Applied Materials, Inc. v. Demaray LLC

Background

Applied Materials, Inc. brought the action against Demaray LLC seeking a declaration of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,381,657 and 7,544,276. Demaray countersued for declarations of validity and infringement, and Applied Materials counterclaimed for a declaration that the patents were invalid. The patents share the title “Biased Pulse DC Reactive Sputtering of Oxide Films.” The patents concern depositing thin films onto a surface, such as a silicon wafer, using pulsed direct-current power and radio-frequency power.

The parties disputed the construction—the legal interpretation of patent-claim language—of five terms. The court held a technology tutorial and claim-construction hearing on April 26, 2023, and considered the patent claims, specifications, prosecution histories, other evidence, briefing, and oral arguments.

Agreed Constructions

The court approved and adopted the parties' agreed constructions for these terms:

- “A method of depositing a film on an insulating substrate, comprising”: The preamble, or introductory language of the claim, is not limiting except for “insulating substrate.” - “Insulating substrate”: Plain and ordinary meaning; “substrate” includes, but is not limited to, a wafer coated with an insulator. - “The insulating film”: Plain and ordinary meaning. - “Wherein an oxide material is deposited on the substrate, and the insulating film is formed by reactive sputtering in a mode between a metallic mode and a poison mode”: Plain and ordinary meaning.

Disputed Constructions

“Pulsed DC power” and “pulsed DC power supply”

The court construed “pulsed DC power” as “direct current power that oscillates between positive and negative voltages,” with “oscillates” having its plain and ordinary meaning as understood in the field. The court also adopted the parties' undisputed construction of “pulsed DC power supply” as “supply for providing pulsed DC power.”

Demaray had proposed adding language stating that “oscillates” includes providing alternating negative and positive voltages to the target. The court declined to add that language because the claims separately included language describing alternating voltages, and adding it to the construction could make that claim language redundant.

“Narrow band rejection filter”

The court construed “narrow band rejection filter” as a “filter that rejects a narrow band of frequencies, including the RF bias power frequency, and passes all other frequencies.”

Applied Materials sought a construction requiring the filter to pass all frequencies outside the rejected band and requiring the rejected band to be centered on the radio-frequency bias. Demaray proposed the plain and ordinary meaning or a construction requiring only rejection of a narrow band, without requiring passage of all other frequencies or centering on the radio-frequency bias.

The court held that the patent prosecution history prevented a construction allowing rejection of frequencies beyond the narrow band around the radio-frequency bias. But the court found that the prosecution history did not clearly and unmistakably require the rejected band to be centered on that frequency. The court therefore included the requirement that the filter pass all other frequencies but did not include a centering requirement.

“A method of depositing an insulating film on a substrate, comprising”

For this term in claim 2 of the ’657 Patent, the court again ruled that the preamble is not limiting except for “insulating film on a substrate.” The court rejected Applied Materials' argument that “depositing” also limits the claim. It reasoned that the claim body describes a structurally complete method and that the rest of the preamble states the invention's intended use rather than adding a required step.

“An RF bias power supply coupled to the substrate” and “an RF bias power supply coupled to provide an RF bias to the substrate”

The court construed both terms according to their plain and ordinary meaning. Applied Materials sought a construction requiring the radio-frequency bias power supply and the pulsed direct-current power source to be coupled to different components, with a particular order of coupling. Demaray argued that the terms did not limit the order, so long as the radio-frequency bias power was eventually coupled to the substrate.

The court found no clear statement in the patents or their prosecution history requiring Applied Materials' proposed limitation. It also concluded that statements Demaray made during proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board about prior art did not unmistakably disclaim the broader scope urged by Applied Materials.

“Providing an RF bias ... to the substrate”

For this term in claims 1 and 2 of the ’657 Patent, the court adopted the plain and ordinary meaning for the same reasons given for the preceding radio-frequency coupling terms.

Disposition

The court approved and adopted the agreed-upon constructions and entered the stated constructions for the five disputed terms. The order addressed claim meaning; it did not, in the text provided, decide whether either patent was infringed or valid.