Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 27
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`RENESAS’S RULE 12(b)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Renesas Electronics Corporation and Renesas
`Electronics America, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-01213-ADA
`
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`A.
`Ocean Has Failed to State a Claim Under § 271(g) ................................................ 4
`1.
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’651 Patent
`..................................................................................................................... 5
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’402 Patent
`..................................................................................................................... 6
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’691 Patent
`..................................................................................................................... 7
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’305/’248
`Patents ......................................................................................................... 8
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’330 Patent
`..................................................................................................................... 9
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’538 Patent
`................................................................................................................... 10
`The Patents-in-Suit Are Fatally Flawed Under 35 U.S.C. § 101 .......................... 11
`1.
`The Asserted Claims of the ’305 Patent and the ’248 Patent Are Directed
`to Patent Ineligible Subject Matter ........................................................... 12
`Claim 1 of the ’402 Patent is Directed to Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
`................................................................................................................... 14
`Claim 1 of the ’538 Patent is Directed to Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
`................................................................................................................... 16
`Claim 1 of the ’691 Patent Is Directed to Patent Ineligible Subject Matter
`................................................................................................................... 18
`Ocean Has Failed to State a Claim for Induced Infringement .............................. 19
`C.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 20
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.,
`728 F.3d 1336 (Fed.Cir. 2013).................................................................................................13
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`No. W:13-CV-362, 2014 WL 12551207 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 30, 2014)......................................20
`
`Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
`573 U.S. 208 (2014) ...............................................................1, 3, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 652 (2009) .............................................................................................................2, 19
`
`Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.,
`687 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................17
`
`Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility, LLC,
`827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................14
`
`Bayer AG v. Housey Pharms., Inc.,
`340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003)......................................................................3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
`881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................3
`
`Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC v. Globus Med. Inc.,
`No. 14-6650, 2015 WL 3755223 (E.D. Pa. June 15, 2015) .....................................................20
`
`Braemar Mfg., LLC v. ScottCare Corp.,
`816 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................18
`
`BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
`899 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2018)................................................................................................14
`
`Cleveland Clinic Found. v. True Health Diagnostics LLC,
`859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................11
`
`Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs.,
`859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................13
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 4 of 27
`
`DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
`773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................14
`
`DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co.,
`471 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................4, 20
`
`Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
`830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)....................................................................................12, 15, 17
`
`Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................12
`
`In re Gopalan,
`809 F. App’x 942 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................19
`
`In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig.,
`495 F. 3d 191 (5th Cir. 2007) ....................................................................................................2
`
`Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-Lok, Inc.,
`869 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................3
`
`Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc.,
`809 F.3d 610 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................3, 4
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix Inc.,
`76 F. Supp. 3d 886 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .......................................................................................12
`
`P & RO Sols. Grp., Inc. v. CiM Maint., Inc.,
`273 F. Supp. 3d 699 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .....................................................................................13
`
`Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Computer Corp.,
`519 F. App’x 998 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................5
`
`Specialized Monitoring Sols., LLC v. ADT LLC,
`367 F. Supp. 3d 575 (E.D. Tex. 2019) .....................................................................................15
`
`Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc.,
`296 F. 3d 376 (5th Cir. 2002) ....................................................................................................2
`
`In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig.,
`823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................11, 14, 16, 19
`
`Univ. of Fla. Res. Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`916 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................13
`
`Statutes
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ..............................................................................................................3, 11, 13, 16
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 5 of 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271 ..........................................................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
`
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 6 of 27
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC (“Ocean”) alleges infringement of seven patents by Renesas
`
`Electronics Corp. and Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (collectively “Renesas”). All patents
`
`relate to manufacturing of semiconductor devices using equipment that is distinctly not Renesas’.
`
`All seven infringement allegations hang on 35 U.S.C. § 271(g)—which is limited to a
`
`product “made by” a process patented in the United States. Unfortunately for Ocean, § 271(g) is
`
`inapplicable as a matter of law. The Federal Circuit has been clear that § 271(g) only applies when
`
`the claimed process creates the accused product. If the claimed process does not do so, there
`
`simply cannot be infringement under § 271(g). Here, all asserted claims are method claims and
`
`all infringement allegations are based on § 271(g) and none teach manufacturing a product or
`
`making changes to manufactured products. For example, Ocean describes the purported invention
`
`of two asserted patents as “facilitat[ing] the reactive scheduling of events resulting from certain
`
`factory state changes.” D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 39, 51. In other words, the patents relate to analyzing
`
`information about equipment status during the production process and do not teach manufacturing
`
`a device or manipulating a device during the manufacturing process. Production or manipulation
`
`of information is not contemplated by a statute explicitly tied to products “made by” the patented
`
`process. 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). Ocean’s infringement claims should be dismissed with prejudice.
`
`Second, at least five of the seven asserted patents are invalid under Alice and no questions
`
`of fact can save them.1 Ocean all but admits that these patents are Alice vulnerable. Indeed, Ocean
`
`takes special care to plead different ways that the patents are purportedly “inventive concepts.”
`
`Unfortunately for Ocean, its own words confirm the point it is attempting to disprove. For
`
`example, Ocean explains that two of the asserted patents “allow[] efficient management of factory
`
`1 Renesas believes additional discovery will likely show the ’651 and ’330 patents (which are not
`subject to the Alice-based portions of this motion) are also invalid under Alice.
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 7 of 27
`
`control systems.” D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 39, 51. In other words, the patents automate equipment scheduling—
`
`a task routinely carried out by humans. Despite Ocean’s barren assertion to the opposite, the
`
`patents exclusively rely on generic computing elements—“a processor or controller embedded in
`
`the process tool” (D.I. 1, Ex. B (’305 patent) at 6:1-20)—to carry out the claimed automation. The
`
`Federal Circuit regularly upholds such automation techniques as invalid at the motion to dismiss
`
`stage. The same result should apply here. Ocean’s own pleadings confirm the weaknesses and do
`
`little more than emphasize that at least the five patents identified in this motion are invalid.
`
`Lastly, Ocean also pleads indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Its indirect
`
`infringement theory is predicated on the same theory of direct infringement outlined above which
`
`fails as a matter of law. Further, even if direct infringement were supportable, which it is not,
`
`Ocean’s pleading lacks any plausible facts to support that Renesas knowingly induced
`
`infringement. Its boilerplate allegations should be dismissed.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court accepts
`
`all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the non-movant. In re
`
`Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F. 3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). A court need not blindly accept
`
`each and every allegation of fact, particularly where an allegation is conclusory or comprises a
`
`legal conclusion “masquerading as a factual conclusion.” Taylor v. Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.
`
`3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002); Bell Atlantic Corp v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 652, 678 (2009). To avoid dismissal, the complaint must plead enough facts to
`
`state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face, Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570, and the factual
`
`allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the level of speculation. Id. at 555.
`
`A patentee can assert a claim for infringement when an accused infringer imports into, or
`
`offers to sell, sells, or uses within, the United States “a product which is made by a process patented
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 8 of 27
`
`in the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). Claims under § 271(g) are “limited to physical goods
`
`that were manufactured” using a patented process and do not extend to “information generated by
`
`a patented process.” Bayer AG v. Housey Pharms., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
`
`Section 271(g) applies to “the actual ‘ma[king]’ of a product,” not to “methods of testing a final
`
`product or intermediate substance.” Momenta Pharms., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA Inc., 809 F.3d
`
`610, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (alteration in original). A product is “made by” a process when that
`
`process “create[s] or give[s] new properties” to the product. Id. at 616–17.
`
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, courts apply a two-part test to determine whether a patent is
`
`directed to eligible subject matter. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18
`
`(2014). First, a court must determine whether the claims at issue are “directed to a patent-ineligible
`
`concept.” Id. at 217. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.
`
`Id. at 216. If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, a court must then “consider the
`
`elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether
`
`the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id.
`
`at 217 (quotations omitted). Step two of the analysis is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e.,
`
`an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice
`
`amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.” Id. at 217–18
`
`(quotations omitted). Step two is satisfied “when the claim limitations involve more than
`
`performance of well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
`
`industry.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
`
`To plead induced infringement under § 271(b), a patent holder “must plead facts plausibly
`
`showing that the accused infringer ‘specifically intended [another party] to infringe [the patent]
`
`and knew that the [other party]’s acts constituted infringement.’” Lifetime Indus., Inc. v. Trim-
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 9 of 27
`
`Lok, Inc., 869 F.3d 1372, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “[M]ere knowledge of possible
`
`infringement by others does not amount to inducement; specific intent and action to induce
`
`infringement” are required. DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Ocean Has Failed to State a Claim Under § 271(g)
`
`Every asserted claim in this case is a method claim. Crucially, every method relates in one
`
`way or another to collecting data during a semiconductor chip manufacturing process; however,
`
`no asserted claim is directed to the actual manufacture of any physical product. Because of this,
`
`the accused semiconductor chips simply cannot infringe under any 35 U.S.C. § 271 sub-prong.
`
`Ocean’s entire case hinges on proving infringement under § 271(g), which is explicitly
`
`limited to liability for products “made by a process patented in the United States.” 35 U.S.C. §
`
`271(g). Because Ocean’s asserted claims are directed to information exchange during the
`
`manufacturing process and not to steps for outputting a manufactured product, there simply cannot
`
`be infringement under this theory. Indeed, to survive a motion to dismiss Ocean must have
`
`plausibly alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the patented process is directly part of the
`
`actual steps to manufacture the final product itself. See Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340
`
`F.3d 1367, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (affirming Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of an infringement claim
`
`brought under § 271(g) where the patented method was not a process used in making the final
`
`accused product imported into the United States and construing the term “made by a process
`
`patented in the United States” to require that the patented process “must be used directly in the
`
`manufacture of the product, and not merely as a predicate process to identify the product to be
`
`manufactured.”). As explained below, Ocean has made no such pleading for any asserted patent.
`
`Notably, § 271(g) does not apply to quality control processes, nor to testing methods
`
`provided that the claimed methods did not change the accused products. See Momenta Pharm.,
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 10 of 27
`
`Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc., 809 F.3d 610, 616–17 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding no direct
`
`infringement under § 271(g) where the claimed process related to “tests [that do not] create or give
`
`new properties” to the accused products); Phillip M. Adams & Assocs., LLC v. Dell Computer
`
`Corp., 519 F. App’x 998, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (finding no direct infringement under § 271(g)
`
`where the claimed process related to certification testing processes that were “not part of the
`
`process to ‘make’ the” accused products).
`
`1.
`
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’651 Patent
`
`Ocean alleges that Renesas directly infringes independent claim 19 of the ’651 patent,
`
`solely based on § 271(g). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 73-75. Claim 19 of the ’651 patent is directed to a method
`
`for “adjusting [a] surface of [a] wafer stage by actuating at least one of a plurality of pneumatic
`
`cylinders[.]” See D.I. 1, Ex. A (’651 patent) at 12:62–66. The ’651 patent specification explains
`
`that the “present invention is generally directed to a wafer stage having an adjustable surface or
`
`plane, such that the plane of the wafer stage may be raised, lowered or tilted,” and that “[b]y
`
`adjusting the plane of the wafer stage, the present invention may be useful in reducing or
`
`overcoming some of the problems described in the background section of this application.” Id. at
`
`5:23–29. The Complaint takes the same position. D.I. 1 at ¶ 32.
`
`The discussed processing does not make a product nor does it give the accused products
`
`new properties, at least one of which are required to support infringement under § 271(g). Ocean’s
`
`own infringement charts confirm this because the allegations are limited to “process operations”
`
`that image or map the wafer—i.e., process operations that do not cause a change to the wafer. See
`
`generally D.I. 1, Ex. H. Particularly, Ocean accuses manufacturing equipment—ASML’s
`
`TWINSCAN—for its “stepper imaging” or “double patterning,” but these are functions for
`
`measuring or positioning, not manufacturing or changing, the wafer. Id. at 9–10 (“Once the wafer
`
`is loaded . . . its surface is mapped in horizontal and vertical planes,” “[s]tage position measurement
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 11 of 27
`
`is now performed in all degrees of freedom by interferometers, with reference beams directed at
`
`the projection lens,” which “provides a direct relative measurement of the position with respect to
`
`the lens.”). Ocean does not allege (1) that any process actually occurs to the wafer, or (2) that any
`
`process results in a change to the wafer. Id. The ’651 infringement claims should be dismissed.
`
`2.
`
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’402 Patent
`
`Ocean alleges that Renesas directly infringes independent claim 1 of the ’402 patent, solely
`
`based on § 271(g). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 93-96. Claim 1 of the ’402 patent is directed to a method for
`
`configuration of a processing tool—not a semiconductor product to be manufactured—in response
`
`to the presence of a fault condition in the processing tool. See D.I. 1, Ex. C (’402 patent) at 7:10–
`
`38. In particular, the method recited in claim 1 requires that a “first interface” receive “operational
`
`state data of a processing tool related to the manufacture of a processing piece.” Id. at 7:9–11.
`
`The method sends the state data from the first interface to a fault detection unit and “determine[s]
`
`if a fault condition exists with the processing tool” itself. Id. at 7:15–27. “[I]n response to the
`
`presence of a fault condition,” the method “perform[s] a predetermined action on the processing
`
`tool.” Id. at 7:28–30 (emphasis added). The “predetermined action on the processing tool”
`
`“comprises sending a signal to the first interface” (in claim 1) and further comprises “shutting
`
`down the processing tool” (in nonasserted dependent claim 2). Id. at 7:38–42 (emphasis added).
`
`In other words, the claimed method responds to the detection of a fault condition by configuring
`
`the processing tool, but does not change the semiconductor product that may separately be
`
`manufactured using the tool. The Complaint itself confirms that the claimed method is directed to
`
`configuring a processing tool, stating it is directed to “shutting down a process tool or halting a
`
`manufacturing process in the presence of a manufacturing fault.” D.I. 1 at ¶ 43.
`
`Ocean’s claim charts follow suit as they are limited to allegations of configuring a
`
`processing tool and include no allegations directed to the actual manufacturing of a semiconductor
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 12 of 27
`
`product. See generally D.I. 1, Exs. I–J. For example, in one claim chart, Ocean cites to “models
`
`[that] can detect problems with equipment and provide predictive maintenance capabilities that
`
`reduce unscheduled downtime and product scrap.” D.I. 1, Ex. I at 12. These “predictive
`
`maintenance capabilities,” however, are limited to configuration of the tool, and do not touch on a
`
`process for directly manufacturing the accused semiconductor products. Similarly, in a second
`
`claim chart, Ocean accuses certain steps to update a “database and continue monitoring the
`
`processing pipeline to improve product and process control.” D.I. 1, Ex. J at 23. Updating a
`
`database and monitoring a pipeline plainly do not relate to a process for directly manufacturing a
`
`semiconductor product. Because Ocean’s § 271(g) assertions on the ’402 patent are directed to
`
`configuring a processing tool—not directly manufacturing an accused product—Ocean’s claim for
`
`direct infringement of the ’402 patent should be dismissed. Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1378.
`
`3.
`
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’691 Patent
`
`Ocean alleges that Renesas directly infringes independent claim 1 of the ’691 patent, solely
`
`based on § 271(g). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 174-77. Claim 1 is directed to a method for conducting a “process
`
`control activity related to one of the tools” (not a semiconductor product to be manufactured) based
`
`on “filtered metrology data.” See D.I. 1, Ex. F (’691 patent) at 8:19–28. Thus, the claim is not
`
`directed to a process for manufacturing a semiconductor product, but rather only to data collection
`
`and processing related to a tool.
`
`The Complaint confirms that asserted claim 1 is directed to configuration of the tool itself,
`
`describing that the claimed method “improve[s] the performance of the process controller”
`
`associated with the tool. D.I. 1 at ¶ 61. Evident in Ocean’s characterization of the ’691 patent is
`
`that the patent is directed to equipment performance, not to a manufactured product.
`
`Likewise, Ocean’s claim charts demonstrate that the allegedly infringing act is limited to
`
`configuring a processing tool. The charts again do not point to any step that results in a change to
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 13 of 27
`
`the accused products. See generally D.I. 1, Exs. N–O. For example, a first chart equates the
`
`claimed “process control activity” to “identify[ing], for example, root causes at tool and sensor
`
`level, predict[ing] yield problem, and yield driven control limits[.]” D.I. 1, Ex. N at 8. A second
`
`chart equates the claimed “process control activity” to “detect[ing] early life failure of a particular
`
`die or chipset package,” “identify[ing] losses due to problems in fabrication, test and design,”
`
`“optimiz[ing] system performance across supply chain,” “fault-detection and classification,” and
`
`“trigger[ing] alarms.” D.I. 1, Ex. O at 9–11. Such processes are limited to the configuration of
`
`the tool, and not a process for directly manufacturing a semiconductor product. Ocean’s claim for
`
`direct infringement of the ’691 patent should be dismissed. Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1378.
`
`4.
`
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’305/’248
`Patents
`
`Ocean alleges that Renesas directly infringes independent claim 1 of the ’305 patent and
`
`claim 1 of the ’248 patent, solely based on § 271(g). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 114-17 (’305 patent); ¶¶ 134-37
`
`(’248 patent). Claim 1 of each of the ’305 and ’248 patents is directed to a “method for scheduling
`
`in an automated manufacturing environment,” including steps for “detecting an occurrence of a
`
`predetermined event in a process flow,” and “reactively scheduling an action . . . responsive to the
`
`detection of the predetermined event.” See D.I. 1, Ex. B (’305 patent) at 39:52–60; D.I. 1, Ex. D
`
`(’248 patent) at 30:40–48. Like the other patents, the plain language of these claims makes clear
`
`that the claimed methods are directed to optimizing the scheduling of events in a manufacturing
`
`environment, and not to a process for manufacturing a semiconductor product. The Complaint
`
`confirms the same. Indeed, the complaint states that the patents “resolve technical problems
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 14 of 27
`
`related to utilization of process tools and scheduling and execution control of factory control
`
`systems.” D.I. 1 at ¶ 37 (’305 patent); ¶ 49 (’248 patent).
`
`Ocean’s claim charts are no different. See generally D.I. 1, Ex. K (’305 patent), Ex. L
`
`(’248 patent). The charts do not point to any step that results in a change to any accused product.
`
`See generally D.I. 1, Exs. K–L. For example, the accused products are allegedly manufactured
`
`using “camLine GmbH’s (‘camLine’) semiconductor fabrication or manufacturing equipment,
`
`platforms, and/or framework, including camLine’s software and APC system, including the
`
`LineWorks factory advanced/automation process control (‘APC’) platform hardware and/or
`
`software (collectively, ‘LineWorks’) and/or other APC system and platform hardware and/or
`
`software. Such products include, without limitation, microcontrollers and microprocessors.” D.I.
`
`1, Ex. K at 2; Ex. L at 2. Ocean explains that the camLine LineWorks system “provides a method
`
`for scheduling in an automated manufacturing environment.” D.I. 1, Ex. K at 4; Ex. L at 3.
`
`However, delivery of a production schedule is far removed from—and is not an actual step in—
`
`the manufacture of a semiconductor product itself. Ocean’s claims for direct infringement of the
`
`’305 and ’248 patents should be dismissed. Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1378.
`
`5.
`
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’330 Patent
`
`Ocean alleges that Renesas directly infringes independent claim 19 of the ’330 patent,
`
`solely based on § 271(g). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 154-57. Claim 19 of the ’330 patent is directed to a “method
`
`for monitoring and controlling a semiconductor fabrication process.” See D.I. 1, Ex. E (’330
`
`patent) at 21:5–6. The method includes the steps, e.g., of “concurrently measuring one or more
`
`critical dimensions and overlay in a wafer undergoing the fabrication process,” “determining if
`
`one or more of the critical dimensions are outside of acceptable tolerances,” “developing control
`
`data,” and “feeding forward or backward the control data to adjust one or more fabrication
`
`components or one or more operating parameters associated with the fabrication components[.]”
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 15 of 27
`
`Id. at 21:5–30. Importantly, the claim stops at any adjustment to the tool. The last claimed step is
`
`simply “feeding forward or backward control data” that will ultimately be used to adjust one or
`
`more fabrication components or operating parameters—all of which occur on the tool. Critically
`
`missing from the claimed method is any step for changing a “wafer undergoing the fabrication
`
`process.” Id. Instead, like the other asserted patents, the method is tied to changes in the data
`
`within the tool. Id. Thus, the claimed method is not directed to a process for manufacturing a
`
`semiconductor product. Similarly, Ocean’s claim chart confirms that the allegedly infringing acts
`
`are tolerance and error detection on the tool, not on the actual manufacture of a semiconductor
`
`product. See D.I. 1, Ex. M at 11, 18, 20 (describing how ASML’s YieldStar system collects data
`
`regarding tolerances for process control). Ocean’s claim for direct infringement of the ’330 patent
`
`should be dismissed. Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1378.
`
`6.
`
`There Is No Viable Infringement Claim Under § 271(g) for the ’538 Patent
`
`Ocean alleges that Renesas directly infringes independent claim 1 of the ’538 patent, solely
`
`based on § 271(g). D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 194-97. Claim 1 of the ’538 patent is directed to a method for
`
`“performing in a computer a fault detection analysis,” “adjusting in said computer a weighting of
`
`[a] parameter based upon [a] relationship of said parameter to [a] detected fault,” and “performing
`
`in said computer the fault detection analysis . . . using said adjusted weighting.” See D.I. 1, Ex. G
`
`(’538 patent) at 13:28– 39. The patent explains that, by using the claimed method, “various tool
`
`state parameters to particular wafers, may be modified to make the detection of similar faults more
`
`likely, or alternatively, less likely.” Id. at 5:39–46. In other words, the claimed method only
`
`results in a change to the tool itself, such as the “tool state parameters,” rather than a semiconductor
`
`product to be manufactured. The Complaint explains the same. Indeed, the complaint categorizes
`
`asserted claim 1 as directed to solving “technical problems related to inaccurately detecting faults
`
`in semiconductor manufacturing processes.” D.I. 1 at ¶ 67. Evident in Ocean’s characterization
`
`IPR2021-01342
`Ocean Semiconductor Exhibit 2023
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01213-ADA Document 15 Filed 04/26/21 Page 16 of 27
`
`of the ’538 patent is that the patent is not directed to a process for directly manufacturing a
`
`semico