Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 1 of 37 PageID# 27441
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`-v.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, OLD MICRO,
`INC. F/K/A VELOCITY MICRO, INC., AND
`VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
`PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INFRINGEMENT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 2 of 37 PageID# 27442
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS .............................................2
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS ..................6
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................7
`
`A.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards ........................................................................................7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard for Summary Judgment ......................................................7
`
`Legal Standard for Patent Infringement .......................................................7
`
`B.
`
`There are Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Precluding Summary
`Judgment Under the Proper Interpretation of Claim 15 of the ’902 Patent .............8
`
`1.
`
`There is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Under the Proper
`Construction of “Forming a First Patterned Layer on Said Active
`Region of Said Substrate Spaced Apart From Said Field Region” ..............8
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`“Spaced Apart” Should be Given its Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning, Which is Not Limited to a Cross-Sectional View ...........9
`
`Defendants’ Plain Meaning Construction of “Spaced
`Apart” is Correct ............................................................................11
`
`Defendants’ Plain Meaning Construction of “Spaced
`Apart” Does Not Exclude Preferred Embodiments .......................13
`
`Applying the Plain Meaning of “Spaced Apart,” A Genuine
`Dispute of Material Fact Precludes Summary Judgment ...............14
`
`2.
`
`There is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Under the Proper
`Construction of “Forming a Second Patterned Layer on Said Field
`Isolation Layer Adjacent Said Active Region of Said Substrate, the
`Active Region Including the First Patterned Layer” ..................................17
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Controlling Precedent Contradicts Samsung’s Argument
`That Claim 15’s “Second Patterned Layer” Need Not be
`Etch Inhibiting Because Claim 1 Recites an “Etch
`Inhibiting Layer” ............................................................................17
`
`The Specification Expressly States That the “Second
`Patterned Layer” in Claim 15 Must Inhibit or be Capable of
`Inhibiting an Etch ...........................................................................19
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 3 of 37 PageID# 27443
`
`
`c.
`
`Under the Proper Interpretation of “Second Patterned
`Layer,” There is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact
`Precluding Summary Judgment .....................................................21
`
`C.
`
`There are Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Precluding Summary
`Judgment Under the Proper Interpretation of Claim 12 of the ’675 Patent ...........21
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`There Is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact as to Whether
`Manufacturing Involves “Depositing a Third Metal Gate Electrode
`Layer onto the Second Metal Gate Electrode Layer to Thereby Fill
`a Space Between the Inner Sidewalls of the Spacers” ...............................22
`
`There Is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact as to Whether the
`Accused Devices Are Made by “Planarizing the Third Metal Gate
`Electrode Layer and the Second Metal Gate Electrode Layer to
`Thereby Define a Composite Metal Gate Electrode of a PMOS
`Transistor Between the Inner Sidewalls of the Spacers” ...........................23
`
`There Is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact as to Whether the
`Accused Devices Have a “Composite Metal Gate Electrode
`Comprising a Portion of the Third Metal Gate Electrode Layer, a
`Portion of the Second Metal Gate Electrode Layer Having a U-
`Shaped Cross-Section and the Patterned First Metal Gate Electrode
`Layer” ........................................................................................................25
`
`There Is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact as to Whether “the
`Portion of Third Metal Gate Electrode Layer of the PMOS
`Transistor and the Upper Metal Gate Electrode of the NMOS
`Transistor Comprise Different Metals” in the Accused Devices ...............26
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`Dr. Fair’s Testimony Refutes Samsung’s Infringement
`Theory ............................................................................................27
`
`Samsung Improperly Seeks to Re-Write the Claim
`Language from “Different Metals” to “Different Materials” ........28
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................30
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 4 of 37 PageID# 27444
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
`477 U.S. 242 (1986) .................................................................................................................... 7
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Yahoo! Inc.,
`755 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................. 28
`
`Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc.,
`292 F.3d 718 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................... 8
`
`C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
`388 F.3d 858 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`EMD Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Tech., Inc.,
`768 F.3d 1196 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.,
`96 F.3d 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc.,
`No. 3:11-cv-345, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97923 (E.D. Va. July 13, 2012) ................................ 7
`
`Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx,
`639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 19
`
`Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`No. 2014-1845, --- F.3d ---, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015) ...... 10, 11
`
`Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC,
`403 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................................................... 9
`
`Nystrom v. TREX Co.,
`424 F.3d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 17, 19
`
`Retractable Tech., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
`653 F.3d 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2011), denying en banc reh’g, 659 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2011) . 18, 19
`
`Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc.,
`705 F.2d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................... 7
`
`Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc.,
`607 F.3d 784 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................. 19, 20
`
`Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
`655 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 5 of 37 PageID# 27445
`
`
`Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................. 18
`
`Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.,
`726 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 17
`
`TI Grp. Auto. Sys. (N. Am.) v. VDO N. Am. LLC,
`375 F.3d 1126 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ....................................................................................... 9, 10, 11
`
`Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`11 F. Supp. 3d 622 (E.D. Va. 2014) ............................................................................................ 7
`
`V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA,
`401 F.3d 1307 .............................................................................................................................. 8
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) ....................................................................................................................... 7
`
`RULES
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 6 of 37 PageID# 27446
`Case 3:14—cv—OO757—REP—DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 6 of 37 Page|D# 27446
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`San1sung’s motion is meritless.
`
`First, Sams1mg’s position concerning claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 6,287,902 (“’902
`
`patent”) is based entirely on new, late, and incorrect constructions of two claim terms — “spaced
`
`apart” and “second pattemed layer” — that Samsrmg did not seek to have construed during the
`
`Marimlan process.
`
`If the Corut is inclined to construe those terms now, Sams1u1g’s improper
`
`constructions should be rejected. Samsung violates key tenets of claim construction by reading
`
`features from the patent figures into the claim to construe “spaced apart,” and by entirely
`
`ignoring the specification to construe “second patterned layer.” Applying proper constructions,
`
`the evidence shows there is no infringement and, at the very least, raises genuine issues of
`
`material fact barring srunmary judgment.
`
`Second, Sams1mg’s positions concerning claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,252,675 (“’675
`
`patent”) are flawed in several respects. There is a hotly contested factual dispute about whether
`
`an admittedly meets the claimed requirement of “being
`
`deposited.” Next, Samsrmg takes inconsistent positions on whether the‘
`
`‘ is or is not part of the claimed “third metal gate electrode layer.” For the
`
`“being deposited” limitation, Samsrmg includes the
`
`but for the “planarizing” limitation,
`
`Samsung excludes it. Samsung cannot have it both ways. One of these two limitations is absent
`
`from the accused products. Finally, Samsung improperly seeks to construe the claimed “different
`
`metals” as “different materials” to circumvent the evidence showing that the-
`
` . Not only is this construction wrong, it is both new and raised too
`
`late in the case. Samsung never sought to have this term construed during the Markmtm process.
`
`Under the proper construction, the evidence shows there is no infringement and, at the very least,
`
`raises genuine issues of fact. Samsung’s motion should be denied.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 7 of 37 PageID# 27447
`
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`Defendants respond to Samsung’s Statement of Undisputed Facts as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Disputed in part. Defendants do not dispute that
`
`
`
`. Samsung chose not to sue any TSMC entity,
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Disputed in part. Defendants dispute this statement to the extent it suggests that
`
` (See, e.g., Lee Decl. at ¶ 240.) Defendants
`
`
`
`but
`
`the
`
`dispute, for example, that the
`
` (Id.at ¶¶ 225-40.)
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed in part. Dr. Choe’s analysis in his expert report only identifies
`
`. (See, e.g., id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Disputed in part. Defendants dispute that Dr. Choe’s reverse engineering reports
`
`accurately depict
`
` (See, e.g., id.)
`
`6.
`
`Samsung has not obtained any direct evidence showing that all products made
`
`using the same process node, or different variations of the same process node, do not differ in
`
`any way relevant to Samsung’s or Defendants’ infringement or non-infringement analysis. (Id.
`
`at ¶¶ 53-54.) Dr. Choe analyzed only
`
` (Id.;
`
`D.I. 291 at Ex. 3 ((Corrected Third Amended Exhibit A); see generally Angle Decl., Ex. A (Sept.
`
`18 Fair Initial Report).)
`
`7.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 8 of 37 PageID# 27448
`
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Undisputed.
`
`Disputed. Dr. Lee has also offered opinions that the ’675 and ’902 patents are
`
`invalid. (See, e.g., Lee Decl. at ¶ 246.) He opines that the accused products do not meet many
`
`elements of the asserted claims of the ’675 and ’902 patents. (See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ 222, 246.)
`
`12.
`
`Disputed. The ’902 patent claims a method of forming an etch inhibiting layer on
`
`a field isolation layer to allow for the misalignment of the contact hole without damaging the
`
`field isolation layer. (Id. at ¶¶ 119, 167, 215; D.I. 291, Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at 2:49-54.)
`
`13.
`
`Disputed in part. Defendants dispute that the
`
`
`
` and that it is “representative.” (Lee Decl. at ¶ 53.) Defendants further dispute
`
`the annotation of the figures cited because they appear to be annotated according to Samsung’s
`
`infringement contentions. Defendants further dispute that the “second patterned conductive
`
`layer” corresponds to 44a and 46a of Figure 8 of the ’902 patent. (Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at 6:4-
`
`11.)
`
`14.
`
`Disputed. Defendants dispute that the
`
`
`
`and that it is “representative.” (Lee Decl. at ¶ 53.) Defendants further dispute that the
`
`referenced cross-section
`
` (Id.)
`
`15.
`
`Disputed. Defendants dispute that the
`
`
`
`
`
` and that it is “representative.” (Id.) Defendants further dispute that “second patterned
`
`conductive layer” corresponds to 44a and 46a of Figure 8 of the ’902 patent. (Ex. 20 (’902
`
`Patent) at 6:4-11.) Defendants further dispute that the “first patterned conductive layer”
`
`3
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 9 of 37 PageID# 27449
`
`
`corresponds to 44 and 46 of Figure 8 of the ’902 patent. (Id. at 6:15-18.) The “first patterned
`
`conductive layer” is formed on an active region and field region. (See Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 81-83.)
`
`16.
`
`Disputed. Defendants dispute that the
`
`
`
` and that it is “representative.” (Id. at ¶ 53.) Defendants further dispute that the “first
`
`patterned conductive layer” corresponds to 44 and 46 of Figure 8 of the ’902 patent. (D.I. 291,
`
`Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at 6:15-18.) Defendants further dispute that the
`
`
`
` is “spaced apart from the field region (or ‘field isolation layer’ 42)
`
`in the same manner as depicted in the ’902 Patent.” (Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 76, 81-95.)
`
`17.
`
`Disputed. The “second patterned conductive layer” does not correspond to 44a
`
`and 46a of Figure 8 of the ’902 patent. (D.I. 291, Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at 6:4-11.)
`
`18.
`
`Disputed. Defendants dispute that the “first patterned conductive layer includes
`
`an insulating spacer structure 46 along the sidewall of gate structure 44.” (Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 99-
`
`101, 123-24.)
`
`19.
`
`Disputed. The ’675 patent claims a method for manufacturing metal-oxide-
`
`semiconductor (“MOS”) transistors having gate electrodes formed of different metals. (D.I. 291,
`
`Ex. 21 (’675 Patent) at 1:13-16.) The annotated figure cited by Samsung does not describe “the
`
`figure is a figure from the ’675 patent, and
`
`D.I. 289 at 5.) O
`
`.” The
`
`. (See
`
`20.
`
`Disputed in part. Defendants dispute whether “the claim language maps onto a
`
`device with NMOS and PMOS transistors.” Annotated Figure 37 of the ’675 patent depicts how
`
`Samsung and Dr. Fair have mapped the claim language to Figure 37 of the ’675 patent. (Id.)
`
`4
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 10 of 37 PageID# 27450
`
`
`
`
`21.
`
`Disputed. Defendants dispute whether the referenced
`
` The images do not, for example, depict many
`
`limitations of the asserted claims at all. In addition,
`
` (Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 237-38.) And
`
`22.
`
`Disputed.
`
`. (Id. at ¶ 240.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`.” (D.I. 291, Ex. 19 (10/20/15 Choe
`
`Dep.) at 141:21-143:10, 145:19-146:6, 148:20-149:3.)
`
`23.
`
`Disputed in part.
`
` (Id. at 142:14-20.)
`
`24.
`
`Disputed.
`
`. (See id. at 142:18-143:10.)
`
`25.
`
`Disputed in part.
`
`e. (See id. at 145:19-146:13.)
`
`26.
`
`Disputed in part.
`
`27.
`
`Disputed in part. A
`
` (See Lee Decl. at ¶ 240.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. (See id.; see also D.I. 291, Ex. 19 (10/20/15 Choe Dep.) at 153:16-154:4.)
`
`28.
`
`22 (10/20/15 Choe Tr.) at 141:16-20; id., Ex. 18 (10/30/15 Lee Tr.) at 355:12-18.) Further, the
`
`. (D.I. 291, Ex.
`
`5
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 11 of 37 PageID# 27451
`
`
`¶¶ 237-38); D.I. 291, Ex. 22 (10/20/15 Choe Tr.) at 205:7-206:17.)
`
`29.
`
`Disputed. CMP does not necessarily flatten the topology on a wafer, even though
`
`it may be used to do so. (See Lee Decl. at ¶ 37; D.I. 291, Ex. 21 (5/8/15 Choe Tr.) at 159:18-
`
`. (See Lee Decl. at
`
`
`
`
`
`160:21.)
`
`
`
`30.
`
`Disputed. For example, Samsung’s expert, Dr. Choe, testified that “
`
` (D.I. 291, Ex. 21 (5/8/15 Choe Tr.) at 159:18-21, 159:18-
`
`160:15; see also Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 29, 37, 223-38.)
`
`31.
`
`Disputed. Samsung’s expert Dr. Choe testified that
`
`
`
` (D.I. 291, Ex. 22 (10/20/15 Choe Tr.) at 113:5-10,
`
`114:3-115:1.)
`
`32.
`
`Disputed.
`
`33.
`
`Disputed.
`
`. (See id. at 205:7-206:17; Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 237-38.)
`
`
`
`
`
`. (See Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 241-45; D.I. 291, Ex. 22 (10/20/15
`
`Choe Tr.) at 191:20-192:2, 192:12-15.) To the extent Samsung is correct that the accused
`
`products do not differ from each other in any aspect meaningful to the practice of the ’675
`
`patent, then the
`
`III.
`
`DEFENDANTS’ ADDITIONAL STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
`
`1.
`
`Samsung originally argued that the
`
`.
`
`
`
`r. (See Angle Decl., Ex. A (Sept. 18 Fair Initial Report),
`
`Exs. E-1 at 50-52, E-2 at 32-34, E-3 at 31-33.)
`
`6
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 12 of 37 PageID# 27452
`
`
`2.
`
`Samsung later changed its theory to argue that the
`
`
`
`. (See Angle Decl., Ex. D (Oct. 22 Fair Supp. Report) at ¶¶ 11-
`
`16.)
`
`3.
`
`Samsung presented this new theory two days after Dr. Choe testified that the
`
` (D.I. 291, Ex. 22 (10/20/15 Choe Tr.) at 205:7-
`
`206:2, 206:15-17.)
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Relevant Legal Standards
`
`1.
`
`Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
`
`Summary judgment is appropriate only when the moving party “shows that there is no
`
`genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
`
`law.” Va. Innovation Scis., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 11 F. Supp. 3d 622, 638 (E.D. Va. 2014)
`
`(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)); Selva & Sons, Inc. v. Nina Footwear, Inc., 705 F.2d 1316, 1323
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1983) (“Summary judgment is a drastic remedy.”). “Summary judgment will not lie if
`
`the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury
`
`could return a verdict for the non-moving party.” Va. Innovation Scis., 11 F. Supp. 3d at 639
`
`(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A fact is material if it might
`
`affect the outcome of a party’s case. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. “The evidence of the
`
`nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Id. at
`
`248 (citation omitted).
`
`2.
`
`Legal Standard for Patent Infringement
`
`“To prove infringement, a patent holder must demonstrate that ‘each and every limitation
`
`set forth in a claim appear[s] in an accused product.’” Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. Sunbeam
`
`Prods., Inc., No. 3:11-cv-345, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97923, at *7 (E.D. Va. July 13, 2012)
`
`7
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 13 of 37 PageID# 27453
`
`
`(quoting V-Formation, Inc. v. Benetton Grp. SpA, 401 F.3d 1307, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). A
`
`claim cannot be literally infringed if any claim element is missing from the accused product.1
`
`See Star Scientific, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 655 F.3d 1364, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`Summary judgment of infringement is appropriate only when no reasonable jury could
`
`fail to find every limitation recited in the properly construed claim in the accused device. EMD
`
`Millipore Corp. v. AllPure Tech., Inc., 768 F.3d 1196, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).
`
`Infringement “is a question of fact . . . that a court is not to resolve on summary judgment unless
`
`no genuine factual issue remains.” Beckson Marine, Inc. v. NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 722 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).
`
`B.
`
`There are Genuine Disputes of Material Fact Precluding Summary
`Judgment Under the Proper Interpretation of Claim 15 of the ’902 Patent
`
`There are genuine disputes of material fact precluding summary judgment under proper
`
`claim constructions of two limitations of claim 15 of the ’902 patent: (1) “forming a first
`
`patterned layer on said active region of said substrate spaced apart from said field region,” and
`
`(2) “forming a second patterned layer on said field isolation layer adjacent said active region of
`
`said substrate, the active region including the first patterned layer.”
`
`1.
`
`There is a Genuine Dispute of Material Fact Under the Proper
`Construction of “Forming a First Patterned Layer on Said Active
`Region of Said Substrate Spaced Apart From Said Field Region”
`
`Samsung’s infringement theory requires the Court to improperly limit the claim term
`
`“spaced apart” to require that the first patterned layer only be spaced apart from the field region
`
`when viewed from a single, particular, two-dimensional, cross-sectional perspective, that
`
`Samsung selected. To support its motion, Samsung offers a cross-sectional photograph where it
`
`
`1 Samsung’s motion makes no mention of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and
`therefore rests – and ultimately falls – solely on literal infringement.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 14 of 37 PageID# 27454
`
`
`two-dimensional cross-sectional view that Samsung selected, even though several other
`
` in the particular,
`
`
`
`
`
`Samsung’s sole basis for interpreting “spaced apart” to be limited to “spaced apart” in
`
`one particular cross-sectional perspective is that the patent figures happen to show that particular
`
`cross-section. (See D.I. 290 at 11.) The figures, however, are an improper basis for deviating
`
`from the plain meaning of “spaced apart.” See, e.g., TI Grp. Auto. Sys. (N. Am.) v. VDO N. Am.
`
`LLC, 375 F.3d 1126, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he mere fact that the patent drawings depict a
`
`particular embodiment of the patent does not operate to limit the claims to that specific
`
`configuration.”) (citation omitted); see also Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. ARM Holdings, PLC, 403
`
`F.3d 1364, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (same); Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382
`
`F.3d 1354, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (same), overruled on other grounds by Williamson v. Citrix
`
`Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1347-49 (Fed. Cir. 2015). As discussed below, nothing in the
`
`intrinsic record disclaims the plain meaning of “spaced apart” to require the narrow and self-
`
`serving interpretation Samsung urges.
`
`a.
`
`“Spaced Apart” Should be Given its Plain and Ordinary
`Meaning, Which is Not Limited to a Cross-Sectional View
`
`Although never raised during the Markman proceedings, Samsung now maintains that the
`
`simple two-word phrase “spaced apart” should not be given its plain meaning but, instead,
`
`should be specially construed as a 17-word exercise in limitation importation: “spaced apart in
`
`the cross-sectional plane of a contact hole in the active region of the substrate.” 2 Samsung is
`
`
`2 (See D.I. 290 at 11
`
`
`.”); see also D.I. 293 (Fair Decl.), Ex. D-1 at
`
`9
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 15 of 37 PageID# 27455
`
`
`wrong. The term “spaced apart” should be afforded its plain meaning – “spaced apart in all
`
`directions.” (Angle Decl., Ex. I (Websters New World College Dictionary) at 64, 1372 (4th ed.
`
`1999) (defining “space” as “the three-dimensional, continuous expanse extending in all
`
`directions and containing all matter” and “apart” as “separately or away in place or time”); Lee
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 86, 95, 135, 144, 183, 192.)
`
`“Claim construction begins with the language of the claims themselves,” the words of
`
`which “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning . . . to a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the art at the time of the invention.” Imaginal Systematic, LLC v. Leggett & Platt, Inc.,
`
`No. 2014-1845, --- F.3d ---, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555, at *14 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2015)
`
`(citations omitted). Patent “drawings, without more, are insufficient to cabin the scope of the
`
`ordinary and customary meaning” of a claim term. TI Grp., 375 F.3d at 1136 (“[T]he mere fact
`
`that the patent drawings depict a particular embodiment of the patent does not operate to limit the
`
`claims to that specific configuration.”).
`
`Claim 15 does not reference any particular cross-section. Although Samsung attempts to
`
`limit the claim to one particular cross-sectional perspective depicted in the figures, its expert Dr.
`
`Fair admits that the
`
`
`
`. (See Angle Decl., Ex. H (10/27/15 Fair Tr.) at 354:5-22.)
`
`Consequently, the claim language itself does not provide a basis for importing Samsung’s
`
`limitation.
`
`The specification of the ’902 patent mentions “spaced apart” only once at column 2, line
`
`62. The term is never discussed or described, much less defined in the very specific and narrow
`
`
`13 (“
`
`
`
`”); Angle Decl., Ex. H
`
`(10/27/15 Fair Tr.) at 353:1-354:14.)
`
`10
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 16 of 37 PageID# 27456
`
`
`manner proposed by Samsung. In the single passage where the term is used, no figures are
`
`referenced. Samsung’s attempt to use the patent figures to redefine the scope of claim 15 is
`
`improper, both legally and factually. It is legally improper because “the mere fact that the patent
`
`drawings depict a particular embodiment of the patent does not operate to limit the claims to that
`
`specific configuration.” See TI Grp., 375 F.3d at 1136. It is factually improper because the ’902
`
`patent specification expressly states that the figures are not intended to limit the claims. (D.I.
`
`291, Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at 6:42-47 (“In the drawings and specification, there have been
`
`disclosed typical preferred embodiments of the invention and . . . they are used in a generic and
`
`descriptive sense only and not for purposes of limitation, the scope of the invention being set
`
`forth in the following claims.”).3)
`
`There is not so much as a hint anywhere in the intrinsic record that Samsung intended
`
`claim 15 to be limited to the particular cross-sectional view depicted in the figures. Samsung
`
`could have drafted the claim language to limit “spaced apart” to a particular cross-section.
`
`Samsung instead chose to claim the alleged invention without reference to any such cross-
`
`section. Samsung also could have defined “spaced apart” in the specification, but chose not to.
`
`See Imaginal Systematic, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 19555, at *19 (“There is simply no support for
`
`Imaginal’s attempts to narrow the negative claim limitation . . . The fact remains that the
`
`patentee could have specifically disclaimed a particular vision guidance system . . . but did not
`
`do so.”). Samsung’s attempt to ascribe special meaning to “spaced apart” should be rejected.
`
`b.
`
`Defendants’ Plain Meaning Construction of “Spaced Apart” is
`Correct
`
`Defendants properly interpret “spaced apart” in accordance with its plain meaning. The
`
`field region and the first patterned layer must be spaced apart in all directions they extend, not
`
`3 All emphasis added unless otherwise noted.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 17 of 37 PageID# 27457
`
`
`
`
`just in one particular cross-sectional view. There is no dispute that the
`
` Defendants’ position properly contemplates the real-world
`
`three-dimensional characteristics of the
`
` as it would be understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art. (Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 86, 95, 135, 144, 183, 192; Angle Decl., Ex. G
`
`(10/26/15 Fair Tr.) at 136:8-15.)
`
`The infringement and invalidity analyses of Samsung’s expert, Dr. Fair, confirm the
`
`merit of Defendants’ approach and undermine Samsung’s attempt to re-write the claim language
`
`“spaced apart” to mean “spaced apart” in a particular cross-section. Tellingly, Dr. Fair relies on
`
` (See D.I. 293
`
`
`
`
`
`(Fair Decl.), Ex. D-1 at 53, 57, 62, 67, 75, 76, 79, 80.)
`
`(Id., Ex. D-1 at 75; see also id., Ex. D-1 at 79.) Dr. Fair also distinguishes Defendants’ prior art
`
`on the basis that a
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 18 of 37 PageID# 27458
`
`
`
`
`. (See Angle Decl., Ex. C (Oct. 9 Fair Rebuttal Report) at ¶ 107 (
`
`).) Dr. Fair’s analyses therefore confirm that one of ordinary skill
`
`in the art would consider the relevant structure in all dimensions, not just Samsung’s present
`
`preferred two-dimensional view.
`
`c.
`
`Defendants’ Plain Meaning Construction of “Spaced Apart”
`Does Not Exclude Preferred Embodiments
`
`Samsung’s argument that Defendants’ reading of “spaced apart” would exclude a
`
`preferred embodiment (e.g., Figure 8) is wrong. (D.I. 290 at 12-13.) Samsung’s argument
`
`depends on limiting the claims to one specific type of transistor. (Id. at 13 (citing D.I. 293 (Fair
`
`Decl.), Ex. D-1 at 13-14).) Relying on that type, Samsung then resorts to extrapolating from
`
`Figure 8 to argue – without any support from the specification – that if “gate 44 [of that type of
`
`transistor] were to extend in the width direction . . . [it] would eventually cross over a field
`
`region 42 at the end of the active region 43 and either continue or terminate over the field
`
`region.” (Id.) This argument is fundamentally flawed because the specification never discusses
`
`any embodiment where gate 44 would cross the field region.
`
`Moreover, Figure 8 (which Samsung claims would be excluded by Defendants’
`
`interpretation) does not even show a transistor. (See D.I. 291, Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at Fig. 8; Lee
`
`
`
`Decl. at ¶ 76.) As Dr. Fair explained, a transistor’s
`
` (D.I. 293 (Fair Decl.), Ex. D-1 at 14; Lee Decl. at ¶ 76.). Dr. Fair testified that to
`
`. (See Angle Decl., Ex. H (10/27/15 Fair Tr.) at 314:10-315:3.) Unlike the
`
`
`
`13
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`REDACTED
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 372 Filed 11/16/15 Page 19 of 37 PageID# 27459
`
`
`transistor described by Dr. Fair, Figure 8 only shows one source/drain region 43 on one side of
`
`the gate. The required other side is not shown, which means a transistor is not shown in Figure
`
`8. (See D.I. 291, Ex. 20 (’902 Patent) at Fig. 8, 5:55-57; Lee Decl. at ¶ 76.)
`
`Accordingly, one of skill in the art would not understand Figure 8 to be limited to a
`
`transistor, much less the single specific type of transistor Dr. Fair describes. (Lee Decl. at ¶¶ 87,
`
`136, 184.) Instead, one of skill in the art would understand that the ’902 patent figures merely
`
`provide examples of “first patterned layers” that may be formed without crossing over a field
`
`region. This disclosure includes many different types of transistors where the “first patterned
`
`layer” does not extend over th