IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARES.O.I.TEC SILICON ON INSULATOR )TECHNOLOGIES, S.A. and)COMMISSERIAT À L’ÉNERGIE)ATOMIQUE,))Plaintiffs,))v.) Civ. No. 08-292-SLR)MEMC ELECTRONIC MATERIALS, )INC.,))Defendant.)Denise Seastone Kraft, Esquire and John L. Reed, Esquire of Edwards Angell Palmer &Dodge LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiffs. Of Counsel: George W.Neuner, Esquire, Alan M. Spiro, Esquire, Brian M. Gaff, Esquire and Carolyn Gougesd’Agincourt, Esquire, of Esquire of Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP, Boston,Massachusetts; Michael L. Brody, Esquire of Winston & Strawn LLP, Chicago, Illinois;Gail J. Standish, Esquire of Winston & Strawn LLP, Los Angeles, California; andMarcus T. Hall, Esquire and Laura K. Carter, Esquire of Winston & Strawn LLP, SanFrancisco, California.Patricia Smink Rogowski, Esquire of Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP, Wilmington,Delaware. Counsel for Defendant. Of Counsel: Robert M. Evans, Jr., Esquire, DavidW. Harlan, Esquire, Marc W. Vander Tuig, Esquire, B. Scott Eidson, Esquire andRichard L. Brophy, Esquire of Senninger Powers LLP, St. Louis, Missouri.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Dated: October 13, 2010Wilmington, Delaware
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION 1II. BACKGROUND 2A. The Parties 2B. Technology Overview 3III. STANDARD 3IV. DISCUSSION 5A. The Bruel Patent 51. Disclosure 52. Prosecution history 63. Infringement: mono- and co-implantation 104. Written description: temperature limitations 125. Conclusion: the Bruel patent 14B. The Aspar Patents 141. Specification 152. The asserted claims 173. Infringement: mono- and co-implantation 234. Validity 24a. The ‘396 patent: certificate of correction 24(1) Standard 24(2) Discussion 25b. The ‘234 patent: indefiniteness 28(1) Standard 28(2) Discussion 28c. The ‘009 patent: claim construction in view of Bruel 31(1) “Bridges” 31(2) “Mechanical forces” 34d. The ‘009 patent: anticipation by Bruel 36(1) Standard 36(2) Discussion 36e. The ‘009 patent: obviousness in light of Bruel 38(1) Standard 38(2) Discussion 40f. The ‘009 patent: anticipation by the ‘252 patent 41g. The ‘009 patent: written description 42h. The ‘009 patent: best mode 445. Inequitable conduct 46a. Standard 47b. Facts 50c. Discussion 536. Conclusion: the Aspar patents 57C. The ‘812 Patent 571. Disclosure 572. Prosecution history 603. Claim construction 63
ii
4. Validity 66a. Enablement 66(1) Standard 66(2) Discussion 68b. Obviousness 705. Infringement 72a. The accused products 72b. SOI/BESOI wafers 75c. “Bonded”/ “On” 76d. Generally annular recess 786. Conclusion: the ‘812 patent 80V. CONCLUSION 81
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
S.O.I.TEC Techs., S.A. v. MEMC Elec. Mat. Inc., C.A. No. 08-292-SLR (D. Del. Oct. 13, 2010) (Robinson, J.).
1.1K
Reads
2
Readcasts
1.6K
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
