Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 1 of 26
`
`motivaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Western Digital Technologies, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-1216
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT CASE
`
`PLAINTIFF OCEAN SEMICONDUCTOR LLC’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT
`WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: March 26, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Alex Chan
`Timothy Devlin
`tdevlin@devlinlawfirm.com
`Henrik D. Parker
`hparker@devlinlawfirm.com   
`Alex Chan (State Bar No. 24108051)
`achan@devlinlawfirm.com   
`DEVLIN LAW FIRM LLC 
`1526 Gilpin Avenue 
`Wilmington, Delaware 19806 
`Telephone: (302) 449-9010 
`Facsimile: (302) 353-4251 
`
`
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, 
`Ocean Semiconductor LLC 
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 2 of 26
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The High Bar for a Motion to Dismiss ......................................................................... 2
`
`The Broad Reach of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g) .................................... 3
`
`III. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 4
`
`A.
`The 402, 691, 538, 305, 248, 330, and 651 Patents Are Directed to the Manufacture
`of a Product and Subject to Section 271(g) ............................................................................. 4
`
`1.
`The ’402 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact .............................................................. 5
`
`2.
`The ’691 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact .............................................................. 8
`
`3.
`The ’538 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact .............................................................. 9
`
`4.
`The ’305 and ’248 Patents Involve the Making of Physical Products Such as
`Silicon Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact ............................................... 11
`
`5.
`The ’330 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact ............................................................ 13
`
`6.
`The ’651 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as Silicon
`Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact ............................................................ 14
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The Complaint Sufficiently Asserts Claims for Induced Infringement .................. 15
`
`The Complaint Sufficiently Asserts Claims for Willful Infringement .................... 18
`
`In All Events, Fact Issues Preclude Dismissal ........................................................... 20
`
`Rather Than Dismissing the Complaint, Leave to Amend Should Be Granted ..... 20
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 3 of 26
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc.
`340 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................... 3, 4, 5, 7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Bio-Rad Labs Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.,
`267 F. Supp. 3d 499 (D. Del. 2017) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. v. Biocorp, Inc.,
`249 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................................................................................ 20
`
`Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
`80 F.3d 1553, 38 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 1996) .................................................................. 3, 6
`
`Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-Chevrolet, Inc.
`394 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`DermaFocus LLC v. Ulthera, Inc.,
`201 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D. Del. 2016) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc.
`888 F.3 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018) .................................................................................................... 3
`
`Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.
`82 F.3d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1996 ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`Encoditech, LLC v. Citizen Watch Co. of Am.
`C.A. No. 18-1335-XR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105833 (W.D. Tex. June 25, 2019) ................. 3
`
`Frye v. Anadarko Petro. Corp.,
`953 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2019) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Griggs v. Hinds Junior Coll.,
`563 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1977) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`HSM Portfolio LLC v. Fujitsu Ltd.,
`No. 11-770-RGA,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92167 (D. Del. Jul. 3, 2012) ............................................................... 16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 4 of 26
`
`Inhale, Inc v. Gravitron, LLC
`C.A. No. 18-762-LY (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2018) ..................................................................... 19
`
`James v. J2 Cloud Servs., LLC,
`887 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................................................ 18
`
`Lone Star Motor, Inc. v. Citroen Cars Corp.,
`288 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1961) ...................................................................................................... 20
`
`Lormand v. US Unwired, Inc.,
`565 F.3d 228 (5th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................... 2
`
`Millennium Cryogenic Techs., Ltd. v. Weatherford Artificial Lift Sys.,
`Civil Action No. H-12-0890-KPE,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 196638 (S.D. Tex. 2012) .................................................................... 20
`
`Motiva Patents, LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`408 F. Supp. 3d 819 (E.D. Tex. 2019) ...................................................................................... 18
`
`Plano Encryption Techs. v. Alkami Tech.,
`No. 2:16-cv-1032-JRG,
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221765 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2017) ..................................................... 19
`
`Skinner v. Switzer
`562 U.S. 521 (2011) .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Other Authorities
`
`5 Chisum on Patents § 16.02........................................................................................................... 3
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 .......................................................................................................................... 20
`
`Statutes
`
`U.S.C. § 271 ........................................................................................................................... passim
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 5 of 26
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Western Digital Technologies, Inc.’s (“WDT”) Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 12) is a
`
`hodgepodge of conclusory assertions about the adequacy of Ocean Semiconductor LLC’s
`
`(“Ocean”) Complaint (Dkt. 1) that both confuses the pleading standards and Rule 12(b)(6) law
`
`while citing to inapplicable case law and ignoring the extensive evidentiary presentation. While
`
`purporting to apply a “plausibility” standard, WDT actually argues for a much higher, legally
`
`improper, pleading standard that would require Ocean to lay out in the Complaint substantially
`
`more than is required. This misapplication of legal standards runs throughout WDT’s Motion.
`
`First, WDT wrongly argues that seven of the asserted patents cannot be asserted under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 271(g) because they allegedly are not drawn to the manufacture of a product. WDT
`
`mischaracterizes what the patents cover, however, and ignores that each teaches and claims
`
`manufacturing activities and physical products that place them well within the ambit of § 271(g).
`
`Similarly, in support of its inducement claims, Ocean has provided evidence and factual
`
`allegations—allegations that the Court must take as true—that would allow an inference that
`
`WDT knew about the manufacturing processes and equipment used to manufacture its own
`
`products by virtue of its contractual relationships with its foundries. Already exceeding what is
`
`typically required under the Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, Ocean’s Complaint also offered
`
`three specific classes of information that Ocean expects discovery will reveal and that would
`
`lend credence to Ocean’s inducement allegations. If this information is not sufficient to meet the
`
`Iqbal/Twombly pleading standard, it is difficult to imagine anything that would.
`
`Finally, on willfulness, WDT argues the same “lack of knowledge” debunked by Ocean
`
`as to inducement and then for an “egregiousness” requirement that is not the law while ignoring
`
`precedent establishing that notice letters are sufficient to show knowledge and to plausibly show
`
`that WDT should have known that its conduct amounted to infringement.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 6 of 26
`
`Because this Court must accept all well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable
`
`inferences in Ocean’s favor and should not be resolving at this stage whether Ocean will
`
`ultimately prevail, WDT’s Motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`The High Bar for a Motion to Dismiss
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), dismissal of a complaint or cause of
`
`action is appropriate if it fails to state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.
`
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
`
`When considering a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “[t]he court must accept all well-
`
`pleaded facts as true and must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff.” Frye v.
`
`Anadarko Petro. Corp., 953 F.3d 285, 290-91 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Lormand v. US Unwired,
`
`Inc., 565 F.3d 228, 232 (5th Cir. 2009));1 see also Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461
`
`(5th Cir. 2010); see also Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570. The question resolved is “whether
`
`[the] complaint was sufficient to cross the federal court’s threshold”—not whether the plaintiff
`
`will ultimately prevail. Skinner v. Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 530 (2011). Pleadings should be
`
`construed broadly in light of the allegations as a whole, and the facts pled should be viewed
`
`expansively in light of the liberal pleading standards. See, e.g., Causey v. Sewell Cadillac-
`
`Chevrolet, Inc., 394 F.3d 285, 288-90 (5th Cir. 2004).
`
`This Court has held, based on Federal Circuit precedent, that identification of specific
`
`products, when coupled with allegations that defendants make, sell, offer to sell, import or use
`
`the accused products in the United States the accused products and that each accused product
`
`satisfies each and every limitation of at least one patent claim is enough to meet “the relatively
`
`low threshold for stating a claim for patent infringement.” Encoditech, LLC v. Citizen Watch Co.
`
`
`1 Unless otherwise indicated, all emphasis in this brief has been added.
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 7 of 26
`
`of Am., C.A. No. 18-1335-XR, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105833, at *10 (W.D. Tex. June 25, 2019)
`
`(citing Disc Disease Sols. Inc. v. VGH Sols., Inc., 888 F.3 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
`
`B.
`
`The Broad Reach of Infringement Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g)
`
`Section 271(g) attaches liability to the import or sale of products made by a patented
`
`process. “By enacting the Process Patent Amendments Act, the principal portion of which is
`
`codified as 35 U.S.C. § 271(g), Congress changed the law by making it an act of infringement to
`
`import into the United States, or to sell or use within the United States ‘a product which is made
`
`by a process patented in the United States[.]’” Eli Lilly & Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 82 F.3d
`
`1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Congress created § 271(g) liability to ensure that process patent
`
`holders and domestic manufacturers were not disadvantaged relative to holders of device and
`
`system claims or foreign manufacturers, and the courts interpret “made by” in view of these
`
`policy goals. Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., 340 F.3d 1367, 1368, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Bio-
`
`Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1996), cert. denied,
`
`519 U.S. 911 (1996). The Federal Circuit interprets the term “made” in § 271(g) to mean
`
`“manufactured” and the term “product” to mean a “physical article.” Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1377.
`
`Section 271(g) is applied broadly. When enacting the Process Patent Amendments Act
`
`(“PPAA”), Congress specifically declined to require that a product be made “directly” from a
`
`patented process in order to infringe under § 271(g). Eli Lilly, 82 F.3d at 1576. “In enacting the
`
`PPAA, Congress did not include a positive definition of ‘made by.’ The court must interpret
`
`‘made by’ in light of the PPAA’s policy to afford meaningful protection for owners of patents
`
`claiming processes.” 5 Chisum on Patents § 16.02[6][d][iv] (2019) (citing Bayer, 340 F.3d at
`
`1368; Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 80 F.3d 1553, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1996),
`
`cert. denied, 519 U.S. 911 (1996)). “The connection between a patented process and a product
`
`can vary from immediate . . . to remote[.]” 5 Chisum on Patents § 16.02[6][d][iv] (2019).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 8 of 26
`
`Consequently, whether a product is “made by” a patent should be interpreted expansively to
`
`include products made through the “agency,” “efficacy,” “work,” “participation,” “means or
`
`instrumentality,” “medium,” or “operation” of a process. Bayer at 1378, n.12 (citing Webster’s
`
`and Random House dictionaries).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The 402, 691, 538, 305, 248, 330, and 651 Patents Are Directed to the
`Manufacture of a Product and Subject to Section 271(g)
`
`WDT repeatedly argues that Ocean’s Complaint does not “point to any step that results in
`
`a change to the accused products” or that the claimed methods do not “involve a change to the
`
`wafer” (see Dkt. 12 at 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12). In drawing these baseless conclusions, WDT relies on
`
`a fundamental misunderstanding of Bayer that Section 271(g) liability only attaches where the
`
`patented method directly claims the physical manufacture of a product. Bayer holds no such
`
`thing. The language from Bayer cited by WDT relates to the question of whether information
`
`developed using a patented process is a “product” within the scope of § 271(g), such that
`
`importation of that information is an infringement. Bayer AG, 340 F.3d at 1370-71. The court
`
`in Bayer held that the importation of information was not importation of a “product,” because
`
`information is not “manufactured” at all. Id. 340 F.3d at 1377. Here, what is imported is not
`
`information, but physical products that are manufactured using these patented processes.
`
`Notably, Bayer itself articulates this distinction, demonstrating why the asserted patents
`
`here are all within the scope of § 271(g). The Bayer court separately analyzed claims involving a
`
`physical drug, holding that it “is beyond dispute that a drug is a physical product that has been
`
`manufactured.” Id. As with the drug in Bayer, it is beyond dispute that the semiconductor
`
`wafers described in each of the patents under challenge, and the WDT products alleged to
`
`infringe, are physical products, and that each asserted patent relates directly to the manufacture
`
`of such products, as will be discussed in greater detail below.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 9 of 26
`
`1.
`
`The ’402 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as
`Silicon Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact
`
`As a preliminary matter, at least one defendant in a parallel litigation (NVIDIA) does not
`
`challenge the applicability of Section 271(g) to the ’402 patent, implicitly recognizing that
`
`WDT’s argument has no merit. Indeed, the ’402 patent itself confirms that the invention relates
`
`to (1) the making of physical products such as silicon wafers, and (2) the actual manufacture of
`
`such products. For example, the exemplary system as described in the ’402 patent is
`
`“semiconductor fabrication equipment used to produce a processing piece, such as a silicon
`
`wafer,” and the exemplary tool is a “Rapid Thermal Processing (RTP) tool” or “a tool for
`
`processing silicon wafers.” (Dkt. 1-3 (’402 patent) at 2:42-48.) The independent method claim
`
`recites “the manufacture of a processing piece,” and the independent system claim recites a tool
`
`adapted to “manufacture a processing piece” (claim 8). One dependent claim recites that “the
`
`processing piece is a silicon wafer” (claim 14).
`
`Ocean’s pleading allegations are consistent with the ’402 patent’s focus on physical
`
`articles, in particular semiconductor products made by WDT. The Complaint limits its
`
`accusations under § 271(g) to products made using the claimed method. (Dkt. 1 at ¶ 97.) The
`
`Complaint expressly alleges that WDT “has directly infringed and continues to infringe at least
`
`claim 1 of the ’402 patent . . . by importing into the United States, and/or using, and/or selling,
`
`and/or offering for sale in the United States, without authority or license, the ’402 Accused
`
`Products, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(g).” (Id. at ¶ 97.)
`
`The target of Section 271(g) is the importation of a product made using a patented
`
`process or its subsequent sale within the United States. Bayer, 340 F.3d at 1375. While the
`
`statute requires a physical product, the offending physical product is that which was
`
`manufactured using the patented process. Id. at 1377. Ocean’s Complaint alleges that WDT
`
`used the patented processes, including all of the limitations of each asserted claim, as part of the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 10 of 26
`
`manufacture of WDT’s accused products. In other words, a physical product, such as a silicon
`
`wafer, made by a manufacturing tool that uses the patented fault detection method to identify
`
`manufacturing faults is a product “made by” a patented process for detecting such faults. This is
`
`the exact type of conduct prohibited by Section 271(g). Bio-Tech. Gen. Corp., 80 F.3d at 1561
`
`(holding that a protein made by a host organism expressing an inserted plasmid was a product
`
`“made by” a patented process for creating the plasmid).
`
`There is no dispute that each limitation in claim 1 is practiced in the actual manufacture
`
`of WDT’s semiconductors. The determination of fault conditions and the performance of a
`
`corrective action are alleged to be crucial steps in the manufacture of WDT’s semiconductors,
`
`unlike the generation of information in Bayer which was not part of the manufacture of the drug
`
`products accused of infringement. Section 271(g) is thus implicated because the patented
`
`method is used to manufacture the alleged infringing products.
`
`Recognizing that Ocean clearly accuses eligible products, WDT argues that the claimed
`
`method is directed to “configuring a processing tool” (Dkt. 12 at 4) but the argument is premised
`
`on a deliberate misreading of what the ’402 patent actually describes and claims. Specifically,
`
`the patented system receives “operational state data of a processing tool” (e.g., recited as
`
`“receiving . . .operational state data of a processing tool related to the manufacture of a
`
`processing piece” in claim 1) “when the tool 105 is operating and processing a given wafer,” and
`
`sends data to a fault detection unit (e.g., recited as “sending the translated state data from the data
`
`collection unit to the fault detection unit” in claim 1) “while the particular wafer is being
`
`processed” to ensure that the tool is operating “within acceptable operational limits.” (Dkt. 1-3
`
`(’402 patent) at 3:27-31; 4:3-7.) If the processing tool is operating within appropriate
`
`parameters, manufacturing proceeds (e.g., recited as “determining if a fault condition exists with
`
`the processing tool” in claim 1). If a “fault condition” is detected, the system adjusts the
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 11 of 26
`
`manufacturing process in a variety of ways, including: “manipulate the tool,” (id. at 5:18-20);
`
`“shut down the tool,” (id. at 5:65-6:4); or “apprise a technician of any potential solutions to
`
`rectify the fault condition” (id. at 6:4-9) (e.g., recited as “performing a predetermined action on
`
`the processing tool in response to the presence of a fault condition” in claim 1). Where the
`
`system is monitoring tools but detects no fault, manufacturing can continue as normal. All of
`
`these activities relate directly to the manufacture of the semiconductor products, not just
`
`“configuring a processing tool,” and the language of claim 1 readily reflects these activities.
`
`WDT’s argument that the claimed method is not directed to “steps for manufacturing a
`
`semiconductor product” falls flat because it ignores that the processing tool is “related to the
`
`manufacture of a processing piece”—claim language that WDT intentionally ignores and omits
`
`from its motion. In fact, the very claim charts that WDT referenced (Dkt. 12 at 5) even state that
`
`these steps are performed at the “manufacturing equipment” for wafer production. (See Dkt. 1-9
`
`at 12 (“Using the E3 FDC module, engineers can analyze sensor data from manufacturing
`
`equipment, detect out-of-norm conditions and relate them to problems with tools”); Dkt. 1-10 at
`
`12 (“Exensio . . . controls semiconductor manufacturing equipment and processes . . . [and]
`
`allows manufacturers to accurately detect and identify process or tool problems that arise during
`
`production, in real time.”) Because the alleged steps recited in claim 1 are performed by, and at,
`
`the manufacturing equipment used to manufacture the physical products, they are necessarily
`
`directed to the manufacture of such products.
`
`WDT’s final contention—that the claimed steps do not “result[] in a change to the
`
`accused products” (Dkt. 12 at 5)—is unavailing. Claim 1 explicitly recites “performing a
`
`predetermined action on the processing tool in response to the presence of a fault condition.”
`
`Claim 15 recites “performing a corrective action on the processing tool.” In the event of a fault
`
`detection, these actions include: “manipulate the tool,” (id. at 5:18-20); “shut down the tool,” (id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 12 of 26
`
`at 5:65-6:4); or “apprise a technician of any potential solutions to rectify the fault condition” (id.
`
`at 6:4-9). Hence, the “change to the accused products” is realized; namely a defect-free product.
`
`2.
`
`The ’691 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as
`Silicon Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact
`
`The ‘691 patent claims plainly recite the manufacture of a workpiece, i.e., semiconductor
`
`devices. For example, claim 1 recites “metrology data related to the processing of workpieces in
`
`a plurality of tools.” (Dkt. 1-6 (’691 patent) at 8:20-21.) Metrology data is used “to identify
`
`fault conditions with various tools 30-80 or workpieces and also to update the FDC module(s)
`
`employed to identify the degraded conditions.” (Id. at 5:43-47.) “[T]he set of tools 30A-30C
`
`represent tools of a certain type, such as a chemical mechanical planarization tool. A particular
`
`wafer or lot of wafers progresses through the tools 30-80 as it is being manufactured, with each
`
`tool 30-80 performing a specific function in the process flow.” (Id. at 3:44-49.) Claim 1 also
`
`explicitly claims “conducting a process control activity . . . .” (Id. at 8:27-28.) “An exemplary
`
`process control scenario involves the control of a gate electrode critical dimension (CD) in a
`
`transistor structure.” (Id. at 5:17-19.) Thus, on its face, claim 1 covers the manufacture of
`
`physical products, and processes performed during such manufacture.
`
`a. WDT’s Arguments Fail Because Each of the “Tools” is Used
`for Manufacturing the Physical Products
`
`As with claim 1 of the ’402 patent, WDT erroneously concludes that “the process control
`
`activit[ies] relate to the tool itself, not a process for manufacturing a semiconductor product.”
`
`(Dkt. 12 at 6.) The “tool” is the manufacturing equipment. This is explicitly described in FIG. 1
`
`(showing a “manufacturing system 10 . . . adapted to fabricate semiconductor devices”). (Dkt.
`
`1-6 (’691 patent) at 3:23-26.) The specification also describes, in relation to FIG. 1, tools used
`
`for manufacturing physical products, such as “chemical mechanical planarization tool[s]” and
`
`“tools for a semiconductor device fabrication environment include[ing] photolithography
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 13 of 26
`
`steppers, etch tools, deposition tools, polishing tools, rapid thermal processing tools,
`
`implantation tools, etc.” (Id. at 3:44-53.) Without a doubt, each of these tools is used for the
`
`direct manufacture of physical products.
`
`As with the ‘402 patent, WDT’s final contention—that the claimed steps do not “result[]
`
`in a change to the accused products” (Dkt. 12 at 6-7)—is unavailing. Claim 1 explicitly recites
`
`“conducting a process control activity related to one of the tools . . . .” Claim 7 expands on this
`
`activity, including “determining at least one parameter of an operating recipe employed by one
`
`of the tools.” The specification offers additional exemplary process control activities such as
`
`“the control of a gate electrode critical dimension (CD) in a transistor structure” through
`
`controlling “[e]xposure time and energy [] to affect the dimensions of the mask,” “[t]he
`
`parameters (e.g., etch time, plasma power, etch gas makeup and concentration, etc.) of the etch
`
`process [that] affect the CD of the completed gate electrode,” as well as “processes . . . that have
`
`an impact [on] the CD and other variables of those processes . . . .” (Dkt. 1-6 at 5:17-33.) Each
`
`of these activities “results in a change to the accused products” (e.g., changing the “operating
`
`recipe” or controlling the “exposure time and energy” leads to different semiconductor patterns
`
`being formed on a semiconductor wafer during manufacturing). WDT’s arguments fail.
`
`3.
`
`The ’538 Patent Involves the Making of Physical Products Such as
`Silicon Wafers, and Ocean’s Pleadings Reflect that Fact
`
`The ’538 patent covers similar subject matter as the ’402 patent—fault detection and its
`
`use in a tool for manufacturing semiconductor wafers. As such, WDT’s contentions suffer from
`
`all of the same flaws as are discussed above with respect to the ’402 patent. Like the ’402
`
`patent, the ’538 patent claims “[a] method, comprising: performing in a computer a fault
`
`detection analysis relating to processing of a workpiece.” (Dkt. 1-8 (’538 patent) at 13:28-30.)
`
`This “workpiece comprises a semiconductor wafer.” (Claim 2.) The fault detection analysis
`
`includes determining “a relationship of a parameter relating to said fault detection analysis to a
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 14 of 26
`
`detected fault,” including a relationship between at least one of “pressure,” “temperature,”
`
`“data,” “humidity,” or “gas flow.” (Claim 9.) The performance of the fault detection method is
`
`not undertaken for data collection purposes, but rather “relat[es] to processing of a subsequent
`
`workpiece. . . .” (Id. at 13:38.) Thus, on its face, the claimed method is used in the direct
`
`manufacture of semiconductor wafers.
`
`This is confirmed by the specification, which further delineates the ways in which the
`
`patented methods involve not only collection and analysis of information from the manufacturing
`
`process, but also control of manufacturing tools used for manufacturing semiconductor wafers.
`
`For example, as part of the weighting process, “the processing system may perform subsequent
`
`processes upon the semiconductor wafers based upon the newly adjusted parameter-weighting. .
`
`. .” (Id. at 11:7-9.) FIG. 7 similarly indicates that the “perform subsequent process step” follows
`
`the “perform dynamic PCA weighting process” step. (Id. at Fig. 7.)
`
`a. WDT’s Arguments Fail Because Each of the “Tools” is Used
`for Manufacturing the Physical Products
`
`WDT’s argument that the patented method “is not directed to a process for directly
`
`manufacturing a semiconductor product manufactured by the tool” fails because it ignores that
`
`claim 1 explicitly recites “processing of a workpiece”—claim language that WDT intentionally
`
`ignores and omits—which immediately confirms that the “fault detection analysis” is being
`
`performed on physical products during manufacturing. Claim 2 also confirms that the
`
`“workpiece comprises a semiconductor wafer,” leaving no room to speculate that this is anything
`
`but “a process for directly manufacturing a semiconductor product.”
`
`WDT also ignores that the processing tool is “related to the manufacture of a processing
`
`piece.” In fact, the very claim charts referenced by WDT in its motion (Dkt. 12 at 8) state that
`
`these steps are performed at the “manufacturing equipment” during production. (See Dkt. 1-16
`
`at 3 (“Using the E3 FDC module, engineers can analyze sensor data from manufacturing
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-01216-ADA Document 19 Filed 03/26/21 Page 15 of 26
`
`equipment, detect out-of-norm conditions and relate them to problems with tools”; see also id. at
`
`9 (“The process level R2R control modules may then adjust parameters of individual recipes,
`
`manufacturing machines, etc. in response to the new targets and settings. For example, the
`
`deposition R2R control module 535 may adjust parameters of one or more deposition
`
`manufacturing machines”); Dkt. 1-17 at 12 (“Exensio. . . controls semiconductor manufacturing
`
`equipment and processes . . . [and] allows manufacturers to accurately detect and identify
`
`process or tool problems that arise during production, in real time.”) Because the steps recited
`
`in claim 1 are performed by, and at, the manufacturing equipment used to manufacture the
`
`physical products, they are necessarily directed to the manufacture of such products.
`
`As with other patents, WDT’s final contention that the claimed steps do not “result[] in a
`
`change to the accused products” (Dkt. 12 at 8) fails. Claims 1 and 2 explicitly recite “performing
`
`. . . a fault detection analysis relating to processing of a workpiece” where the “workpiece
`
`comprises a semiconductor wafer.” The fault detection analysis is used “to determine that a fault
`
`associated with said processing of said workpiece has occurred.” (Claim 15.) The resulting
`
`adjustment is then used for “processing of a subsequent workpiece” as recited in claim 1. The
`
`specification teaches that the fault detection analysis is performed “when processing
`
`semiconductor wafers” such that the analysis “is then used to modify subsequent processes.”
`
`(Dkt. 1-7 (’538 patent) at 2:10-14.) As a result, “a more effective and accurate process
`
`adjustment may be performed to achiev