Patent and trademark – Infringement

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has moved for summary judgment in a patent infringement action, the motion should be allowed because no reasonable juror could find that the defendant infringed claims 4 and 5 of the plaintiff’s patent.

“Plaintiff Ocean Semiconductor LLC (‘Ocean’) alleges that Defendant Analog Devices, Inc. (‘ADI’) infringed claims 4 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 6,836,691 (‘the ’691 patent’), a ‘Method and Apparatus for Filtering Metrology Data Based on Collection Purpose,’ through the use of Inficon Inc.’s (‘Inficon’s’) FabGuard system in violation of 35 U.S.C. §271(a) & (g). ADI moves for summary judgment on the grounds that (1) Ocean relies on new theories that are untimely and prejudicial, (2) Ocean lacks evidence that ADI actually used the accused FabGuard software, (3) Ocean posits infringement theories that fail to satisfy the ’691 patent’s claim limitations, and (4) the ’691 patent claims patent-ineligible subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §101.

“After a hearing, the Court allows ADI’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 302) on the third ground that no reasonable juror could find that ADI infringed claims 4 and 5 of the ’691 patent. …

“Ocean accuses ADI of infringing claims 4 and 5 of the ’691 patent through its use of Inficon’s FabGuard system. …

“ADI moves for summary judgment on four independent grounds. However, because the Court concludes that no reasonable juror could find that ADI’s use of FabGuard practiced the changing step of claims 4 and 5 of the ’691 patent, the Court grants summary judgment on this ground and does not address ADI’s alternative arguments. …

“Ocean’s primary infringement theory rests on the fact that the FabGuard system uses different acquisition triggers, for example, to collect fault-monitoring data when the chamber is active, and baseline stability data when the chamber is idle. Ocean contends that this switch in trigger configuration represents a change in collection purpose data.

“But Ocean’s own expert concedes that FabGuard does not reassign or relabel the purpose code associated with previously collected metrology data. Rather, when the conditions for one trigger lapse and a new trigger is activated, FabGuard begins collecting a new metrology dataset associated with that new trigger. As the expert explained, a user ‘cannot go back in time and change the data [the user] ha[s] already collected.’ … Because claims 4 and 5 require modifying the collection purpose data already associated with a previously collected set of metrology data, collecting a new data set with a different collection purpose does not satisfy this requirement. …

“Accordingly, because no reasonable jury could find that ADI’s use of FabGuard satisfies the ‘changing’ limitation in claims 4 and 5 as properly construed, summary judgment is warranted in ADI’s favor. …”

Ocean Semiconductor LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-381-25) (21 pages) (Saris, J.) (Civil Action No. 20-cv-12310-PBS) (July 15, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.