Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01684/USCOURTS-ca13-15-01684-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 

---

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

DSS TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

COMPANY, LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA, 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, 

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG 

AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2015-1684

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:14-cv-00199-RSP, 

Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne.

______________________ 

Decided: March 22, 2016 

______________________ 

CHRISTIAN JOHN HURT, Nix Patterson & Roach LLP, 

Irving, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by DEREK TOD GILLILAND, Daingerfield, TX; WILLIAM 

ELLSWORTH DAVIS III, The Davis Firm, PC, Longview, TX.

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2016
2 DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 

SCOTT A. CUNNING II, Haynes & Boone, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees Taiwan 

Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd., TSMC 

North America. Also represented by DAVID H. HARPER,

DEBRA JANECE MCCOMAS, STEPHANIE SIVINSKI, Dallas, 

TX; KAREN S. PRECELLA, Fort Worth, TX. 

JARED BOBROW, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, argued for defendants-appellees Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.L.C. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER MARANDO, 

Washington, DC; ALLEN FRANKLIN GARDNER, MICHAEL 

EDWIN JONES, Potter Minton PC, Tyler, TX.

______________________ 

Before TARANTO, CLEVENGER, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

TARANTO, Circuit Judge. 

DSS Technology Management, Inc. owns U.S. Patent 

No. 5,652,084, which describes and claims methods of 

making patterns in semiconductor wafers. DSS sued a 

number of companies, alleging that they manufacture 

products by using processes covered by claims 1–7 and 10 

the ’084 patent or sell products made by such processes. 

After the district court construed the claims, the parties 

stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. DSS appeals the district court’s construction of the term “patterned layer.” DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Taiwan 

Semiconductor Mfg. Co., No. 2:14-CV-199-RSP, 2015 WL

1737732, at *3–6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 9, 2015). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

The ’084 patent discloses a lithographic patterning 

process “to provide for a relatively reduced pitch for 

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2016
DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 3

features of a patterned layer.” ’084 patent, col. 1, lines 

40–41. In the description of the prior art, the ’084 patent 

describes a typical lithography process: First, “photoresist 

is deposited over the layer to be patterned and is exposed 

to ultraviolet radiation through a mask that defines the 

pattern to be formed in the photoresist.” Id., col. 1, lines 

19–22. After irradiation, “[t]he photoresist is then developed to form a patterned photoresist layer over the underlying layer to be patterned. Those portions of the 

underlying layer that are not covered by photoresist may 

then be etched using suitable etch techniques and chemistries.” Id., col. 1, lines 22–26. By such etching, “[t]he 

pattern in the photoresist is [ ] replicated in the underlying layer.” Id., col. 1, lines 26–27. 

According to the patent, however, the described conventional lithography methods “limit the size and density 

with which semiconductor devices may be fabricated.” 

Id., col. 1, lines 28–30. The patent describes a purportedly novel two-stage process to enable smaller, denser 

fabrication. In the first stage, “a first imaging layer is 

formed over the semiconductor wafer,” “[t]he first imaging 

layer is patterned in accordance with a first pattern to 

form a first patterned layer,” and that “patterned layer is 

stabilized.” Id., col. 1, lines 49–52. Then “[a] second 

imaging layer is formed over the first patterned layer 

such that the first patterned layer is surrounded by the 

second imaging layer. The second imaging layer is patterned in accordance with a second pattern to form a 

second patterned layer.” Id., col. 1, lines 52–56. The 

result of the process is a “single patterned layer [ ] formed 

from the patterning of [the first] imaging layer . . . and 

the subsequent patterning of [the second] imaging layer.” 

Id., col. 7, lines 38–40. The resulting (single, unified) 

patterned layer may then “serve[ ] as a mask in patterning an underlying layer,” so the pattern is “replicated in 

the underlying layer.” Id., col. 12, lines 45–53.

Claim 1, the only independent claim at issue, states:

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/22/2016
4 DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 

1. A lithography method for semiconductor 

fabrication using a semiconductor wafer, comprising the steps of:

(a) forming a first imaging layer over the semiconductor wafer;

(b) patterning the first imaging layer in accordance with a first pattern to form a first patterned layer having a first feature;

(c) stabilizing the first patterned layer;

(d) forming a second imaging layer over the 

first pattern layer; and

(e) patterning the second imaging layer in accordance with a second pattern to form a second patterned layer having a second feature 

distinct from the first feature, wherein the 

second patterned layer and the first patterned 

layer form a single patterned layer, and 

wherein the first and second features which 

are formed relatively closer to one another 

than is possible through a single exposure to 

radiation.

Id., col. 13, lines 6–24. Claims 2 and 3 each depend on 

claim 1, with claim 2 adding that “the first imaging layer 

includes a positive photoresist” and claim 3 adding that 

“the second imaging layer includes a positive photoresist.” 

Id., col. 13, lines 25–28. Claims 4 and 5, which also 

depend on claim 1, add limitations to the patterning 

steps. Claim 4 reads:

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the patterning step (b) includes the steps of: 

(i) exposing a portion of the first imaging layer 

to radiation; and 

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/22/2016
DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 5

(ii) developing the first imaging layer such that 

the exposed portion dissolves to form the first 

patterned layer.

Id., col. 13, lines 29–35. Claim 5 adds the same steps to

patterning step (e). Id., col. 13, lines 36–43.

 DSS brought the present patent-infringement suit 

against Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, 

Ltd., TSMC North America, TSMC Development, Inc., 

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics 

America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, 

LLC, Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin 

Semiconductor L.L.C., and NEC Corporation of America.1 

DSS alleged that the defendants manufacture semiconductor products using processes covered by the ’084 

patent or sell products made by such processes. 

The district court construed several claim terms. It 

adopted the parties’ agreed-to constructions that the first

imaging layer is “a first layer of photoresist or other 

radiation-sensitive material” and the second imaging 

layer is “a second layer of photoresist or other radiationsensitive material.” DSS, 2015 WL 1737732, at *3. The 

parties also agreed to the district court’s proposal that 

“patterning the [first/second] imaging layer” means “exposing an imaging layer to radiation in accordance with a 

specific pattern and developing the imaging layer so that 

portions of the imaging layer laying outside of the pattern 

are dissolved in the developer, thereby forming patterned 

portions and spaces of the imaging layer.” Id. (bracketed 

material in original). Then the court adopted the claim 

construction at issue here: “first patterned layer having a 

first feature” and “second patterned layer having a second 

 

1 TSMC Development, Inc. and NEC Corporation of 

America are not appellees in this court because they 

settled with DSS.

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/22/2016
6 DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 

feature,” the court ruled, mean, respectively, “a layer 

containing the portions and spaces of the [first/second] 

imaging layer that remain after the [first/second] patterning step.” Id. at *6 (bracketed material in original).

In light of the district court’s claim construction, the 

parties stipulated to a judgment of noninfringement. The 

stipulation explained the reason: “the layer alleged by 

DSS to be the ‘first patterned layer having a first feature’ 

(namely, a layer underlying the first imaging layer) does 

not contain the portions and spaces of the first imaging 

layer that remain after exposure and development of the 

first imaging layer.” J.A. 39 (emphasis added). The 

district court entered a judgment of noninfringement for 

defendants and dismissed the defendants’ other claims, 

counterclaims, and defenses without prejudice. 

DSS appeals. We have a final judgment before us. 

See Atlas IP, LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., 809 F.3d 599, 604–05 

(Fed. Cir. 2015). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1).

DISCUSSION

We review a district court’s claim construction de novo 

where, as here, it is not based on any evidence about 

extra-patent understandings of language or other facts. 

See Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 

1044–45 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 

DSS disputes the construction of “patterned layer.” 

As their noninfringement stipulation evinces, the parties 

here agree on the meaning of the district court’s construction. Under that construction, the patterned layer consists of material of the imaging layer itself—what remains 

(material and spaces) after the patterning process has 

removed some of the material—and cannot include other 

material configured according to the pattern. We conclude that the district court’s construction is correct.

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/22/2016
DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 7

The language of the claim—“patterning the first imaging layer in accordance with a first pattern to form a first 

patterned layer”—points strongly toward the district 

court’s construction. It indicates that the first patterned 

layer is the immediate result of performing the patterning 

process itself, not of that process plus an additional unclaimed process. The claim does not identify any steps in 

the creation of the patterned layer apart from patterning. 

And DSS does not dispute the district court’s construction 

of “patterning” to mean “exposing an imaging layer to 

radiation in accordance with a specific pattern and developing the imaging layer so that portions of the imaging 

layer laying outside of the pattern are dissolved in the 

developer, thereby forming patterned portions and spaces 

of the imaging layer.” DSS, 2015 WL 1737732, at *3. 

Patterning involves applying a pattern to the imaging 

layer, irradiating the imaging layer, and developing the 

imaging layer to remove portions of the imaging layer. In 

the absence of any identification of any other steps, the 

immediate result of “patterning” is the “patterned layer,” 

which is necessarily the remaining material (and spaces) 

of the imaging layer.

That the claim uses two terms (“imaging layer,” “patterned layer”) to refer to the same material does not 

detract from this conclusion. DSS itself agrees that the 

patterned layer can be made of the same material as the

imaging layer, fully answering any objection about different terminology for the same material. The terms merely 

refer to the same material at different stages of the process.

The specification’s description of the patterning process supports the district court’s understanding that the 

patterned layer is formed out of the same material as the 

imaging layer. The imaging layer is made of a radiationsensitive material, such as “a suitable positive photoresist, . . . a suitable negative photoresist, a suitable radiation-sensitive polyimide, or other suitable radiationCase: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/22/2016
8 DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 

sensitive materials for example.” ’084 patent, col. 3, lines 

34–42 (first imaging layer); see id., col. 5, line 66, through 

col. 6, line 8 (second imaging layer). The imaging layer is 

patterned in accordance with a pattern to form a patterned layer according to the following steps, applicable to 

patterning either imaging layer. See id., col. 3, lines 49–

51; id., col. 6, lines 12–14. The imaging layer is first 

“exposed through the first mask using any suitable form 

of radiation.” Id., col. 3, lines 65–66; see id., col. 6, lines 

26–27. The mask blocks radiation, such that some portions of the layer are exposed to radiation and some are 

not. Id., col. 3, lines 54–64; see id., col. 6, lines 23–25. 

The imaging layer is then “developed in a suitable developer to form a first patterned layer.” Id., col. 4, lines 5–6;

see id., col. 6, lines 51–53. When the imaging layer is 

made of positive-tone material, “[t]hat portion of imaging 

layer 220 that has not been exposed to radiation is relatively insoluble in the developer, and thus remains to 

form first patterned layer 232.” Id., col. 4, lines 9–12; see

id., col. 6, lines 56–59. Conversely, when the imaging 

layer is made of negative-tone material, “[t]hat portion of 

imaging layer 220 exposed to radiation through the first 

mask is relatively insoluble in the developer and thus 

remains to form first patterned layer 232. That portion of 

imaging layer 220 that has not been exposed to radiation 

is soluble in the developer and is thus dissolved from 

imaging layer 220.” Id., col. 4, lines 24–29; see id., col. 7, 

lines 9–14. This description of the process is naturally 

read to be treating the “patterned layer” as what remains 

of the imaging layer.

More generally, the specification consistently describes the patterned layer as what remains of the imaging layer. See id., col. 9, lines 53–63 (“For step 350 of 

FIG. 6, the imaging layer is developed to form a patterned 

layer. Imaging layer 420 may be developed in any suitable developer to form a patterned layer that includes 

portions 431, 432, and 433 as illustrated in FIG. 11. As 

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/22/2016
DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 9

portions 431, 432, and 433 of imaging layer 420 have been 

stabilized, portions 431, 432, and 433 are relatively insoluble in developer and thus undergo relatively minimal, if 

any, dissolution. Portions 431, 432, and 433 thus remain 

to form features 431, 432, and 433 for the patterned layer 

after development. The remaining portion of imaging 

layer 420 is dissolved from imaging layer 420 in the 

developer.”); id., col. 12, lines 4–17 (“For step 540 of FIG. 

12, the imaging layer is developed to form a patterned 

layer. . . . That portion of imaging layer 620 that has not 

been exposed to radiation is also relatively insoluble in 

the developer, and thus remains to form features 631 and 

633 for the patterned layer.”).

Although DSS points to two related passages of the 

specification as contrary to the district court’s construction, we think that those passages are actually supportive 

of that construction. One passage, in the description of 

the prior art, states that “photoresist is deposited over the 

layer to be patterned and is exposed to ultraviolet radiation through a mask.” Id., col. 1, lines 19–22. After 

irradiation, the photoresist is “developed to form a patterned photoresist layer over the underlying layer to be 

patterned.” Id., col. 1, lines 22–24. Those steps are 

similar to steps claimed in the patent—forming an imaging layer and patterning that imaging layer to form a 

patterned layer. The passage then specifies additional

steps through which the patterned photoresist layer can 

be used to pattern an underlying layer: “Those portions of 

the underlying layer that are not covered by photoresist 

may then be etched using suitable etch techniques and 

chemistries. The pattern in the photoresist is thus replicated in the underlying layer.” Id., col. 1, lines 24–27. 

Although this passage describes creating a pattern in an 

underlying layer, it notably identifies additional steps, 

described in different language, for doing so: suitable 

etching techniques and chemistries for replicating the 

pattern. That passage tends to reinforce, rather than 

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/22/2016
10 DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 

undermine, the distinction between the “patterned layer” 

immediately created by patterning the imaging layer and 

transferring the pattern to some other layer.

This understanding is supported by a related passage 

near the end of the written description, which explains 

that the claimed methods “may be used, for example, to 

form a single patterned layer that serves as a mask in 

patterning an underlying layer, such as layers 210, 410, 

and 610 respectively.” Id., col. 12, lines 45–48. The 

specification states that “[t]he underlying layer may be 

patterned using a suitable etch technique and chemistry,” 

such that “the pattern in the mask layer, such as the 

single patterned layer illustrated in FIGS. 5, 11, and 16, 

becomes replicated in the underlying layer.” Id., col. 12, 

lines 48–53. Like the prior-art passage discussed above, 

this passage, by its language, reinforces the distinction 

between the patterned layer as what remains of the 

imaging layer as a result of its being patterned and an 

underlying layer that has been subjected to additional 

steps for transferring the pattern.

Principles favoring claim constructions that preserve 

differentiation of scope among different claims do not 

defeat the district court’s construction of claim 1. Claims 

4 and 5 provide additional details for patterning steps (b) 

and (e) of claim 1. Id., col. 13, lines 29–43. Claim 4 

requires patterning step (b) to include “(i) exposing a 

portion of the first imaging layer to radiation; and (ii) 

developing the first imaging layer such that the exposed 

portion dissolves to form the first patterned layer.” Id., 

col. 13, lines 29–35 (emphasis added). Claim 5 requires 

the same steps for patterning step (e), in which the second 

imaging layer is patterned. Id., col. 13, lines 36–43. 

Claims 4 and 5 require that the imaging layer is positivetone—that is, the material becomes more soluble upon 

exposure to radiation. See id, col. 3, line 54, through col. 

4, line 12 (describing patterning a positive-tone imaging 

material). In contrast, the parties agree that claim 1 

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/22/2016
DSS TECH. MGMT., INC. v. TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MFG. CO. 11

covers both positive- and negative-tone materials. Oral 

Arg. at 14:47–15:07, 17:55–18:04. Under the district 

court’s claim construction, therefore, claims 4 and 5 are 

different in scope from—narrower than—claim 1. 

DSS suggests that this understanding of claims 4 and 

5 cannot be correct because it renders them equivalent in 

scope to claims 2 and 3, which respectively require the 

first and second imaging layer to be a positive “photoresist.” But while claims 2 and 3 require the imaging-layer 

material to be a positive photoresist, claims 4 and 5 

require only that “the exposed portion dissolves” after 

irradiation, indicative of a positive-tone material. DSS 

does not argue that all positive-tone materials are positive 

photoresists. And the specification is consistent with the 

understanding that not all radiation-sensitive materials 

are photoresists. ’084 patent, col. 3, lines 54–56 (“suitable 

positive photoresist or a suitable positive-tone radiationsensitive polyimide”); cf. id., col. 3, lines 41–42 (“suitable 

negative photoresist, a suitable radiation-sensitive polyimide, or other suitable radiation-sensitive materials for 

example”). The parties’ agreed-to construction of “imaging layer” similarly treats photoresist as a proper subset 

of radiation-sensitive materials, as opposed to an umbrella term that encompasses all radiation-sensitive materials. See DSS, 2015 WL 1737732, at *3. Because claims 4 

and 5 recite positive-tone materials, while claims 2 and 3 

recite positive photoresists, there is a difference in scope 

under the district court’s construction of “patterned 

layer.” Accordingly, there is no claim-differentiation basis 

for rejecting that construction.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the district court correctly construed the claims, and we affirm 

the district court’s judgment of noninfringement. 

AFFIRMED

Case: 15-1684 Document: 57-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/22/2016