Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp.
Citation | 915 F.3d 788 |
Decision Date | 08 February 2019 |
Docket Number | 2018-1076 |
Parties | CONTINENTAL CIRCUITS LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. INTEL CORPORATION, Ibiden U.S.A. Corporation, Ibiden Company Limited, Defendants-Appellees |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Jeffrey A. Lamken, MoloLamken LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Michael Gregory Pattillo, Jr., Benjamin Thomas Sirolly ; Bradley Wayne Caldwell, Jason Dodd Cassady, John Austin Curry, Warren Joseph McCarty, III, Caldwell Cassady & Curry, Dallas, TX.
Joseph J. Mueller, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Kevin Goldman, Richard Wells O'Neill, Sarah B. Petty, Kevin Scott Prussia ; Nina S. Tallon, Washington, DC. Defendant-appellee Intel Corporation also represented by Matthew John Hult, Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA.
Before Lourie, Linn, and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
Continental Circuits LLC appeals from the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona of noninfringement of the asserted claims of U.S. Patents 7,501,582 ("the ’582 patent") ; 8,278,560 ("the ’560 patent") ; 8,581,105 ("the ’105 patent") ; and 9,374,912 ("the ’912 patent"). See Final Judgment, Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , No. 16-2026 (D. Ariz. Sept. 12, 2017), ECF No. 273. The parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement, see Stipulation & Joint Motion, Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , No. 16-2026 (D. Ariz. Sept. 7, 2017), ECF No. 266, based on the district court’s claim construction of certain claim terms, see Cont’l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , No. 16-2026, 2017 WL 3478659 (D. Ariz. Aug. 9, 2017) (" Claim Construction Order "). Because we conclude that the district court erred in its claim construction, we vacate the judgment of noninfringement and remand for further proceedings.
Continental owns the ’582, ’560, ’105, and ’912 patents, which are directed to a "multilayer electrical device ... having a tooth structure" and methods for making the same. See, e.g. , ’582 patent Abstract. The four patents at issue, which have since expired, are continuations of one another and thus share substantially the same specification.1 According to the patents, multilayer electric devices "suffer from delamination, blistering, and other reliability problems," especially when "subjected to thermal stress." Id. col. 1 ll. 30–32. The inventions of the patents purport to solve this problem by "forming a unique surface structure ... comprised of teeth that are preferably angled or hooked like fangs or canine teeth to enable one layer to mechanically grip a second layer." Id. col. 1 ll. 52–57. The specification further explains that the increased surface area of the teeth improves the adhesion of the layers to one another. See id. col. 1 l. 58–col. 2 l. 6.
The patents additionally "theorize[ ] ... that the best methods for producing the teeth [are] to use non-homogenous materials and/or techniques ... such that slowed and/or repeated etching will form teeth instead of a uniform etch." Id. col. 2 ll. 24–29. The specification then explains that "[o]ne technique for forming the teeth is ... the swell and etch or desmear process, except that contrary to all known teachings in the prior art ... a ‘double desmear process’ is utilized." Id. col. 5 ll. 40–44. It continues by explaining that "the peel strength produced in accordance with the present invention is greater than the peal [sic] strength produced by the desmear process of the prior art, i.e., a single pass desmear process." Id. col. 7 ll. 3–6. The specification then discloses that "[i]n stark contrast with the etch and swell process of the known prior art ... a second pass through the process ... is used" because it "make[s] use of [the] non-homogenaities [sic] in bringing about a formation of the teeth." Id. col. 9 ll. 1–5.
Continental sued Intel Corp.; its supplier, Ibiden U.S.A. Corp.; and Ibiden U.S.A. Corp.’s parent company, Ibiden Co. Ltd. (collectively, "Intel"), for patent infringement in the District of Arizona. Continental asserted claims 85, 87, 89, 92, 94, 95, 100, 109, 114, and 122 of the ’582 patent ; claims 14 and 19 of the ’560 patent ; claims 13, 53, 71, 80, 82, 86, 88, 91, 95, 97, 101, and 103 of the ’105 patent ; and claims 2, 3, 18–20, and 26–28 of the ’912 patent. All of the asserted claims include claim limitations regarding the "surface," "removal," or "etching" of "a dielectric material" or "epoxy," which the district court construed together as the "Category 1 Terms," and their construction depends on resolving whether they should be limited to a repeated desmear process. See Claim Construction Order , 2017 WL 3478659, at *2 ; see also J.A. 1879–89.2
Claim 100 of the ’582 patent is illustrative of a claim that includes a "surface" claim term and reads as follows:
’582 patent col. 18 ll. 48–59 (emphases added).
Claim 114 of the ’582 patent is representative of a claim that includes a "removal" claim term and reads as follows:
Id. col. 20 ll. 30–44 (emphasis added).
Claim 14 of the ’560 patent is representative of a claim that includes an "etching" claim term and reads as follows:
’560 patent col. 10 ll. 7–25 (emphases added).
Aside from the "device" and "article of manufacture" claims recited above, the asserted claims also include process and product-by-process claims. Claims 2 and 18 of the ’912 patent are illustrative and read as follows:
’912 patent col. 9 l. 58–col. 10 l. 11, col. 11 l. 14.
The district court construed the Category 1 Terms to require that the "surface," "removal," or "etching" of the dielectric material be "produced by a repeated desmear process ." See Claim Construction Order , 2017 WL 3478659, at *2–3 (emphasis added). The district court concluded that Intel had "met the exacting standard required" to read a limitation into the claims. Id. at *3. Specifically, the district court found that the specification not only "repeatedly distinguishe[d] the process covered by the patent from the prior art and its use of a ‘single desmear process,’ " id. at *4, but also characterized "the present invention" as using a repeated desmear process, see id. at *5.
Additionally, the district court found that the prosecution history corroborated its construction. The examiner made indefiniteness and written description rejections during the prosecution of the ’560 patent of the claim limitation "etching of the epoxy uses...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Microsource, LLC v. ECO World Grp., LLC
..."other portions of the intrinsic evidence do not support applying the limitation to the entire patent." Cont'l Cirs. LLC v. Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019).587 F.Supp.3d 796 To find the meaning of the claims, either its "ordinary and customary meaning" or patent-specific me......
-
EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Servs., LLC, 2019-1602
...of a single, exemplary embodiment does not necessarily limit the claimed invention to that embodiment. Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 797 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ("[D]isclosing only the ProbelecXB 7081 embodiment, without more, does not result in a clear disavowal of claim ......
-
DNA Genotek Inc. v. Spectrum Sols.
... ... process.'" Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek ... Corp. , 334 F.3d 1314, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting ... Carroll Touch, ... to the entire patent.'" Cont'l Cirs. LLC v ... Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 798 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quoting ... Absolute ... ...
-
Ghaly Devices LLC v. Humor Rainbow, Inc.
...that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention." Cont'l Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 796 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). At the pleading stage, before the Court has engaged in claim construction, the claims mus......
-
The Evolving Landscape of Disparaging and Scandalous Trademarks: Historical and Public Relations Perspectives
...make a final disposition of a breach of contract claim between the parties. Claim Construction Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings due t......
-
Debunking Copyright Myths
...make a final disposition of a breach of contract claim between the parties. Claim Construction Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings due t......
-
Protecting Plant Inventions
...make a final disposition of a breach of contract claim between the parties. Claim Construction Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings due t......
-
Decisions in Brief
...make a final disposition of a breach of contract claim between the parties. Claim Construction Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp. , 915 F.3d 788, 129 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The Federal Circuit vacated the judgment of noninfringement and remanded for further proceedings due t......