IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V,
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED, BROADCOM CORPORATION,
`AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., AVAGO
`TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., and LSI CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CASE NO' 2J6_CV~00134‘JRG_RSP
`
`INVALIDITY EXPERT REPORT OF CHRIS MACK
`
`January 30, 2017
`
`
`
`Chris Mack
`
`Page 1 °f69
`
`IP Bridge Exhibit 2045
`TSMC v. IP Bridge
`IPR2016-01264
`
`

`

`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Introduction and Scope of My Work ...................................................................................4
`
`Qualifications ...............................................4
`
`Documents Relied Upon ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`Summary of Opinions .......................................................................................................... 8
`
`Overview of the Patents in Suit and the Prior Art ............................................................... 9
`
`A.
`
`Tagami ’324 ............................................................................................................ 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the ’324 Patent ....................................................................... 9
`
`The State of the Art in 1999 ...................................................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`Yabu ‘980 .............................................................................................................. 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the Yabu ‘980 patent ............................................................ 15
`
`The State ofthe Art in 1996 ................ 19
`
`C.
`
`Aoi ‘696 ................................................................................................................ 23
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Overview of the ‘696 Patent ..................................................................... 24
`
`The State of the Art in 1998 ...................................................................... 25
`
`VI.
`
`Relevant Legal Principles ..................................................................................................29
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Presumption of Validity ........................................................................................ 29
`
`Anticipation ........................................................................................................... 30
`
`Obviousness .......................................................................................................... 30
`
`Priority Date and Date of Invention ...................................................................... 32
`
`VII.
`
`VIII.
`
`Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art .................................................................................... 34
`
`The Court’s Claim Construction ........................................................................................ 35
`
`Invalidity of the Asserted Claims ...................................................................................... 37
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims of Tagami US. Patent No. 6,538,324 are invalid. ............. 37
`
`Page 2 of 69
`
`

`

`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the ‘324 patent are anticipated by
`Zhang. ....................................................................................................... 37
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the ‘324 patent are anticipated by
`Nogami ...................................................................................................... 40
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the ‘324 patent are rendered obvious by
`Ding or obvious by Ding in View of Zhang .............................................. 42
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 of the ‘324 patent are rendered obvious by
`Hong in View of Hogan or Chiang or Min’s 1996 paper. ......................... 45
`
`
`
`
`The Asserted Claim of U.S. Patent No. 6,197,696 to Aoi is Invalid .................... 58
`
`C.
`
`Page 3 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction and Scope of My Work
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Qualifications
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 5 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 6 of 69
`
`

`

`111. Documents Relied Upon
`
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 69
`
`

`

`IV.
`
`Summary of Opinions
`
`Based on my experience, knowledge of the art as of the effective date of the
`
`patent applications for the Patents-in-Suit, my analysis of prior art references,
`
`Plaintiff’s infringement contentions, and consideration of the factual record in this
`
`investigation, it is my opinion that:
`
`.
`
`o
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Tagami ‘324 patent are invalid as
`anticipated by Zhang et al. US. Patent No. 5,893,752 (“Zhang”) and
`by Nogami et al. US. Patent No. 6,346,752 (“Nogami”);
`
`‘324 patent are rendered
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 of the Tagami
`obvious by Ding et al. US. Patent No. 6,887,353 (“Ding”) in view of
`Zhang and also rendered obvious by Hong et al. US. Patent No.
`5,668,411 in view of Hogan US. Patent No. 6,156,647, Chiang US.
`Patent No. 6,139,699, or Min et al.’s 1996 paper “Comparative Study
`of Tantalum and Tantalum Nitrides (TazN and TaN) as a Diffusion
`Barrier for Cu Metallization” published in the Journal of Vacuum
`Science and Technology (1996 JVST paper);
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 69
`
`

`

`V.
`
`Overview of the Patents in Suit and the Prior Art
`
`A.
`
`Tagami ’324
`
`1.
`
`Overview of the ’324 Patent
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 10 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 11 of 69
`
`

`

`2.
`
`The State of the Art in 1999
`
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 13 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 14 of 69
`
`

`

`B.
`
`Yabu ‘980
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 16 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 17 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 18 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 19 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 20 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 21 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 22 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`Aoi ‘696
`
`
`
`Page 23 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 24 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 25 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 26 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 27 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 28 of 69
`
`

`

`VI. Relevant Legal Principles
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Presumption of Validity
`
`Page 29 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`B.
`
`Anticipation
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Obviousness
`
`
`
`Page 30 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 31 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`D.
`
`Priority Date and Date of Invention
`
`Page 32 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 33 of 69
`
`

`

`VII. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
`
`
`
`
`Page 34 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`VIII. The Court’s Claim Construction
`
`
`
`Page 35 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 36 of 69
`
`

`

`IX.
`
`Invalidity of the Asserted Claims
`
`A.
`
`The Asserted Claims of Tagami U.S. Patent No. 6,538,324 are
`invalid.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 0f the ‘324 patent are anticipated by
`Zhang.
`
`
`Zhang discloses
`
`1.
`
`Zhang discloses
`
`Page 37 of 69
`
`

`

`Zhang further discloses
`
`As was known in the art in 1999, the crystalline structure ofa TaN film is
`
`inherently determined by the amount of nitrogen incorporated into the film. For
`
`example, Min et al.’s 1996 paper “Comparative Study of Tantalum and Tantalum
`
`38
`
`Page 38 of 69
`
`

`

`Nitrides (TazN and TaN) as a Diffusion Barrier for Cu Metallization”, Chiang et al.
`
`US Patent 6,139,699, and Sun et al.’s 1993 paper “Properties of Reactively
`
`Sputter-Deposited Ta—N Thin Films” all show that the crystallinity of a TaN film is
`
`inherently determined by the amount of nitrogen in the film. Sekiguchi et al. US
`
`Patent 5,780,908 shows a similar behavior for a tungsten nitride film. Pure metal
`
`is inherently crystalline, but a metal nitride film eventually becomes amorphous as
`
`the amount of nitrogen in the film is increased. For example, Min, Chiang, and
`
`Sun all show that a TaN film with 33 atomic percent nitrogen Will be amorphous,
`
`but films With 5 — 20% nitrogen will be crystalline.
`
`
`
`39
`
`Page 39 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`2.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 0f the ‘324 patent are anticipated by
`Nogami
`
`
`
`Page 40 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 41 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, 7 and 9 of the ‘324 patent are rendered
`obvious by Ding or obvious by Ding in View of Zhang
`
`
`
`Page 42 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 43 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 44 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Claims 1, 3, 5, and 7 0f the ‘324 patent are rendered obvious
`by Hong in View of Hogan or Chiang 0r Min’s 1996 paper.
`
`4.
`
`Page 45 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 46 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 47 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`
`B. The Asserted Claims of Yabu US. Patent No. Re 41,980 are
`invalid.
`
`Page 48 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 49 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 50 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 51 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 52 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 53 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 54 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 55 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 56 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 57 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`C.
`
`The Asserted Claim of US. Patent No. 6,197,696 to Aoi is Invalid
`
`
`
`Page 58 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 59 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 60 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 61 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 62 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 63 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 64 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 65 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 66 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 67 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 68 of 69
`
`

`

`
`
`Page 69 of 69
`
`