Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 1 of 52 PageID #: 7803
`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`v.
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED, BROADCOM
`CORPORATION, AVAGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LTD., AVAGO
`TECHNOLOGIES U.S., INC., and LSI
`CORPORATION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
` CASE NO. 2:16-CV-134-JRG-RSP
`
`On October 7, 2016, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
`
`
`
`disputed claim terms in United States Patents No. 6,197,696, 6,538,324, 7,126,174, 8,354,726,
`
`RE41,980, and RE43,729. Having reviewed the arguments made by the parties at the hearing
`
`and in their claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 67, 73 & 77),1 having considered the intrinsic
`
`evidence, and having made subsidiary factual findings about the extrinsic evidence, the Court
`
`hereby issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415
`
`F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841
`
`
`
`(2015).
`
`
`
`
`1 Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
`Memorandum and Order refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than the
`page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket unless otherwise indicated.
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 52 PageID #: 7804
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 4
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS ........................................................................... 7
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 7,126,174 ...................................................... 7
`
`A. “a trench isolation surrounding an active area of a semiconductor substrate” ..................... 8
`
`B. “composed of the same material” ....................................................................................... 10
`
`V. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,354,726 ..................................................... 11
`
`C. “formed on the side surface of the [first/second] gate electrode” ....................................... 11
`
`D. “a stress-containing insulating film containing internal stress and formed to cover the
`first gate electrode, the first side-wall insulating film, the auxiliary pattern, and the
`second side-wall insulating film” ....................................................................................... 16
`
`E. “the first gate electrode is formed on the first active region through a gate insulating
`film including nitrogen” ...................................................................................................... 17
`
`F. “an interlayer insulating film on the silicide layer through the stress-containing
`insulating film” ................................................................................................................... 19
`
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 6,197,696 .................................................... 20
`
`G. “using the [first resist pattern/second resist pattern and the mask pattern/patterned third
`insulating film] as a mask” ................................................................................................. 20
`
`VII. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 6,538,324 .................................................. 22
`
`H. Preambles of Claims 1 and 5 of the ’324 Patent ................................................................. 22
`
`I. “film” .................................................................................................................................... 25
`
`J. “said first film being composed of crystalline metal containing nitrogen therein” ............. 27
`
`K. “said second film being composed of amorphous metal nitride” ....................................... 31
`
`L. “[said barrier film being constituted of] common metal atomic species” ........................... 32
`
`VIII. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. RE41,980 ................................................ 33
`
`M. “a surface protecting film” ................................................................................................. 33
`
`N. “interlayer insulating film” ................................................................................................. 35
`
`O. “small dielectric constant” .................................................................................................. 36
`
`P. “said bonding pad in said opening and said second dielectric film of said surface
`protecting film completely cover said first dielectric film so as not to expose said first
`dielectric film” .................................................................................................................... 40
`
`Q. “wherein said bonding pad covers said opening” ............................................................... 42
`
`IX. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. RE43,729 ................................................... 43
`
`R. “performed within one cycle” ............................................................................................. 43
`
`S. “predetermined instruction” ................................................................................................ 46
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 52 PageID #: 7805
`Case 2:l6—cv—00134—JRG—RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 3 of 52 Page|D #: 7805
`
`T. “detecting / detecting unit” .................................................................................................. 47
`T. “detecting / detecting unit” ................................................................................................ .. 47
`
`X. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... .. 47
`X. CONCLUSION...................................................................................................................... 47
`
`APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................ .. 49
`APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 49
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 4 of 52 PageID #: 7806
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff has alleged infringement of United States Patents No. 6,197,696 (“the ’696
`
`Patent”), 6,538,324 (“the ’324 Patent”), 7,126,174 (“the ’174 Patent”), 8,354,726 (“the ’726
`
`Patent”), RE41,980 (“the ’980 Patent”), and RE43,729 (“the ’729 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“patents-in-suit”).
`
`
`
`Below, the Court addresses the disputed terms on a patent-by-patent basis, as the parties
`
`have done in their briefing, and in the order set forth in the parties’ briefing.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the October 7, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with preliminary constructions with the aim of focusing the parties’ arguments and facilitating
`
`discussion. Those preliminary constructions are set forth below within the discussion for each
`
`term.
`
`II. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
`
`to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
`
`Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Claim construction is clearly an issue of law for the
`
`court to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 970-71 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
`
`(en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). “In some cases, however, the district court will need to
`
`look beyond the patent’s intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to
`
`understand, for example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art
`
`during the relevant time period.” Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841
`
`(2015) (citation omitted). “In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need
`
`to make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the ‘evidentiary
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 5 of 52 PageID #: 7807
`
`underpinnings’ of claim construction that we discussed in Markman, and this subsidiary
`
`factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.” Id. (citing 517 U.S. 370).
`
`
`
`To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start by considering the intrinsic
`
`evidence. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313; see also C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388
`
`F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,
`
`262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d
`
`at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips,
`
`415 F.3d at 1312-13; accord Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2003).
`
`
`
`The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
`
`particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
`
`can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
`
`claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
`
`Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
`
`example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
`
`the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
`
`
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
`
`at 1315 (quoting Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (en banc)). “[T]he specification ‘is always highly
`
`relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to
`
`the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.
`
`Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); accord Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 6 of 52 PageID #: 7808
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
`
`terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
`
`or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
`
`lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
`
`terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
`
`sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
`
`Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
`
`the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
`
`specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris
`
`Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
`
`848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
`
`
`
`The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
`
`construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
`
`Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
`
`specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
`
`history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
`
`may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
`
`Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
`
`
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
`
`in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 7 of 52 PageID #: 7809
`
`broad or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly,
`
`expert testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining
`
`the particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id.
`
`
`
`The Supreme Court of the United States has “read [35 U.S.C.] § 112, ¶ 2 to require that a
`
`patent’s claims, viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history, inform those skilled
`
`in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty.” Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig
`
`Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014). “A determination of claim indefiniteness is a
`
`legal conclusion that is drawn from the court’s performance of its duty as the construer of patent
`
`claims.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
`
`(citations and internal quotation marks omitted), abrogated on other grounds by Nautilus, 134
`
`S. Ct. 2120.
`
`III. THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
`
`
`
`The parties reached agreement on constructions as stated in their July 29, 2016 P.R. 4-3
`
`Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (Dkt. No. 59 at 2-5) and their September 23,
`
`2016 Joint Claim Construction Chart (see Dkt. No. 80 at Ex. A). Those agreements are set forth
`
`in Appendix A to the present Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`IV. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 7,126,174
`
`
`
`The ’174 Patent, titled “Semiconductor Device and Method of Manufacturing the Same,”
`
`issued on October 24, 2006, and bears an earliest priority date of July 24, 1999. Plaintiff submits
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 8 of 52 PageID #: 7810
`
`that “[t]he ’174 patent relates to a novel transistor that is manufactured in a manner that
`
`minimizes its size.” Dkt. No. 67 at 1.
`
`A. “a trench isolation surrounding an active area of a semiconductor substrate”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“the trench isolation region forms the lateral
`boundary of an active area of a semiconductor
`substrate”
`
`This term does not need construction and can
`be understood under its plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`To the extent a construction is necessary:
`“a trench isolation region separating an active
`area of a semiconductor substrate from other
`areas of the semiconductor substrate”
`
`Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A at 20; id., Ex. B at B-13. The parties submit that this term appears in Claim 1
`
`of the ’174 Patent. Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A at 20; id., Ex. B at B-13.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the October 7, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “Plain and ordinary meaning (Reject Defendants’
`
`proposal of ‘lateral boundary[’]).”
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff submits that “the words making up the phrase are readily understandable,” and
`
`Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ proposal “does not provide clarity to the term.” Dkt. No. 67
`
`at 2.
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that “[w]ithout clarification, the term ‘surrounding’ could be
`
`understood to mean that the trench isolation region forms the boundary of the active area in
`
`either just one dimension, or in all dimensions (i.e., above, below, and laterally).” Dkt. No. 73
`
`at 2.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “swapping of the commonly used word ‘surrounding’ for the
`
`uncommon phrase ‘forms the lateral boundary of’ is unhelpful to a jury and finds no support in
`
`
`
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 9 of 52 PageID #: 7811
`
`the intrinsic record (nor do Defendants cite any).” Dkt. No. 77 at 1. Plaintiff also urges that
`
`“a jury would understand how a trench isolation region ‘surrounds’ the active area, in the same
`
`way it would understand how a trench would surround any structure, such as a moat surrounds a
`
`castle.” Id.
`
`
`
`At the October 7, 2016 hearing, Defendants were amenable to a construction of plain
`
`meaning, but Defendants objected to Plaintiff’s argument that the isolation region need not abut
`
`the active area. Defendants submitted that in all disclosed and illustrated embodiments, the
`
`isolation region abuts the perimeter of the active area.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 1 of the ’174 Patent recites (emphasis added):
`
`1. A semiconductor device, comprising:
`a trench isolation surrounding an active area of a semiconductor
`
`substrate;
`
`a gate insulating film formed over the active area;
`
`a gate electrode formed over the gate insulating film;
`
`first L-shaped sidewalls formed over the side surfaces of the gate
`electrode;
`
`first silicide layers formed on regions located on the sides of the first
`L-shaped sidewalls within the active area[;]
`
`an interconnection formed on the trench isolation; and
`
`second L-shaped sidewalls formed over the side surfaces of the
`interconnection.
`
`On balance, the word “surrounding” is sufficiently clear when read in context, and
`
`Defendants’ proposal of “lateral boundary” would tend to confuse rather than clarify the scope of
`
`the claim. In particular, Plaintiff’s expert has persuasively opined that whereas a “boundary”
`
`may be a border, a “trench” is a three-dimensional structure. See Dkt. No. 67-1, Aug. 26, 2016
`
`Schubert Decl. at ¶ 36. Further, Defendants’ proposal of “lateral” would improperly limit the
`
`relative orientation of claim elements to a particular illustrated embodiment. See ’174 Patent at
`
`Fig. 15(f); see also MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1333 (Fed. Cir.
`
`
`
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 10 of 52 PageID #: 7812
`
`2007) (“patent coverage is not necessarily limited to inventions that look like the ones in the
`
`figures”).
`
`
`
`The Court therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposed construction. No
`
`further construction is necessary. See U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Claim construction is a matter of resolution of disputed meanings and
`
`technical scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the
`
`claims, for use in the determination of infringement. It is not an obligatory exercise in
`
`redundancy.”); see also O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., 521 F.3d 1351,
`
`1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[D]istrict courts are not (and should not be) required to construe every
`
`limitation present in a patent’s asserted claims.”); Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626
`
`F.3d 1197, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Unlike O2 Micro, where the court failed to resolve the
`
`parties’ quarrel, the district court rejected Defendants’ construction.”); ActiveVideo Networks,
`
`Inc. v. Verizon Commcn’s, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Summit 6, LLC v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 802 F.3d 1283, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`
`
`The Court therefore hereby construes “a trench isolation surrounding an active area of
`
`a semiconductor substrate” to have its plain meaning.
`
`B. “composed of the same material”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“composed of material having the same
`chemical formula”; This construction does not
`require identity between the types and
`quantities of contaminants, impurities and/or
`dopants added to the material.2
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`To the extent the plain and ordinary meaning
`must be stated, “composed of material having
`the same composition”
`
`
`
`
`2 Plaintiff previously proposed that this term does not require construction. Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A
`at 20.
`
`
`
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 11 of 52 PageID #: 7813
`
`Dkt. No. 59, Ex. B at B-14; Dkt. No. 67 at 3. The parties submit that this term appears in
`
`Claim 11 of the ’174 Patent. Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A at 20; id., Ex. B at B-14.
`
`
`
`In their September 23, 2016 Joint Claim Construction Chart, the parties submitted an
`
`agreement that this term has its “[p]lain and ordinary meaning.” Dkt. No. 80, Ex. A at 2. The
`
`Court therefore sets forth the parties’ agreement in Appendix A to the present Claim
`
`Construction Memorandum and Order.
`
`V. DISPUTED TERMS IN U.S. PATENT NO. 8,354,726
`
`
`
`The ’726 Patent, titled “Semiconductor Device and Method for Fabricating the Same,”
`
`issued on January 15, 2013, and bears an earliest priority date of May 19, 2006. Plaintiff submits
`
`that “[t]he ’726 patent presents a novel structure that improves the efficiency of transistors.”
`
`Dkt. No. 67 at 4.
`
`C. “formed on the side surface of the [first/second] gate electrode”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“substantially covering the side surface of the
`[first/second] gate electrode”3
`
`Dkt. No. 59, Ex. B at B-17; Dkt. No. 67 at 5. The parties submit that this term appears in
`
`“formed in contact with the side surface of the
`[first/second] gate electrode”
`
`Claims 1 and 43 of the ’726 Patent. Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A at 24; id., Ex. B at B-17.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the October 7, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “covering the side surface of the [first/second]
`
`gate electrode.”
`
`
`3 Plaintiff previously proposed that this term does not require construction. Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A
`at 24.
`
`
`
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 12 of 52 PageID #: 7814
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) The Parties’ Positions
`
`Plaintiff argues that “[a] POSITA [(person of ordinary skill in the art)] would understand
`
`that if a side-wall insulating film or sidewall is ‘formed on’ the side surface of a gate electrode,
`
`then the side-wall insulating film/sidewall substantially covers the side surface of the gate
`
`electrode because a side-wall insulating film/sidewall is intended to provide electric insulation
`
`for the gate electrode and act as a spacer for proper implementation.” Dkt. No. 67 at 5. Plaintiff
`
`argues that Defendants’ proposed interpretation is inconsistent with the context of the claims,
`
`would exclude a preferred embodiment, and would give rise to an inconsistency in dependent
`
`Claim 22. Id. at 5-6.
`
`
`
`Defendants respond that “each of the figures in the ’726 Patent illustrating the ‘formed
`
`on’ feature shows the elements being formed in contact with the side surface of the first and
`
`second gate electrodes.” Dkt. No. 73 at 6. Defendants also submit that “the claims use language
`
`different from ‘formed on’ to describe instances where elements are not in direct contact.” Id.
`
`Further, Defendants argue, “Plaintiff’s proposed construction eliminates the word ‘formed’
`
`entirely from the term,” and “nowhere in the ’726 patent specification does the term
`
`‘substantially cover’ (or any derivation thereof) appear at all.” Id. at 7.
`
`
`
`Plaintiff replies that “Defendants rely on various figures that illustrate non-limiting
`
`embodiments in the specification.” Dkt. No. 77 at 1 (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`At the October 7, 2016 hearing, Plaintiff agreed with the Court’s preliminary
`
`construction.
`
`(2) Analysis
`
`Claim 43 of the ’726 Patent, for example, recites (emphasis added):
`
`43. A semiconductor device comprising:
`
`
`- 12 -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 13 of 52 PageID #: 7815
`
`a first active region surrounded with an isolation region of a
`
`semiconductor substrate;
`
`a first gate electrode formed over the first active region and having a
`protrusion protruding on the isolation region;
`a first side-wall insulating film formed on the side surface of the first gate
`
`electrode;
`
`a second active region surrounded with the isolation region of the
`semiconductor substrate;
`
`a second gate electrode formed over the second active region, having a
`protrusion protruding on the isolation region, and formed over the semiconductor
`substrate to be spaced apart in the gate width direction from the protrusion of the
`first gate electrode;
`a second side-wall insulating film formed on the side surface of the second
`
`gate electrode; and
`
`a silicon nitride film formed to cover the first gate electrode, the first side-
`wall insulating film, the second gate electrode, and the second side-wall insulating
`film,
`wherein the distance between the first gate electrode and the second gate
`
`electrode is smaller than the sum total of: the sum of the thicknesses of the first
`and second side-wall insulating films; and the double of the thickness of the
`silicon nitride film,
`
`the side surfaces of the first and second gate electrodes are shifted in the
`gate length direction with each other,
`
`a shift distance of the second gate electrode with respect to the first gate
`electrode is 0 μm or more and less than a predetermined value,
`
`the predetermined value is a sum of: a sum of a gate length of the first gate
`electrode and a total thickness of the first side-wall insulating film and a part of
`the silicon nitride film formed on the side surface of the first gate electrode; and a
`total thickness of the second side-wall insulating film and a part of the silicon
`nitride film formed on the side surface of the second gate electrode.
`
`The specification discloses that structures may be “formed between” gate electrodes and
`
`
`
`sidewalls:
`
`In FIGS. 14, 15A, and 15B, description has been made of the structure in which
`only the first sidewalls 15a and 15b having L-shaped cross sections are present.
`Alternatively, it is also acceptable that in addition to the first sidewalls 15a and
`15b, a sidewall (an offset spacer) having an I-shaped (plate-like) cross section is
`formed between the gate electrodes 13a and 13b and the associated first sidewalls
`15a and 15b. The liner film 19 may be formed of a single layer or multiple layers.
`
`’726 Patent at 21:40-48 (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 14 of 52 PageID #: 7816
`
`
`
`On one hand, although Plaintiff has argued that the disputed term must be construed so as
`
`to encompass this disclosure of potentially intervening layers, “[i]t is not necessary that each
`
`claim read on every embodiment.” Baran v. Med. Device Techs., Inc., 616 F.3d 1309, 1316
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Also, dependent Claim 22, cited by Plaintiff, recites that “the first side-wall
`
`insulating film further includes an offset spacer having a plate-like cross section,” but this recital
`
`of a sidewall that “includes” a spacer does not warrant allowing for a distinct intermediate layer.
`
`
`
`Further, Defendants’ proposed interpretation appears to be consistent with the recital in
`
`Claims 1, 8, 29, 34, and 43 that the second gate electrodes are “formed over” (not “formed on”)
`
`respective active areas. See, e.g., Chi. Bd. Options Exch., Inc. v. Int’l Sec. Exch., LLC, 677 F.3d
`
`1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting “[t]he general presumption that different terms have
`
`different meanings”). Likewise, Claims 20, 21, and 41 recite that “the first gate electrode is
`
`formed on the first active region through a gate insulating film.”
`
`
`
`On the other hand, the specification also uses the phrase “formed on” despite the
`
`presence of intervening layers:
`
`For a typical semiconductor device, there may be the case where it is impossible
`to arrange the gate electrode 13a and the gate electrode 13b to face each other and
`thus as shown in FIG. 5A, they are disposed closely but in shifted relation. Even
`in such a case, if as shown in FIG. 5B, the gate shift distance L2 is not less than 0
`μm and less than 0.39 μm, the effect of reducing compressive stress in the channel
`width direction of the active region 10a, which is applied by a portion of the liner
`film 19 covering the protrusion of the gate electrode 13a, can be exerted. In this
`structure, 0.39 μm, which is the gate shift distance L2 described above, is the sum
`total of: the gate length of the gate electrode 13a (50 nm); the sum of the
`thicknesses of the first and second sidewalls 15a and 16a formed on one side
`surface of the gate electrode 13a and the thickness of the liner film 19 (20 nm+50
`nm+100 nm=170 nm); and the sum of the thicknesses of the first and second
`sidewalls 15b and 16b formed on one side surface of the gate electrode 13b and
`the thickness of the liner film 19 (20 nm+50 nm+100 nm=170 nm). That is to
`say, if the amount of shift of the gate electrode 13b in the gate length direction
`relative to the gate electrode 13a is within an extent such that the portion of the
`liner film 19 formed on the side surface of the gate electrode 13a and the portion
`of the liner film 19 formed on the side surface of the gate electrode 13b at least
`
`
`
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 15 of 52 PageID #: 7817
`
`partly overlap in the gate length direction, the effects as described above can be
`provided.
`
`’726 Patent at 14:14-39 (emphasis added). Referenced Figure 5A of the ’726 Patent is
`
`reproduced here and illustrates the sidewalls residing between the liner film and the gate
`
`electrodes:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On balance, this disclosure in the ’726 Patent demonstrates that the term “formed on”
`
`does not preclude the presence of intervening layers. As to the proper construction, Plaintiff has
`
`not adequately supported its proposal of the word “substantially,” which would tend to introduce
`
`vagueness without Plaintiff having shown any necessity for the word.
`
`
`
`The Court therefore hereby construes “formed on the side surface of the [first/second]
`
`gate electrode” to mean “covering the side surface of the [first/second] gate electrode.”
`
`
`
`
`- 15 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 105 Filed 11/09/16 Page 16 of 52 PageID #: 7818
`
`D. “a stress-containing insulating film containing internal stress and formed to cover the
`first gate electrode, the first side-wall insulating film, the auxiliary pattern, and the second
`side-wall insulating film”
`
`Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
`
`Defendants’ Proposed Construction
`
`“a single stress-containing insulating film
`containing internal stress and covering the first
`gate electrode, the first side-wall insulating
`film, the auxiliary pattern, and the second side-
`wall insulating film”4
`
`This term does not need construction and can
`be understood under its plain and ordinary
`meaning.
`
`To the extent a construction is necessary:
`“a stress-containing insulating film containing
`internal stress and fabricated to cover the first
`gate electrode, the first side-wall insulating
`film, the auxiliary pattern, and the second side-
`wall insulating film”
`
`Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A at 25; Dkt. No. 80, Ex. A at 3. The parties submit that this term appears in
`
`Claim 1 of the ’726 Patent. Dkt. No. 59, Ex. A at 25; id., Ex. B at B-18.
`
`
`
`Shortly before the start of the October 7, 2016 hearing, the Court provided the parties
`
`with the following preliminary construction: “a stress-cont