Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06880/USCOURTS-cand-5_17-cv-06880-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HITACHI KOKUSAI ELECTRIC INC., ET 

AL.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ASM INTERNATIONAL, N.V., et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-06880-BLF 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS VI 

AND VII IN PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH 

LEAVE TO AMEND

[Re: ECF 27]

Plaintiffs Hitachi Kokusai Electric Inc. (“HiKE”) and Kabushiki-Kaisha Kokusai Electric 

bring this patent infringement action against Defendants ASM International NV (“ASMI”) and 

ASM America, Inc. (“ASMA”). Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts VI and 

VII in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. Mot., ECF 27. Having considered the briefing and 

oral argument of the parties, as well as the governing law, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ 

motion to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants infringe seven patents:

1 U.S. Patent Nos. 7,033,937 (“the 

’937 patent”), 6,576,063 (“the ’063 patent”), 7,808,396 (“the ’396 patent”), RE43,023 (“the ’023 

patent”), 6,744,018 (“the ’018 patent”), 8,409,988 (“the ’988 patent”), and 9,318,316 (“the ’316 

patent”) (collectively, “the Asserted Patents”). First Am. Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 14, 22–164, ECF 24. 

In particular, Counts VI and VII in the FAC plead infringement of the ’988 patent and ’316 patent, 

respectively. 

 

1

The Court previously granted Plaintiff HiKE’s motion to join Kabushiki-Kaisha Kokusai Electric

as a plaintiff in this action. ECF 42. HiKE represents that it divested part of its business to a new 

company, Kabushiki-Kaisha Kokusai Electric, and that the new company will be assigned the 

patents asserted in this action. Id. 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 9
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The ’988 patent relates to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device capable of 

improving defects of conventional chemical vapor deposition (“CVD”) and atomic layer 

deposition (“ALD”) methods in order to realize a high film-formation rate. FAC ¶ 121. The FAC 

alleges that Defendants “have infringed [the ’988 patent] and are currently infringing literally 

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. ¶ 122. According to the FAC, Defendants’ A412 

batch vertical furnace system, Eagle XP8 PEALD system, and Dragon XP8 PECVD system 

products have been “configured and operated by [Defendants] to perform the method of at least 

claim 1 of the ’988 patent.” Id. ¶ 123. Independent claim 1 recites the following:

1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising: 

(a) forming a first layer including a first element being able to become solid state 

by itself on a substrate by supplying a gas containing the first element into a 

process vessel accommodating the substrate under a condition where a CVD 

reaction is caused; 

(b) modifying the first layer by supplying a gas containing a second element being 

unable to become solid state by itself into the process vessel to form a second 

layer including the first element and the second element; and 

(c) performing a cycle comprising the steps (a) and (b) at least once to form a thin 

film having a predetermined thickness and including the first element and the 

second element.

Ex. F to FAC (the ’988 patent), ECF 24-1. 

The FAC further alleges that Defendants indirectly infringe the ’988 patent by “actively 

and knowingly inducing others to make, use, sell, offer for sale, or import” the accused products. 

FAC ¶ 132. In addition, the FAC pleads that Defendants have “contributed to and/or are

contributing to the infringement of the ’988 patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale,

and/or selling” the accused products. Id. ¶ 137. 

The ’316 patent relates to a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device where the

method involves forming a thin film on a substrate by repeating a cycle that forms layers on a 

substrate. FAC ¶ 145. According to the FAC, Defendants “have infringed [the ’316 patent] and 

are currently infringing literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. ¶ 146. The FAC

further alleges that Defendants’ A412 batch vertical furnace system, Eagle XP8 PEALD system, 

and Dragon XP8 PECVD system products have been “configured and operated by [Defendants] to 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 9
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

perform the method of at least claim 1 of the ’316 patent.” Id. ¶ 147. Independent claim 1 recites 

the following:

1. A method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising forming a 

thin film having a predetermined thickness and a predetermined composition on a 

substrate, the thin film comprising a first element and a second element different from 

the first element, by repeating a cycle a plurality of times, the cycle comprising:

(a) forming a first layer comprising the first element and having a thickness of 

several atomic layers or less than one atomic layer on the substrate by 

supplying a gas containing the first element into a process vessel 

accommodating the substrate; and

(b) forming a second layer comprising the first element and the second element by 

supplying a gas containing the second element into the process vessel to modify 

the first layer without saturating a modifying reaction of the first layer by the 

gas containing the second element.

Ex. G to FAC (the ’316 patent), ECF 24-1. 

The FAC also alleges that Defendants indirectly infringe the ’316 patent by inducing their 

customers to practice the claimed method. FAC ¶¶ 154. In addition, the FAC asserts a 

contributory infringement claim based on the ’316 patent against Defendants. Id. ¶ 159.

On March 2, 2018, Defendants filed the instant motion requesting the Court to dismiss 

Counts VI and VII for failure to state a claim. Mot. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 

accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 

U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

Under Iqbal and Twombly, a court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion 

couched as a factual allegation.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 662, 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). 

Hence, the rule that “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 

conclusory statements, do not suffice” apply in patent cases. See Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC 

v. OpenTV, Inc., 319 F.R.D. 269, 272 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (citing Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678). Such 

pleading standards under Iqbal and Twombly apply to allegations of direct and indirect (i.e., 

induced and contributory) infringement. See Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC, No. 16-CV06795, 2017 WL 2311407, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017); Superior Industries, LLC v. Thor 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 9
4

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Global Enterprises Ltd., 700 F.3d 1287, 1295–96 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Finjan, Inc. v. Cisco Systems 

Inc., 2017 WL 2462423, *3–5 (N.D. Cal. 2017).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Claims for Direct Infringement of the ’988 and ’316 Patents in Counts VI and VII

Defendants argue that the FAC fails to plead direct infringement of the ’988 and ’316 

patents by either Defendant. Mot. 6. Specifically, Defendants contend that the FAC fails to 

sufficiently allege that Defendants use or operate the accused products at all, let alone using the 

methods claimed in the ’988 and ’316 patents. Id. Instead, in Defendants’ view, the FAC simply 

states that the accused products are “operated by [Defendants] to perform the method[s]” claimed 

by those patents. Id. Defendants further assert that the FAC does not allege facts “setting forth 

why [Defendants themselves] would be fabricating semiconductor devices (as opposed to 

manufacturing and selling semiconductor fabrication equipment) in the United States” or that 

Defendants are “developing specific methods for manufacturing semiconductor devices and then 

giving them to . . . customers.” Reply 3, ECF 29. 

Plaintiffs counter that the FAC’s direct infringement claims in Counts VI and VII provide 

more than a conclusory statement of infringement. Opp’n 7, ECF 28. For support, Plaintiffs 

argue that the court in Intellicheck found that the pleading was sufficient where a patentee 

“attached the patents-in-suit, described its protected technology, identified the accused products, 

and described how those products allegedly perform the same functions or methods that are 

protected by the [Asserted] Patent.” Id. at 7 (citing Intellicheck Mobilisa, Inc. v. Honeywell Int'l 

Inc., No. C16-0341JLR, 2017 WL 5634131, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2017)). In Plaintiffs’ 

view, the FAC provides more than a conclusory statement because it attaches the ’988 and ’316 

patents, describes the patents’ claimed technology, and identifies the accused products, as in 

Intellicheck. Furthermore, Plaintiffs assert that their allegations “detail [Defendants’] use of 

specific gases and processing conditions to form a specific film.” Opp’n 8. As examples, 

Plaintiffs point to the FAC allegations regarding aluminum nitride and “high-temperature ALD 

SiO” processes. Id. at 9–11. 

The Court finds that Defendants’ assertion that the FAC’s direct infringement claims are 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 9
5

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

insufficiently pled is technically correct. A claim for direct infringement requires that “all steps of 

a claimed method are performed by or attributable to” the defendant. Rearden LLC v. Walt Disney 

Co., No. 17-CV-04006-JST, 2018 WL 1000350, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2018) (citing Akamai 

Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc)). Here, 

the FAC merely alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products have “been configured 

and operated by [Defendants] to perform the [claimed] method[s]” of the ’988 and ’316 patents 

and that “[Defendants] perform[] a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device using” the 

accused products. FAC ¶¶ 123–24, 147–48. As Defendants argue (Reply 3), the FAC does not 

contain sufficient factual allegations that allow a reasonable inference to be drawn that Defendants 

are performing the claimed methods where they are manufacturers of semiconductor fabrication 

equipment. Conclusory allegations that Defendants perform the claimed methods are “not entitled 

to be assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. 

As mentioned, Plaintiffs assert that they have attached the ’988 and ’316 patents, described 

the patents’ claimed technology, and identified the accused products, like the plaintiff in 

Intellicheck. This assertion, however, does not save the FAC from the above deficiencies. As 

Defendants argue (Reply 4 n.2), the plaintiff in Intellicheck pled specific facts alleging that the 

defendant performed the claimed method steps. 2017 WL 5634131, *2–3. For example, the 

plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed the claimed methods through “product testing” 

processes. Id. Unlike Intellicheck, the FAC in this case contains no such allegations.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct infringement 

claims in Counts VI and VII with LEAVE TO AMEND.

B. Claims for Induced and Contributory Infringement of the ’988 and ’316 Patents in 

Counts VI and VII

Defendants argue that the FAC fails to sufficiently allege that “any third party uses the 

Accused Products in the manners alleged to infringe the ’988 or ’316 patents.” Mot. 7. In other 

words, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled direct infringement by a third 

party as a predicate to indirect (i.e., induced and contributory) infringement. Reply 4–5.

The Court agrees with Defendants. Rather than directly addressing Defendants’ arguments 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 5 of 9
6

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

regarding the FAC’s failure to allege direct infringement, Plaintiffs argue that the FAC sufficiently 

pleads other elements of induced and contributory infringement claims including inducement, 

intent to encourage infringement, and no substantial non-infringing uses. See Opp’n 12–19. 

However, without a showing of direct infringement, indirect infringement claims cannot be 

sustained. Lucent Techs., Inc. v. Gateway, Inc., 580 F.3d 1301, 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Here, the FAC merely alleges in a conclusory manner that the accused products “as provided by 

the ASM Defendants to their customers and used as intended, instructed and encouraged by the 

ASM Defendants, infringe” the ’988 and ’316 patents. FAC ¶¶ 132, 154. But conclusory 

allegations are “not entitled to be assumed true.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681. 

To be sure, the FAC contains numerous allegations regarding Defendants’ purported 

publications, participation in conferences, advertisements, instruction materials, and hands-on 

training sessions. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 132–36, 154–58. However, Plaintiffs do not adequately plead 

that those allegations are related to the methods claimed in the ’988 and ’316 patents. As such, the 

FAC does not allow a reasonable inference to be drawn that Defendants’ customers used the 

claimed methods in the ’988 and ’316 patents and therefore fails to plead indirect infringement 

claims. See Varian Med. Sys., Inc. v. Elekta AB, No. CV 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 3748772, at *4 

(D. Del. July 12, 2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. CV 15-871-LPS, 2016 WL 

9307500 (D. Del. Dec. 22, 2016) (dismissing indirect infringement claims because the complaint 

did “not adequately allege that any third party actually used the accused device” (emphasis in 

original)). Plaintiffs will be allowed to amend the complaint to cure this deficiency. To be clear,

Plaintiffs are not required to identify the names of specific customers who allegedly infringed the 

asserted method claims. Defendants agreed during oral argument. Hearing Tr. 4:14–20, ECF 50.

Regarding induced infringement, Defendants also argue that the FAC fails to plead 

“affirmative acts of inducement specifically tied to the allegedly infringing methods.” Mot. 8. 

According to Defendants, the FAC contains general allegations about “training of customers, 

communications with customers, installation of equipment for customers, and customer service

and support” but “fails to tie any of these acts to inducing the customer to specifically perform the 

claimed methods.” Id. at 9 (emphasis in original). Plaintiffs disagree and contend that the FAC 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 6 of 9
7

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

alleges that Defendants acted with the specific intent to induce their customers to infringe the ’988 

and ’316 patents by providing instructions and technical assistance, participating in conferences, 

advertising infringing uses, encouraging customers to directly communicate with Defendants, and 

offering hands-on training sessions. Opp’n 12–13. 

The Court is unpersuaded by Plaintiffs’ arguments. To state a claim for induced 

infringement, the FAC must plead “facts plausibly showing that [Defendants] specifically 

intended their customers to infringe the [claimed methods] and knew that the customer’s acts 

constituted infringement.” In re Bill of Lading Transmission & Processing Sys. Patent Litig., 681 

F.3d 1323, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Here, the FAC’s allegations fall short of satisfying that 

requirement because the general allegations regarding Defendants’ customer-related activities are 

not sufficiently related to infringement of the claimed methods. For example, the allegation that 

Defendants provided instruction material to customers without more is insufficient to show 

inducement of infringement. Indeed, a general allegation that “a user following the instructions 

may end up using the device in an infringing way” may not provide sufficient factual support. 

Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., 144 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1196 (D. Or. 2015) (citing Vita-Mix 

Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1329 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). The Court therefore finds 

that the induced infringement claims alleged in Counts VI and VII are deficient.

As to the contributory infringement claims, Defendants argue that the FAC fails to plead 

sufficient facts showing that the accused products have no substantial non-infringing uses. Mot. 9; 

Reply 9. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs merely parrot the required elements for a contributory 

infringement claim. Mot. 9. Plaintiffs respond that they have pled that the accused products have 

no substantial non-infringing uses and that those products are material to the infringement. 

Opp’n 18. As an example, Plaintiffs point out that the FAC alleges that “Defendants have made 

and/or sold such products with knowledge that they are especially designed for use in a patented 

system and/or apparatus for use in a patented process.” Id. (citing FAC ¶ 137) (emphasis in 

original); see also FAC ¶ 159. Plaintiffs further contend that “once the furnaces are designed, 

configured, and installed for a specific use in a patented process, there is no substantial noninfringing use.” Opp’n 19. 

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 7 of 9
8

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

To state a claim for contributory infringement, “a plaintiff must, among other things, plead 

facts that allow an inference that the components sold or offered for sale have no substantial noninfringing uses.” In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1337. The Court finds that the FAC fails to

satisfy this requirement. The FAC only alleges that Defendants sold the accused products with 

knowledge that they are especially designed for use in a patented process and then states in a 

conclusory manner that those products are not a “staple article of commerce suitable for 

substantial non-infringing use.” FAC ¶¶ 137, 159. Such a conclusory allegation does not support 

an inference that the accused products have “no substantial non-infringing uses.” See Iqbal, 556 

U.S. at 681; In re Bill of Lading, 681 F.3d at 1337–38; see also Novatel Wireless, Inc. v. Franklin 

Wireless Corp., No. 10CV2530-CAB (JMA), 2012 WL 12845614, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 

2012).

Plaintiffs contend that courts must presume a complaint’s allegations regarding the lack of 

“substantial non-infringing uses” to be true at the pleading stage. Opp’n 19 (citing Nalco Co. v. 

Chem-Mod, LLC, 883 F.3d 1337, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). If Plaintiffs cite Nalco for the 

proposition that the mere allegation that an accused product has no “substantial non-infringing 

uses” without more must be presumed to be true, Plaintiffs read Nalco too broadly because that 

case involved additional factual allegations. In particular, the plaintiff in Nalco pled that two 

chemical additives were “specifically formulated” to create a mixture and that once a coal-fired 

power plant purchased the two chemical additives, the coal-fired power plant had “no other use”

for the chemical additives except to create a mixture used in the infringing process. 883 F.3d at 

1357. Those allegations supported a reasonable inference that the chemical additives had no 

substantial non-infringing uses. In fact, after Nalco, courts have continued to hold that the mere 

recitation of elements of a contributory infringement claim is “not entitled to the presumption of 

truth.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. C 18-00359 WHA, 2018 WL 2047553, at *5 (N.D. 

Cal. May 2, 2018) (dismissing contributory infringement claim for failing to allege sufficient 

factual support where Nalco was submitted to the court). As discussed above, Plaintiffs’ FAC 

falls short of alleging sufficient factual content that would support a reasonable inference that the 

accused products have no substantial non-infringing uses.

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 8 of 9
9

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

As a final point, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs cite Nalco where the “plaintiff alleged 

that the accused products could not be used for purposes other than infringement” but that the 

FAC contains no such allegation. Reply 6 (citing Opp’n 19). According to Defendants, Plaintiffs 

attempt to rewrite the FAC by arguing that the accused products have no substantial noninfringing use once they “are designed, configured, and installed for a specific use in a patented 

process.” Id. (citing Opp’n 19). The Court agrees with Defendants because those allegations are 

not pled in the FAC. The Court therefore does not consider those allegations and need not 

determine whether those allegations would support Plaintiffs’ contributory infringement claims. 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the contributory infringement claims alleged 

in Counts VI and VII are deficient.

IV. CONCLUSION

Defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts VI and VII in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint 

is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiffs must amend their pleadings, if at all, 

within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 23, 2018

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-06880-BLF Document 53 Filed 07/23/18 Page 9 of 9