Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-03171-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OKI AMERICA, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

___________________________________/

No. C 04-03171 CRB

ORDER

Oral argument on the parties’ motions regarding invalidity and noninfringement,

currently scheduled at 10:00 a.m., will be rescheduled for hearing at 2:15 p.m. on September

8, 2006. At oral argument, the parties should focus their discussion on the issues raised by

the following questions.

AMD’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Invalidity

1. Is there any intrinsic evidence for the Kurachi patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 5,739,571 and

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 372 Filed 09/06/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

5,856,694) that indicates that:

a. impurity diffusion layers of protection MOSFETs that are part of a protection

circuit that functions to protect an output buffer circuit need not be separated

from, and need not have a field oxide film interposed between, impurity

diffusion layers of buffer MOSFETs that are part of said output buffer circuit? 

b. impurity diffusion layers of protection MOSFETs that are part of a protection

circuit that functions to protect an output buffer circuit must be separated from,

and must have a field oxide film interposed between, impurity diffusion layers

of buffer MOSFETs that are part of said output buffer circuit?

2. Assuming that the claims require that all the impurity diffusion layers of buffer

MOSFETs that are part of an output buffer circuit must be separated from all the

impurity diffusion layers of protection MOSFETs that are part of a protection circuit

for protecting said output buffer circuit by an interposed field oxide film, do the

claims read on the ICE Report?

3. Were all the SCA reports prepared subsequent to (i) a request for the analysis of a

particular chip and (ii) delivery of the results to the requester? Alternatively, was

SCA 9007-010 (the report at issue that describes the Toshiba TC140G27HS Gate

Array, the “ICE Report”) prepared subsequent to (i) a request for the analysis of the

Toshiba Gate Array and (ii) delivery of the results to the requester? What evidence in

the record supports the answers to the above?

4. If a document is prepared and given to another person, group or entity, and, assuming

further distribution of the document itself is restricted but the contents of the

document may be shared, is that document a “printed publication” under 35 U.S.C. §

102(b)? What evidence in the record supports or refutes the notion that the contents

of the ICE Report could be shared by any recipient of the report?

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 372 Filed 09/06/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2004\3171\orderresjquestions.wpd 3

Oki’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

5. Regarding the Allen patent (U.S. 4,518,678), what is the product of the patented

process of claim 5, and what evidence in the record supports the answer?

a. If the product of the process is “a clean wafer edge,” Oki’s Reply Brief at 1,

what is the rationale for patenting a process to make a product that is only to be

immediately discarded?

b. What weight, if any, should the Court give to the example in the Senate Report

(see S. Rep. No. 100-83, 100th Cong. 1st Sess. (1987)) addressing

semiconductor processing?

c. If the product of the process is “contaminant free chips on the substrate,”

AMD’s Opposition Brief at 8, does any subsequent processing materially

change the product?

Each side will be permitted one hour for argument.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 6, 2006 

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-03171-CRB Document 372 Filed 09/06/06 Page 3 of 3