MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.

• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit
• Writing for the Court: Stoll, Circuit Judge.
• Citation: MLC Intellectual Prop., LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 10 F.4th 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
• Decision Date: 26 August 2021
• Docket Number: 2020-1413
• Parties: MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

10 F.4th 1358

MLC INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

2020-1413

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: August 26, 2021

Fabio E. Marino, Polsinelli PC, Palo Alto, CA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Teri Hong-Phuc Nguyen.

Ruffin B. Cordell, Fish & Richardson PC, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Michael John Ballanco, Christopher Dryer, Timothy W. Riffe, Robert Andrew Schwentker, Adam Shartzer.

William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, for amici curiae Apple Inc., Dell Inc., HP Inc., Intel Corporation. Also represented by Benjamin Noah Ernst, Mark Christopher Fleming, Lauren B. Fletcher.

Andrew Dufresne, Perkins Coie LLP, Madison, WI, for amici curiae Computer & Communications Industry Association, High Tech Inventors Alliance. Also represented by Thomas Andrew Culbert, Theresa H. Nguyen, Seattle, WA.

Phillip R. Malone, Juelsgaard Intellectual Property and Innovation Clinic, Mills Legal Clinic, Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA, for amici curiae Engine Advocacy, The R Street Institute. Also represented by ABIGAIL A. RIVES, Engine Advocacy, Washington, DC. Amicus curiae The R Street Institute also represented by Charles Duan, R Street Institute, Washington, DC.

Before Newman, Reyna, and Stoll, Circuit Judges.

Stoll, Circuit Judge.

MLC Intellectual Property, LLC seeks interlocutory review of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California's orders excluding certain opinions of MLC's damages expert. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court's orders precluding MLC's damages expert from characterizing certain license agreements as reflecting a 0.25% royalty, opining on a reasonable royalty rate when MLC failed to produce key documents and information directed to its damages theory when requested prior to expert discovery, and opining on the royalty base and royalty rate where the expert failed to apportion for non-patented features.

BACKGROUND

I

MLC sued Micron for infringing certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 5,764,571. The '571 patent, titled "Electrically Alterable Non-Volatile Memory with N-bits Per Cell," describes methods of programming multi-level cells. The specification discloses that, in conventional single-bit per cell memory devices, a memory cell assumes either an "on" state or an "off" state, defining one bit of information. Thus, a memory device that stores n-bits of data requires n separate memory cells, meaning that the number of memory cells must increase on a one-for-one basis with the number of bits to be stored.

The specification explains that an alternative approach to the single-bit per cell approach involves storing multiple-bits of data in a single memory cell, known as a multi-level cell. Prior approaches to multiple-bit per cell non-volatile memory have only used mask programmable read-only-memories (ROMs). This may be accomplished by varying the channel width or length of the memory cell "such that 2n different conductivity values are obtained which correspond to 2n different states corresponding to n-bits of data which can be stored on a single memory cell." '571 patent col. 1 ll. 45–49. Another conventional ROM approach involves varying an ion implant for the threshold voltage "such that the memory cell will have 2n different voltage thresholds (Vt) corresponding to 2n different states corresponding to n-bits of data which can be stored on a single memory cell." Id. at col. 1 ll. 49–54. In these multi-bit ROM approaches, the 2n conductivity level must be determined during the manufacturing process, and the memory can only be used for one data pattern. Thus, each time a data pattern needs to be changed, a new batch of semiconductor wafers must be processed.

Conventional alterable multiple-bit per cell memories can store multiple levels of charge on a capacitive storage element, such as dynamic random access memory (DRAM) or charge-coupled devices (CCDs). These approaches use volatile storage by providing "2n different volatile charge levels on a capacitor to define 2n different states corresponding to n-bits of data per memory cell." Id. at col. 2 ll. 22–25. The problem with volatile storage is that a cell loses its data whenever power is removed, and cells must be periodically refreshed as they can lose charge over time.

The '571 patent purports to solve these problems in ROM and DRAM multiple-bit memories by disclosing a multi-bit semiconductor memory cell that has the non-volatile characteristics of ROM, as well as the electrically alterable characteristics of a multi-bit per cell DRAM. Particularly, the specification describes a multi-bit per cell electrically alterable non-volatile memory (EANVM) where each cell stores information in Kn memory states, "where K is a base of a predetermined number system, n is a number of bits stored per cell, and Kn>2." Id. at col. 2 ll. 58–61. Moreover, the '571 patent discloses programming the multi-level cell to a state corresponding to the input information and comparing the memory state of the multi-level cell with the input information, where the input information corresponds to a reference voltage.

On appeal, MLC only asserts claim 30 of the '571 patent against Micron, which reads as follows:

30. Apparatus for programming an electrically alterable non-volatile memory cell having more than two predetermined memory states, comprising:

a selecting device which selects one of a plurality of reference signals in accordance with information indicating a memory state to which said memory cell is to be programmed, each reference signal corresponding to a different memory state of said memory cell;

a programming signal source to apply a programming signal to said memory cell; and

a control device to control the application of said programming signal to said memory cell based on the selected reference signal.

Id. at col. 15 ll. 10–22. The scope of claim 30 is narrower than the scope of the other independent claims in the '571 patent. While the other independent claims are directed to a "multi-level memory device" or a "multi-level memory apparatus," claim 30 is more narrowly directed to an "[a]pparatus for programming an electrically alterable non-volatile memory cell having more than two predetermined memory states." Compare, e.g. , id. at col. 12 l. 6, with id. at col. 15 ll. 10–12.

II

Micron manufactures and sells NAND flash wafers and packages. Flash memory is a type of non-volatile memory, and NAND flash memory is a low-cost, high-density memory option. As such, NAND flash memory is considered the standard for storage-related applications. Both Micron's NAND flash wafer, or bare die assembly, and NAND flash package may include multiple dies. Included in each die is a memory array, which may comprise both single-level and multi-level memory cells. Micron assembles and sells its products in a variety of ways, including individually as wafers or in completed assemblies as packages. Wafers may be used to make NAND flash packages, while flash packages encapsulate sorted functional dies that are connected to external leads in a plastic package. Micron contends that while a wafer having a single die is the smallest saleable patent practicing unit, there are numerous other non-infringing features in Micron's die, including "error correction hardware," "data clocking hardware," "addressing hardware," "cache registers," and "digital to analog converters." J.A. 1242.

III

In his expert report, MLC's damages expert, Michael Milani, first provided his understanding of the technology relevant to the '571 patent. He explained that, based on his discussion with MLC's technical expert, Dr. Jack Lee, he understood that the '571 patent relates to technology that enables multi-level cell and triple-level cell flash memory.

Mr. Milani next addressed the flash memory market as a whole, explaining that as the market became more saturated, production in the market shifted to NAND flash memory devices. Mr. Milani opined that by 2006, the NAND flash market had become a commodity market, with competitors mainly competing on price.

Mr. Milani next explained that MLC was formed in 2006 by Jerry Banks and Robert Hinkley. In 1997, Mr. Banks assigned to BTG International, Inc. the rights to a sizeable patent portfolio (the "MLCIP Patent Portfolio"), which included the '571 patent among forty other patents. BTG subsequently granted non-exclusive licenses to practice the MLCIP Patent Portfolio to Renesas Electronics Corporation in November 2006, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. in April 2007, and Toshiba Corporation in April 2007. After BTG sued Samsung Electronics Co. for infringement of certain patents in the MLCIP Patent Portfolio, BTG and Samsung entered into a settlement and license agreement in December 2010. MLC reacquired the rights to the MLCIP Patent Portfolio in 2012.

With this background, Mr. Milani attempted to reconstruct the hypothetical negotiation between MLC and Micron. Mr. Milani began by opining that the hypothetical negotiation date occurred in the fourth quarter of 2006, around the time that Micron first began selling the accused devices. He further opined that the compensation period began on August 12, 2008, six years prior to the filing of the complaint, and continued through the expiration of the '571 patent on June 9, 2015.

Turning next to the royalty base, Mr. Milani opined on two separate approaches for determining the royalty base: (1) a comparable license approach and (2) the smallest saleable patent practicing unit (SSPPU) approach. As for the comparable license approach, Mr. Milani included all of the revenue associated with the accused products, reasoning that the royalty rate associated with the comparable license agreements already apportioned for other components in those products. As to the SSPPU approach, Mr. Milani began with the premise that the SSPPU is a bare die. Mr....