Intel Corporation v. Tela Innovations, Inc.

Background

The court’s December 22, 2020 prior order granted Intel summary judgment on several issues involving Tela’s patent-infringement claims. The court found that several Intel products did not literally infringe Tela’s patents because they lacked required “diffusion regions.” It also found that Intel’s 14-nanometer and 10-nanometer products did not literally infringe claims requiring “contact structures” or “gate contact structures.” The prior order also partially granted Intel’s motion to strike certain design-stage abstractions and layout shapes, and found that Tela had not adequately disclosed the basis for the pre-suit damages calculated by its damages expert.

Tela moved for leave under Civil Local Rule 7-9 to file a motion for reconsideration. That rule requires a party to show reasonable diligence and a material difference in fact or law, newly emerged material facts or a change in law, or a manifest failure to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments. The court also explained that it had inherent authority to modify an interlocutory order—an order entered before final judgment—when appropriate.

Tela’s Arguments

Tela argued that the prior order narrowed the agreed construction of “diffusion regions” and improperly concluded that Intel’s products lacked those regions. The court rejected that argument, explaining that the claim construction required selected portions of the substrate containing introduced impurities that form a transistor’s source or drain, and that the accused products did not meet that requirement.

Tela also argued that expert testimony from Dr. Daniel Foty, Intel’s internal terminology, and the patent specifications created genuine disputes of material fact. The court stated that some of the Foty evidence was raised too late, that the opinions previously presented did not create a factual dispute, and that Intel’s internal terminology did not establish what structures the products actually contained.

Regarding gate contact structures, Tela argued that the prior order had misstated the claim construction and overlooked evidence concerning the 14-nanometer and 10-nanometer products. The court agreed that some wording could be read as misstating the construction, and it amended those phrases. It otherwise rejected Tela’s arguments, stating that the substance of the prior order had not narrowed the construction and that the identified evidence did not prevent summary judgment.

Tela further argued that the court had improperly excluded circumstantial evidence by striking certain design-stage abstractions and layout shapes. The court disagreed, explaining that it had not applied a rule excluding circumstantial evidence, but had found insufficient evidence connecting those materials to the physical accused products. The court also stated that admitting the materials would not have changed the summary-judgment result.

On pre-suit damages, Tela relied on portions of its Patent Local Rule 3-1 disclosures that it had not cited in its earlier opposition. The court stated that one portion plausibly could have notified Intel that the damages period extended to the period assessed by Tela’s expert, but that Tela had not raised that portion earlier and had instead cited a different statement that was insufficient. The court declined to reopen the issue because Intel had not had an opportunity to respond to the newly cited material.

Ruling

Judge Orrick denied Tela’s motion for leave to file a motion to reconsider. He exercised his discretion to make several minor modifications and clarifications and simultaneously filed an amended order superseding the prior order. He expressly stated that none of the changes altered the prior order’s conclusions or reasoning, including its grants and denials of summary judgment.

The court noted that each party had moved to certify the summary-judgment determination for appeal and that a hearing was scheduled for February 17, 2021. It stated that the amended order was not expected to affect those certification motions.

Tela separately moved to seal information in its filings. The court did not decide that motion in this order; instead, it stated that it would rule on it when deciding the parties’ related renewed motion to seal. The court also stated that it would issue an unredacted version of the order if necessary.