Impinj, Inc. v. NXP USA, Inc.

Background

Impinj brought a patent-infringement action against NXP concerning, among other patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,633,302 and 9,495,631. Both patents concern radio-frequency identification (RFID) tags. The ’302 Patent concerns the shape of a channel separating antenna contacts on an RFID integrated circuit. The ’631 Patent concerns manufacturing contact pads using a nonconductive repassivation layer and a conductive contact layer.

The parties asked the court to resolve disputes about the meaning of patent-claim terms. This process, called claim construction, determines the meaning and scope of the claims before infringement issues are decided.

’302 Patent Constructions

The court construed “IC substrate” as “structure that provides support for the IC components.” The court explained that the term refers to immediately supporting materials, rejecting Impinj’s proposed focus on semiconductor material where components are fabricated and NXP’s broader construction covering any material connected to the integrated circuit.

For “substantially the same size,” “substantially larger,” and “substantially symmetric,” the court adopted their plain and ordinary meanings and rejected NXP’s argument that the terms were indefinite. A patent term is indefinite when the patent fails to inform skilled readers, with reasonable certainty, about the scope of the invention. The court found that the claims and specification provided sufficient guidance because they linked the terms to the channel’s shape and its function of facilitating fluid flow, and because the patent included examples of qualifying shapes.

The court also adopted the plain and ordinary meaning of “channel.” It rejected NXP’s proposal to require continuous side walls, finding that the claims did not require that limitation and that fluid flow could be facilitated by channels with discontinuous walls or intersecting channels.

’631 Patent Constructions

For “covering,” the court adopted the plain and ordinary meaning rather than NXP’s proposed definition, “located over all of.” The court reasoned that NXP’s definition was unsupported and would conflict with the patent’s description of a repassivation layer that need not be fully removed from the trench.

The court rejected NXP’s argument that “covering substantially an entire surface area of the IC except for the at least one trench” was indefinite. The court found that examples in the specification, including Figure 15, provided adequate guidance even though exact precision was not required. The court also gave “trench” its plain and ordinary meaning, rejecting NXP’s proposed requirement that the trench extend from the contact islands to the surface of the integrated circuit.

For “is configured to protect the covered repassivation layer during etching,” the court construed the phrase to mean “is made to protect the covered repassivation layer during etching.” The court explained that the phrase does not require etching actually to occur for infringement. Instead, if etching occurs, the contact layer must be suitable to protect the repassivation layer to a reasonable degree. The court also rejected an unsupported limitation requiring protection to occur through positioning alone.

Disposition and Effect

The court adopted the stated constructions for the disputed terms, including plain and ordinary meanings where specified, and found that the challenged terms were not indefinite. This order resolved claim meaning; the opinion does not decide whether NXP infringed the patents. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signed the order.