Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`LONE STAR SILICON INNOVATIONS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`UNITED MICROELECTRONICS
`CORPORATION and UMC GROUP (USA),
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-01216
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff, Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC (“Lone Star”), complains against
`
`Defendants United Microelectronics Corporation (“UMC”) and UMC Group (USA) (“UMC-
`
`USA”) (individually or collectively “Defendants”) as follows:
`
`NATURE OF ACTION
`This is an action for patent infringement of United States Patent Nos. 5,973,372;
`
`1.
`
`6,103,611; and 6,388,330 (collectively, the “Patents in Suit”) under the Patent Laws of the
`
`United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1, et seq.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff Lone Star is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`State of Texas with its principal place of business at 8105 Rasor Blvd., Suite 210, Plano, TX
`
`75024. Lone Star is in the business of licensing patented technology. Lone Star is the assignee of
`
`the Patents in Suit.
`
`RENESAS EXHIBIT 1005
`Renesas v. Lone Star, IPR2017-01869
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 2
`
`3.
`
`Defendant UMC is a corporation organized under the laws of Taiwan, with its
`
`principal place of business at No. 3 Li-Hsin Road II, Hsinchu Science Park, Hsinchu City,
`
`Taiwan, Republic of China. Defendant UMC conducts business in and is doing business in Texas
`
`and in this District and elsewhere in the United States, including, without limitation, using,
`
`promoting, offering to sell, importing, and/or selling integrated circuit devices that embody
`
`and/or are made using the patented technology, and enabling end-user purchasers to use such
`
`devices in this District.
`
`4.
`
`Defendant UMC-USA is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`
`California, with its principal place of business at 488 Deguigne Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94085.
`
`UMC-USA’s registered agent for service of process in the State of Texas is CT Corporation
`
`System, located at 1999 Bryan Street, Suite 900, Dallas, Texas 75201. On information and belief,
`
`UMC-USA is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UMC, and is responsible for all sales of UMC’s
`
`integrated circuit devices in North America. Defendant UMC-USA conducts business in and is
`
`doing business in Texas and in this District and elsewhere in the United States, including,
`
`without limitation, using, promoting, offering to sell, importing, and/or selling integrated circuit
`
`devices and/or devices that incorporate memory devices that embody the patented technology,
`
`and enabling end-user purchasers to use such devices in this District.
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, UMC controls and is the majority owner of UMC-
`
`USA, and Defendants are joint tortfeasors with one another with respect to the matters alleged
`
`herein.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 3
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`This action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, Title 35 of the
`
`United States Code. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a).
`
`7.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants are subject to this Court’s specific and
`
`general personal jurisdiction pursuant to due process and/or the Texas Long Arm Statute, due at
`
`least to their substantial business conducted in this forum, directly and/or through intermediaries,
`
`including (i) having solicited business in the State of Texas, transacted business within the State
`
`of Texas and attempted to derive financial benefit from residents of the State of Texas, including
`
`benefits directly related to the instant patent infringement causes of action set forth herein; (ii)
`
`having placed their products and services into the stream of commerce throughout the United
`
`States and having been actively engaged in transacting business in Texas and in this District; and
`
`(iii) either alone or in conjunction with others, having committed acts of infringement within
`
`Texas and in this District. On information and belief, Defendants, directly and/or through
`
`intermediaries, have advertised (including through websites), offered to sell, sold and/or
`
`distributed infringing products, and/or have induced the sale and use of infringing products in the
`
`United States and in Texas. Each Defendant has, directly or through its distribution network,
`
`purposefully and voluntarily placed such products in the stream of commerce knowing and
`
`expecting them to be purchased and used by consumers in Texas and in this District. Each
`
`Defendant has either committed direct infringement in Texas or committed indirect infringement
`
`based on acts of direct infringement in Texas. Further, on information and belief, Defendants are
`
`subject to the Court’s general jurisdiction, including from regularly doing or soliciting business,
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 4
`
`engaging in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or deriving substantial revenue from goods
`
`and services provided to individuals in Texas and in this District.
`
`8.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants do one or more of the following with
`
`integrated circuit devices and/or devices that incorporate such devices that they manufacture: (a)
`
`import these devices into the United States for sale to consumers, including consumers in Texas;
`
`(b) sell them or offer them for sale in the United States, including to customers in Texas; (c) sell
`
`them to customers who incorporate them into products that such customers import, sell or offer
`
`for sale in the United States, including in Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Venue lies in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), 1391(c) and 1400(b)
`
`because each Defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in this District, resides in, has
`
`regularly conducted business in this District and/or has committed acts of patent infringement in
`
`this District. Without limitation, on information and belief, within this District Defendants,
`
`directly and/or through intermediaries, have advertised, offered to sell, sold and/or distributed
`
`infringing products, and/or have induced the sale and use of infringing products.
`
`THE PATENTS IN SUIT
`
`10.
`
`On October 26, 1999, U.S. Patent No. 5,973,372 (“the ‘372 patent”), entitled
`
`“Silicided Shallow Junction Transistor Formation And Structure With High And Low
`
`Breakdown Voltages,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, was duly and legally
`
`issued. The ‘372 patent issued from U.S. patent application Serial Number 08/986,283 filed
`
`December 6, 1997, and discloses and relates to the design of and processes for fabricating
`
`semiconductor devices. The inventors assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘372 patent to
`
`Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (hereinafter “AMD”). AMD assigned its entire right, title, and
`
`interest in the ‘372 patent to Lone Star, and Lone Star is the sole owner of all rights, title and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 5
`
`interest in and to the ‘372 patent including the right to sue for and collect past, present and future
`
`damages and to seek and obtain injunctive or any other relief for infringement of the ‘372 patent.
`
`11.
`
`On August 15, 2000, U.S. Patent No. 6,103,611 (“the ‘611 patent”), entitled
`
`“Methods And Arrangements For Improved Spacer Formation Within A Semiconductor
`
`Device,” a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, was duly and legally issued. The ‘611
`
`patent issued from U.S. patent application Serial Number 08/993,830 filed December 18, 1997,
`
`and discloses and relates to the design of and processes for fabricating semiconductor devices.
`
`The inventors assigned all right, title, and interest in the ‘611 patent to AMD. AMD assigned its
`
`entire right, title, and interest in the ‘611 patent to Lone Star, and Lone Star is the sole owner of
`
`all rights, title and interest in and to the ‘611 patent including the right to sue for and collect past,
`
`present and future damages and to seek and obtain injunctive or any other relief for infringement
`
`of the ‘611 patent.
`
`12.
`
`On May 14, 2002, U.S. Patent No. 6,388,330 (“the ‘330 patent”), entitled “Low
`
`Dielectric Constant Etch Stop Layers In Integrated Circuit Interconnects,” a copy of which is
`
`attached hereto as Exhibit C, was duly and legally issued. The ‘330 patent issued from U.S.
`
`patent application Serial Number 09/776,012 filed February 1, 2001, and discloses and relates to
`
`the design of and processes for fabricating semiconductor devices. The inventors assigned all
`
`right, title, and interest in the ‘330 patent to AMD. AMD assigned its entire right, title, and
`
`interest in the ‘330 patent to Lone Star, and Lone Star is the sole owner of all rights, title and
`
`interest in and to the ‘330 patent including the right to sue for and collect past, present and future
`
`damages and to seek and obtain injunctive or any other relief for infringement of the ‘330 patent.
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 6
`
`DEFENDANTS’ INFRINGING PRODUCTS AND METHODS
`
`13.
`
`UMC is in the business of manufacturing semiconductors or integrated circuits for
`
`others. Using its own processes and techniques, UMC makes chips to the design specifications of
`
`customers in industries such as communications, consumer and computer products, with a focus
`
`on high growth, large volume applications, including for networking, telecommunications,
`
`internet, multimedia and personal electronic devices. UMC publicly represents itself as one of
`
`the world’s largest independent semiconductor foundries and a leader in semiconductor
`
`manufacturing process technologies. UMC’s customers include fabless design companies, which
`
`design, develop and distribute semiconductor products but do not maintain
`
`internal
`
`manufacturing capacity, and
`
`integrated device manufacturers, which have
`
`their own
`
`manufacturing as well as design, development, sales and distribution. UMC owns or controls and
`
`operates semiconductor fabrication facilities in Taiwan, Singapore and China. UMC’s sales in
`
`the U.S. and North America are made through its wholly-owned subsidiary UMC-USA.
`
`14.
`
`Defendants make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import into the United States
`
`integrated circuit devices for use in devices such as field programmable gate array (“FPGA”)
`
`devices, system on chip (“SoC”) devices, wireless communications modems, application
`
`processors, cellular baseband processors, and other products incorporating such devices.
`
`Defendants’ integrated circuit products are utilized in devices such as mobile phones, tablets,
`
`personal computers, wearable electronics, industrial and automotive systems, high-speed
`
`networking gear and other commercial and consumer applications. Defendants primarily supply
`
`their semiconductor devices in wafer form, knowing and intending that they are further
`
`configured into finished semiconductor products that have been assembled and tested.
`
`Defendants’ customers
`
`include
`
`integrated device manufacturers, such as
`
`Intel and
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 7
`
`STMicroelectronics, and fabless design companies, such as Xilinx, Broadcom, MediaTek,
`
`Realtek, Qualcomm and Novatek.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants have continued to develop and enhance their process technologies to
`
`enable the manufacture of semiconductor devices with smaller geometries, allowing the
`
`production of more integrated circuit dice per wafer. Defendants market and promote their 40-
`
`nanometer process node technology as supporting high performance and low power requirements
`
`of many customers who have engaged with Defendants for the design and high volume
`
`production of integrated circuits based on the 40nm process technology. Defendants have
`
`represented that their 40nm process node utilizes techniques such as immersion lithography, ultra
`
`shallow junction transistor design, mobility enhancement techniques, and ultra low-k dielectrics
`
`for maximum power and performance optimization. Defendants’ 40nm process consists of a low
`
`power platform adapted for low power and low leakage design requirements for mobile and
`
`consumer applications, and a generic platform that is optimized for a broad range of consumer
`
`and high-speed applications.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants have also implemented 28nm process technologies for applications
`
`that require the highest performance with the lowest power leakage. Their 28nm process
`
`technology platform includes the UMC 28nm High Performance Low Power (28HLP) process,
`
`which utilizes poly SiON technologies. Defendants market the 28HLP process for portable
`
`applications and consumer electronics such as mobile phones, wireless ICs and TVs. Defendants
`
`have also implemented high-k/metal gate stack technologies within their 28nm process node.
`
`Defendants provide their 28HPCU process for a broad range of devices such as application
`
`processors, cellular baseband processors, and other integrated circuits for applications such as
`
`WLAN, tablet computers, FPGAs and networking gear. Defendants’ 28HPCU+ process
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 8
`
`technology offers improved transistor performance, and their 28uLP process offers lower core
`
`Vcc for ultra low power system on chip devices and other integrated circuits for applications
`
`such as wearable consumer devices, Internet of Things and automotive systems.
`
`17.
`
`Despite not having a license to the ‘611 patent, Defendants have used the
`
`fabrication methods claimed therein in making integrated circuit devices using their 40nm and
`
`28nm process node technologies. Despite not having a license to the ‘372 or ‘330 patents,
`
`Defendants’ integrated circuit products made using their 40nm and 28nm process node
`
`technologies adopt the designs claimed in these patents.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘372 PATENT
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to
`
`17, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`19.
`
`Defendants, directly and/or through their subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and/or
`
`business partners, have in the past and continue to directly infringe the ‘372 patent, including at
`
`least claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) by using, selling, offering to sell, and/or
`
`importing integrated circuit devices that embody the inventions claimed in the ‘372 patent,
`
`within the United States and within this District. In violation of the ‘372 patent, for example,
`
`Defendants’ accused integrated circuit devices include: an integrated circuit in and on a silicon
`
`substrate having an active region including a field effect transistor with a source and a drain and
`
`a gate, all of which a conductive contact is made comprising: a single crystalline silicon substrate
`
`with a upper surface region; a shallow junction for each of the source and drain of the transistor
`
`underlying said upper surface of the silicon substrate; a metal silicide layer having a lower
`
`surface disposed adjacent the shallow junction of each of the source and drain in the silicon
`
`substrate and above said upper surface of the silicon substrate; and an epitaxial silicon layer
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 9
`
`disposed between said upper silicon surface and said lower surface of metal silicide and adjacent
`
`the shallow junction of each of the source and drain, whereby the metal silicide does not extend
`
`below the upper silicon surface and encroach upon the shallow junction of each of the source and
`
`the drain.
`
`20.
`
`Defendants have been and are engaged in one or more of these direct infringing
`
`activities related to their integrated circuit devices having transistors and related structures
`
`manufactured using their 40nm process node, a representative example being the integrated
`
`circuit devices manufactured for Xilinx for resale as the Xilinx XC6VLX130 Virtex-6 FPGA
`
`products. Defendants’ integrated circuit devices having transistors and related structures
`
`manufactured using their 28nm HLP, 28nm HPCU, 28nm HPCU+ and 28nm uLP process nodes
`
`are also infringing, a representative example being the integrated circuit devices manufactured
`
`for Qualcomm for resale as the Qualcomm MDM9625M LTE Modem.
`
`21.
`
`On information and belief, integrated circuit devices made using any of the 40nm,
`
`28nm HLP, 28nm HPCU, 28nm HPCU+ and 28nm uLP process nodes infringe at least claims 1,
`
`4 and 6 of the ‘372 patent, and integrated circuit devices made using any of the 40nm and the
`
`28nm HLP process nodes infringe at least claim 5 of the ‘372 patent. Such infringing integrated
`
`circuits are referred to hereinafter as “the ‘372 Accused Products.”
`
`22.
`
`Defendants, directly and/or through their subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and/or
`
`business partners, have been and are now indirectly infringing the ‘372 patent, including at least
`
`claims 1, 4, 5 and 6, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) by actively inducing acts of direct
`
`infringement performed by others. Defendants have actual notice of the ‘372 patent and the
`
`infringement alleged herein at least upon the service of this Complaint. Upon information and
`
`belief, UMC has numerous lawyers and other active agents of UMC and of its owned and
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 10
`
`controlled subsidiaries who regularly review patents and published patent applications relevant
`
`to technology in the fields of the Patents in Suit, specifically including patents directed to
`
`integrated circuit devices issued to competitors such as AMD, the original assignee of the ‘372
`
`patent. Upon information and belief, UMC itself has been issued over 4,470 patents, including
`
`over 200 patents prosecuted in the USPTO in the same classifications as the ‘372 patent, giving
`
`Defendants intimate knowledge of the art in fields relevant to this civil action. UMC has had
`
`previous actual notice of the ‘372 patent prior to the filing of this Complaint at least through its
`
`efforts to patent related technologies. The ‘372 patent is listed on the face of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,221,767 (“the ‘767 patent”) issued to UMC on April 24, 2001, indicating that it was among the
`
`references cited against and considered by the USPTO and UMC during prosecution of ‘767
`
`patent. Accordingly, UMC has had actual notice of the ‘372 patent since at least the issue date of
`
`the ‘767 patent. The timing, circumstances and extent of UMC and its subsidiary UMC-USA
`
`obtaining actual knowledge of the ‘372 patent prior to the commencement of this lawsuit will be
`
`confirmed during discovery.
`
`23.
`
`Upon gaining knowledge of the ‘372 patent, it was, or became, apparent to
`
`Defendants that the manufacture, sale, importing, offer for sale and use of their ‘372 Accused
`
`Products results in infringement of the ‘372 patent. Upon information and belief, Defendants
`
`have continued and will continue to engage in activities constituting inducement of infringement,
`
`notwithstanding their knowledge, or willful blindness thereto, that the activities they induce
`
`result in infringement of the ‘372 patent.
`
`24.
`
`The ‘372 Accused Products are intended for integration into products known to be
`
`sold widely in the United States. UMC and its subsidiaries make integrated circuit devices that
`
`embody the inventions claimed in the ‘372 patent, which devices infringe when they are
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 11
`
`imported into, or sold, used, or offered for sale in, the United States. Defendants indirectly
`
`infringe by
`
`inducing customers (including fabless design companies and
`
`integrated
`
`semiconductor device manufacturers) and other downstream parties (such as makers of mobile
`
`devices, desktop computers and other devices) to import products that incorporate integrated
`
`circuit devices embodying inventions claimed in the ‘372 patent, or to sell or use such products,
`
`or offer them for sale, in the United States. For example, Defendants induce fabless design
`
`companies, integrated semiconductor device manufacturers, importers, resellers, and others who
`
`purchase or otherwise obtain devices manufactured at UMC’s overseas facilities to import
`
`devices embodying inventions recited in claims of the ‘372 patent, or to sell or use such devices,
`
`or offer them for sale in the United States without authority.
`
`25.
`
`Defendants encourage customers, resellers or others to import into the United
`
`States and sell and use in the United States the ‘372 Accused Products embodying inventions
`
`claimed in the ‘372 patent with knowledge and the specific intent to cause the acts of direct
`
`infringement performed by these third parties. On information and belief, after Defendants
`
`obtained knowledge of the ‘372 patent, the ‘372 Accused Products have been and will continue
`
`to be imported into the United States and sold in large volumes by themselves and by others,
`
`such as customers, distributors and resellers. Defendants work closely with their customers in the
`
`process of finalizing circuit designs and planning for the preparation of masks to be used in the
`
`manufacturing process, so that these aspects of the manufacturing process are optimized for
`
`Defendants’ process technologies and equipment. Defendants also offer their customers
`
`outsourced semiconductor assembly and test services. Defendants are aware that the ‘372
`
`Accused Products are integral components of the products incorporating them, that the infringing
`
`integrated circuits are built into the products and cannot be removed or disabled by a purchaser
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 12
`
`of the products containing the infringing integrated circuit devices, such that Defendants’
`
`customers will infringe one or more claims of the ‘372 patent by incorporating such integrated
`
`circuit devices in other products, and that subsequent importation, sale and use of such products
`
`in the United States would be a direct infringement of the ‘372 patent. Therefore, Defendants are
`
`aware that their customers will infringe one or more claims of the ‘372 patent by selling, offering
`
`for sale, importing, and/or using the products supplied by Defendants.
`
`26.
`
`Defendants directly benefit from and actively and knowingly encourage
`
`customers’, resellers’, and users’ importation of these products into the United States and sale
`
`and use within the United States. Defendants actively encourage customers, resellers and
`
`downstream users to import, use, and sell in the United States the ‘372 Accused Products that
`
`they manufacture and supply, including through advertising, marketing, and sales activities
`
`directed at United States sales. On information and belief, Defendants are aware of the size and
`
`importance of the United States market for customers of their products, and also distribute or
`
`supply these products intended for importation, use, and sale in the United States. Defendants
`
`routinely market their infringing integrated circuit products to third parties for inclusion in
`
`products that are sold to customers in the United States. Defendant UMC-USA provides a direct
`
`sales outlet for these products in the United States. Defendants’ marketing efforts show that they
`
`have specifically intended to and have induced direct infringement in the United States.
`
`27.
`
`Defendants have engaged and will continue to engage in additional activities to
`
`specifically target the United States market for the ‘372 Accused Products and actively induce
`
`manufacturers, importers, resellers, customers, and end users to directly infringe one or more
`
`claims of the ‘372 patent in the United States. For example, Defendants have showcased their
`
`semiconductor manufacturing capabilities and process technologies at least through written
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 13
`
`materials distributed in the United States and through the www.umc.com website in an effort to
`
`showcase their process technology, manufacturing, testing, packaging, and market applications,
`
`and to encourage customers to engage Defendants to produce integrated circuits for inclusion in
`
`the customers’ devices and products. These materials target fabless design companies and
`
`integrated semiconductor device manufacturers and generally companies that make, use, offer to
`
`sell, sell, or import in the United States products that use integrated circuit devices such as those
`
`made by Defendants. Defendants derive significant revenue by selling the ‘372 Accused
`
`Products to third parties who directly infringe the ‘372 patent in the United States.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants’ extensive sales and marketing efforts, sales volume, and partnerships
`
`all evidence their intent to induce companies to infringe one or more claims of the ‘372 patent
`
`by, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing products that incorporate the ‘372 Accused
`
`Products, in the United States. Defendants have had specific intent to induce infringement or
`
`have been willfully blind to the direct infringement they are inducing.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have continued and will continue to
`
`engage in activities constituting contributory infringement of the ‘372 patent, including at least
`
`claims 1, 4, 5 and 6 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Defendants contributorily infringe with
`
`knowledge that the ‘372 Accused Products, or the use thereof, infringe the ‘372 patent.
`
`Defendants knowingly and intentionally contributed to the direct infringement of the ‘372 patent
`
`by others by supplying these integrated circuit devices that embody a material part of the claimed
`
`invention of the ‘372 patent, which are known by the Defendants to be specially made or adapted
`
`for use in an infringing manner. For example, and without limitation, the ‘372 Accused Products
`
`are used in various end products, such as computers, networking gear and mobile telephones.
`
`The ‘372 Accused Products are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for non-
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 14
`
`infringing use and are especially made for or adapted for use in infringing the ‘372 patent. There
`
`are no substantial uses of the ‘372 Accused Products that do not infringe the ‘372 patent. By
`
`contributing a material part of the infringing computing products sold, offered for sale, imported,
`
`and used by their customers, resellers and users, Defendants have been and are now indirectly
`
`infringing the ‘372 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).
`
`30.
`
`Defendants’ direct and indirect infringement of the ‘372 patent has injured Lone
`
`Star, and Lone Star is entitled to recover damages adequate to compensate for such infringement
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Unless they cease their infringing activities, Defendants will
`
`continue to injure Lone Star by infringing the ‘372 patent.
`
`31.
`
`On information and belief, Defendants acted egregiously and with willful
`
`misconduct in that their actions constituted direct or indirect infringement of a valid patent, and
`
`this was either known or so obvious that Defendants should have known about it. Defendants
`
`continue to infringe the ‘372 patent by making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing in
`
`the United States the ‘372 Accused Products, and to induce the direct infringement of others
`
`performing these acts, or they have acted at least in reckless disregard of Lone Star’s patent
`
`rights. On information and belief, Defendants will continue their infringement notwithstanding
`
`actual knowledge of the ‘372 patent and without a good faith basis to believe that their activities
`
`do not infringe any valid claim of the ‘372 patent. All infringement of the ‘372 patent following
`
`Defendants’ knowledge of the ‘372 patent is willful and Lone Star is entitled to treble damages
`
`and attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘611 PATENT
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff hereby repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 to
`
`17, as if fully set forth herein.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 15
`
`33.
`
`Defendants, directly and/or through their subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, and/or
`
`business partners, have in the past and continue to directly infringe the ‘611 patent pursuant to 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(g) by importing, using, selling, or offering to sell integrated circuit devices in the
`
`United States made using the methods claimed in the ’611 patent, including at least claims 1, 2,
`
`3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 15. For example, Defendants use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import
`
`integrated circuit devices having substantially uniformly sized spacers on transistor gate
`
`arrangements within semiconductor devices on a common substrate, and made by practicing the
`
`steps of: (a) forming a plurality of gate arrangements on a top surface of the substrate, wherein
`
`two of the plurality of gate arrangements are positioned parallel to one another and separated by
`
`a defined space; (b) forming a dielectric layer over at least a portion of the two gate
`
`arrangements and at least a portion of the defined space; (c) removing portions of the dielectric
`
`layer to form a plurality of spacers, wherein each of the plurality of spacers physically contacts
`
`one of the two gate arrangements and the substrate, and wherein the spacers located within the
`
`defined space each have a base width that is approximately the same; (d) configuring one of the
`
`two gate arrangements to control an electrical current between a source region and a drain region
`
`formed in the substrate; and (e) configuring the remaining one of the two transistor gate
`
`arrangements to be non-operational. Defendants also use, sell, offer for sale and/or import
`
`integrated circuit devices having a controlled with of a spacer in a transistor arrangement, and
`
`made by practicing the steps of: (a) forming an operational transistor gate arrangement on a
`
`substrate at a first position and a non-operational transistor gate arrangement at a second position
`
`on the substrate, such that the operational and non-operational transistor gate arrangements are
`
`separated and adjacent to each other with a space therebetween; (b) forming a dielectric layer
`
`over at least a portion of the operational and non-operational transistor gate arrangements and
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-01216-JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 16
`
`within the space; (c) removing portions of the dielectric layer to form a first spacer that
`
`physically contacts a sidewall of the operational transistor gate arrangement and the substrate
`
`and extends into the space, and a second spacer that physically contacts a sidewall of the non-
`
`operational transistor gate arrangement and the substrate and extends into the space, and wherein
`
`each of the first and second spacers extends into the space substantially the same distance.
`
`Defendants also use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import integrated circuit devices having spacers
`
`on a plurality of polysilicon lines, and made by practicing the steps of: (a) forming a plurality of
`
`polysilicon lines on a top surface of a substrate; (b) forming at least one dummy polysilicon line
`
`on the substrate, the dummy polysilicon line being substantially parallel to at least a portion of
`
`one of the polysilicon lines and separated from the portion of the one of the polysilicon lines by a
`
`defined space that has a critical dimension; (c) covering the polysilicon lines, the at least one
`
`dummy polysilicon line and the top surface of the substrate below the defined space, with at least
`
`one dielectric layer; and (d) removing portions of the at least one dielectric layer to form a
`
`plurality of separate