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor;
`
`(i)
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,841,778 (“Leedy ’778 patent”), entitled “Three
`
`Dimensional Structure Memory,” which was duly and legally issued on
`
`September 23, 2014, from a patent application filed August 9, 2013, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor. The Leedy ’778 patent claims
`
`priority from U.S. Patent No. 5,915,167, which was duly and legally issued
`
`on June 22, 1999, from a patent application filed on April 4, 1997, with
`
`Glenn J. Leedy as the named inventor.
`
`Each of the Elm 3DS Patents is valid and enforceable.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 10
`
`14.
`
`The Elm 3DS Patents disclose three-dimensional integrated circuit
`
`structures and methods for manufacturing the same. In one exemplary embodiment,
`
`the patents disclose a three-dimensional structure with thinned and polished integrated
`
`circuit substrates that are stacked on top of one another and electrically connected. The
`
`disclosed technology enhances memory speed and efficiency because the signal paths
`
`are shorter. The disclosed technology also improves memory density because multiple
`
`storage arrays can be stacked within a single package that meets industry form-factor
`
`requirements. Industry implementations are referred to as “stacked” memories that are
`
`electrically connected with either wire bonds or through-silicon vias (“TSV”).
`
`II. The Inventor
`
`15. Glenn J. Leedy is the sole named inventor on the Elm 3DS Patents. Mr.
`
`Leedy has been involved in the information technology industry since the 1960s.
`
`Working first for established IT companies such as IBM and Fairchild Semiconductor,
`
`and eventually as an independent inventor, Mr. Leedy has consistently developed
`
`essential technologies that have significantly advanced the state of the art. Today, Mr.
`
`Leedy’s foundational inventions are used in literally billions of semiconductor products
`
`around the world.
`
`16. Mr. Leedy graduated from the University of Michigan with a degree in
`
`Mathematics, in 1968.
`
`17. After working at IBM, the University of Michigan, Sycor and ComShare,
`
`Mr. Leedy joined Digital Equipment Corporation (“DEC”) in 1976. While there, Mr.
`
`Leedy assisted in the design of DEC’s first 32-bit minicomputer, and in the development
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 11
`
`of the first 16-bit microprocessor. Mr. Leedy also invented a solution for providing
`
`high-speed backup and restore for large databases, an advance in the technology that
`
`saved DEC and its customers millions of dollars.
`
`18. Mr. Leedy joined Fairchild Semiconductor in 1978. While there, Mr.
`
`Leedy assisted in the development of gate-array programmable logic products. Mr.
`
`Leedy’s time at Fairchild also provided him with the opportunity to become familiar
`
`with the semiconductor fabrication processes used to manufacture the integrated
`
`circuits he helped design.
`
`19.
`
`In 1981, Mr. Leedy joined National Semiconductor. While there, Mr.
`
`Leedy assisted in the development of the computer industry’s first 32-bit
`
`microprocessor.
`
`20.
`
`In 1983, Mr. Leedy left National Semiconductor to start his own business:
`
`American Information Systems (“AIS”). Mr. Leedy formed his own business to
`
`continue inventing but with independent creative control and ownership of his
`
`inventions.
`
`21. Under Mr. Leedy’s direction, AIS developed and sold a 32-bit
`
`minicomputer. The minicomputer used the 32-bit National Semiconductor
`
`microprocessor Mr. Leedy had helped develop, and the minicomputer was instantly
`
`popular because it cost a fraction of the 32-bit DEC minicomputer Mr. Leedy worked on
`
`for his prior employer. AIS was short-lived, however, as National Semiconductor
`
`decided to cease manufacture and development of its 32-bit microprocessor. Without
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 12
`
`an affordable alternative 32-bit processor on the market, AIS’ cost-performance
`
`advantage disappeared and it was forced to shut down.
`
`22. After AIS, Mr. Leedy worked for General Research for several years before
`
`again going into business for himself in 1989. Mr. Leedy then devoted himself to
`
`finding solutions to the various technological challenges he had encountered during his
`
`two decades in the IT industry. Over the next few years, Mr. Leedy developed the
`
`technologies underlying two patent portfolios that disclose and claim foundational
`
`inventions found in modern semiconductors the world over.
`
`23.
`
`In the early 1990s, Mr. Leedy applied for and received a portfolio of
`
`patents built around his Membrane Dielectric Isolation (“MDI”) technology. The MDI
`
`technology uses a thin, flexible membrane of dielectric material to electrically isolate
`
`semiconductor devices such as transistors, which can then be used to form test circuitry.
`
`24. Mr. Leedy developed the MDI technology in an effort to develop a
`
`semiconductor-grade dielectric that could serve as a membrane for testing bare
`
`integrated circuits. Mr. Leedy first worked on integrated circuit fabrication equipment
`
`in the basement of a friend, and later with an integrated circuit equipment
`
`manufacturer. One key aspect of the MDI technology was Mr. Leedy’s development of
`
`a tensile low-stress dielectric that could be fabricated into a flexible, free-standing
`
`membrane. The ductile characteristics of the novel membrane permitted “at speed”
`
`testing of integrated circuits while in wafer form.
`
`25. Mr. Leedy’s MDI technology enabled testing methods and devices that
`
`ultimately became essential components in the semiconductor manufacturing process, a
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 13
`
`fact validated by Mr. Leedy’s sale of the MDI patent portfolio in 2008 to Taiwan
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., the world’s largest semiconductor foundry.
`
`26.
`
`Following the successful development of his MDI technology, Mr. Leedy
`
`next applied for and received a portfolio of patents built around his Three-Dimensional
`
`Stacked “3DS” integrated circuit technology. The 3DS technology uses thinned,
`
`polished, flexible substrates to form vertical stacks of integrated circuits that are
`
`connected to one another using either wire-bonds, or vertical interconnects that pass
`
`through the stacked substrates.
`
`27. Mr. Leedy developed the 3DS technology in an effort to solve the
`
`processor-memory bottleneck—a longstanding barrier in computer-system design. The
`
`bottleneck arises when a computer’s processor is able to request and process data faster
`
`than the memory is able to provide it. Mr. Leedy believed that building the memory
`
`vertically, by stacking memory circuits on top of each other, rather than laying the
`
`memory circuits out horizontally, would shorten the electrical paths used to read and
`
`write data, thereby improving memory read/write speeds. Mr. Leedy was the first to
`
`understand that, in order to obtain an acceptable yield when stacking and connecting
`
`multiple thinned and polished integrated circuits, one needed to use a tensile low-stress
`
`dielectric layer to retain the structural integrity of the thinned and polished substrates.
`
`This prevented the substrates from cracking or warping, which can cause “bad” die.
`
`28. Mr. Leedy maintains control over the Elm 3DS portfolio to this day, as
`
`Elm 3DS’s President, and has been extremely active in its development. In preparing
`
`the 3DS technology for patenting, Mr. Leedy drafted a rich specification that provides—
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 14
`
`among other things—a detailed account of the technical aspects of his inventions, the
`
`benefits associated with the inventions, and various embodiments of the inventions.
`
`The disclosures in the specification have provided enormous benefit to the
`
`semiconductor industry, and have also permitted Mr. Leedy to claim the technical
`
`aspects of his inventions across the portfolio in many different ways that the
`
`semiconductor industry can understand. He continues to prosecute a number of patent
`
`applications that arise from his groundbreaking inventions.
`
`29. Mr. Leedy’s 3DS technology has allowed semiconductor manufacturers to
`
`improve performance and to lower the “cost-per-bit” of memory storage. Using thin
`
`integrated circuits allows manufacturers to stack multiple integrated circuits in a single
`
`industry-standard package with a thickness of 1.2 mm, a feature demanded by form-
`
`factor sensitive industries such as servers and smartphones. Further, using vertical
`
`interconnects improves memory speed, reduces power consumption, and shrinks the
`
`integrated circuit footprint.
`
`30.
`
`Presently, all three leading memory manufacturers—Samsung, SK Hynix
`
`and Micron—use Mr. Leedy’s 3DS technology in various stacked semiconductor
`
`products. And in the future the industry’s adoption of Mr. Leedy’s 3DS technology will
`
`become more widespread, as the cost of propagating Moore’s Law and fitting more and
`
`more transistors on a single silicon die becomes increasingly cost-prohibitive.
`
`31.
`
`In 2006, the transistor design node used to fabricate leading
`
`microprocessors was 65 nm. Today, the transistor design node used to fabricate leading
`
`microprocessors is 22 nm. According to one industry report, constructing a
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 15
`
`semiconductor fabrication facility at the 65 nm transistor design node cost under $3
`
`billion, and designing a chip for fabrication on the 65 nm node cost under $50 million.
`
`http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1323755 (last accessed
`
`Nov. 20, 2014) (attached as Ex. 10.) According to the same report, constructing a
`
`semiconductor fabrication facility at the 22 nm node cost nearly $9 billion, and
`
`designing a chip for fabrication on the 22 nm node cost nearly $150 million.
`
`32. Mr. Leedy’s 3DS technology provides the solution to the compounding
`
`cost of semiconductor fabrication at smaller transistor nodes, by providing
`
`semiconductor manufacturers with the technologies needed to continue delivering
`
`faster, denser, and more efficient memories—it allows the manufacturers to expand
`
`memory up rather than out. The manufacturers’ adoption of this technology can be
`
`seen in their development of technologies such stacked NAND flash, the Hybrid
`
`Memory Cube (“HMC”), and TSV.
`
`III. The Meeting With Defendants
`
`33. Mr. Leedy personally met with Samsung in 2000 or 2001, shortly after
`
`issuance of the ’167 patent, the first in the 3DS family of patents, in 1999. During the
`
`meeting, Mr. Leedy provided Samsung with a slide presentation and a copy of the ’167
`
`patent, and explained the benefits of the patented technology. Mr. Leedy also explained
`
`that the technology was available to a limited number of licensees. Terms were not
`
`discussed, and a license agreement was never reached.
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 16
`
`IV. The Defendants’ Direct Infringement
`
`34. Despite not having a license to Mr. Leedy’s 3DS technology, Defendants
`
`have widely used it in their stacked memory products. Evidence of Defendants’
`
`infringement can be found on their website, at www.samsung.com, where Defendants
`
`describe their stacked semiconductor products.
`
`35. According to Samsung’s website, it uses “High-density Packaging
`
`Technology for Flash memory products, which stacks individual memory chips on top
`
`of one another within a single package with a low-profile, enabling the production of
`
`flash memory devices with the highest densities and storage capacities.” Samsung
`
`further states that “Internally, the die stack design for the flash memorystack [sic] is
`
`critical factors[sic] to determine the packaging yield, its reliability of products, and its
`
`form factor.” See http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/support/
`
`package-info/package-datasheet/flash (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014) (attached as Ex. 11.)
`
`36.
`
`Samsung’s website represents that the “The immediate advantage of this
`
`[die-stacking] approach is a significant saving in the total area occupied by the memory
`
`device. The die stack design is thus extensively used in flash memory for applications
`
`where space is severely restricted, such as mobile handsets, SSDs, and memory cards,
`
`among others.” This technology “is resulting in faster and higher capacity nonvolatile
`
`storage devices, such as solid state drives.” See Ex. 11. Samsung provides the following
`
`image of its die-stack design:
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 17 of 41 PageID #: 17
`
`37. According to Samsung, the die-stacking technology allows it to provide
`
`
`
`the following benefits:
`
` Ultra-high memory densities – Samsung flash memory is the highest density
`
`flash memory across the electronics and semiconductor segment. Samsung
`
`supplies 128 GB flash memory devices internally organized as 16-stack MCP
`
`flash memory, with 64 Gb per die.
`
` Lowest footprints and thinnest profiles – Samsung provides the smallest
`
`packages for all types of flash memory. Samsung’s processes make it easier to
`
`deploy the memory device in space-constrained applications such as SSD
`
`modules of notebooks, tablets and mobile handsets.
`
`38. An example of Samsung’s die-stacking technology in Flash NAND
`
`memory is shown below:
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 18 of 41 PageID #: 18
`
`DIE 1 DIE 2 DIE 3 DIE 4 DIE 5 DIE 6 DIE 7 DIE 8
`
`DIE 16 DIE 15 DIE 14 DIE 13 DIE 12 DIE 11 DIE 10 DIE 9
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Samsung’s website also describes its 3D V-NAND technology, which, in
`
`addition to stacking die vertically, stacks memory cells vertically. See http://www
`
`.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/html/product/flash-solution/vnand/
`
`overview.html (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014) (attached as Ex. 12.) On information and
`
`belief, Samsung offers 3D V-NAND in 2-stack, 4-stack, 8-stack and 16-stack
`
`configurations.
`
`40.
`
`Samsung’s website also discusses stacked memories in the context of its
`
`DRAM products. According to Samsung, the Flip Chip technology used in its DRAM
`
`packages means the products are suitable for future packaging technologies such as
`
`TSV. http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/support/package-
`
`info/package-datasheet/dram (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014) (attached as Ex. 13.)
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 19 of 41 PageID #: 19
`
`41.
`
`Samsung has represented that it is using TSV technology in its Wide IO
`
`Memory Solutions. According to a presentation, Samsung stated that it was applying
`
`3D TSV to Logic and Wide IO Memory. http://www.samsung.com/us/business/oem-
`
`solutions/pdfs/Web_DAC2012_TSV_demo-ah.pdf (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014)
`
`(attached as Ex. 14.)
`
`42. One example of Samsung’s use of Wide IO technology with TSV—
`
`marketed as Widcon—is its Exynos 5 Octa processor. Samsung states that TSV provides
`
`better energy efficiency, higher bandwidth, maximum performance even at low clock
`
`speeds, and superior thermal dissipation for full performance at low power. http://
`
`www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/minisite/Exynos/w/solution.ht
`
`ml#?v=octa_widcon (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014) (attached as Ex. 15.)
`
`43.
`
`Samsung’s website provides the following illustrations and videos
`
`describing the Widcon technology in its Exynos Octa processors:
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 20 of 41 PageID #: 20
`
`http://www.samsung.com/global/business/semiconductor/support/package
`
`-info/package-datasheet/application-processor (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014) (attached
`
`
`
`as Ex. 16.)
`
`44.
`
`Samsung has also represented that it is using TSV technology in some of
`
`its new DDR4 DRAM memory modules. According to a press release, “To build a 3D
`
`TSV DRAM package, the DDR4 dies are ground down as thin as a few dozen
`
`micrometers, then pierced to contain hundreds of fine holes. They are vertically
`
`connected through electrodes that are passed through the holes. As a result, the new
`
`64GB TSV module performs twice as fast as a 64GB module that uses wire bonding
`
`packaging, while consuming approximately half the power.” http://www.samsung
`
`.com/global/ business/semiconductor/news-events/press-releases/detail?newsId
`
`=13602 (last accessed Nov. 20, 2014) (attached as Ex. 17.)
`
`20
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 21 of 41 PageID #: 21
`
`45.
`
`Further, “Samsung, has worked on improving 3D TSV technology since it
`
`developed 40nm-class 8GB DRAM RDIMMs in 2010 and 30nm-class 32GB DRAM
`
`RDIMMs in 2011 using 3D TSV. This year, Samsung started operating a new
`
`manufacturing system dedicated to TSV packaging, for mass producing the new server
`
`modules.” See id.
`
`46.
`
`Samsung has actual notice of all of the Elm 3DS Patents and the
`
`infringement alleged herein at least upon filing of this Complaint (if not earlier),
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).
`
`47.
`
`Samsung has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, literally or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the Elm 3DS Patents by acting
`
`without authority to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell within the United States,
`
`and/or import into the United States, semiconductor products that practice the claimed
`
`inventions, and/or electronics products that incorporate said semiconductor products,
`
`including inter alia smartphones and solid state drives (“SSD”).
`
`48.
`
`The above-described acts of infringement committed by Defendants have
`
`caused injury and damage to Plaintiff, and will cause additional severe and irreparable
`
`injury and damages in the future.
`
`V.
`
`The Defendant’s Indirect Infringement.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`49.
`
`Samsung indirectly infringes the Elm 3DS Patents by inducing
`
`infringement by others, such as OEMs, manufacturers, importers, resellers, customers
`
`and end users under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) in this District and elsewhere in the United
`
`21
`
`
`
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 1 Filed 11/21/14 Page 22 of 41 PageID #: 22
`
`States. On information and belief, Samsung has intended and continues to intend to
`
`induce patent infringement by these third parties and has had actual knowledge that
`
`the inducing acts would cause infringement or has been willfully blind to the possibility
`
`that its inducing acts would cause infringement. For example, Samsung is aware that
`
`the structural aspects of thinned, stacked, and electrically interconnected
`
`semiconductors are always present in infringing stacked semiconductor packages and
`
`cannot be modified by a purchaser of such stacked semiconductor packages and,
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
