Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-04435-44/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

UTAC (TAIWAN) CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:10-cv-04435-EJD 

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

Re: Dkt. No. 215

Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. (“Tessera”) filed this breach of contract case against Defendant 

UTAC (Taiwan) Corporation (“UTC”) alleging that UTC failed to pay all of the royalties it owes 

under a license agreement with Tessera. Because the court previously found that payment of 

royalties under the license agreement is dependent upon whether or not a product embodies the 

invention disclosed in Tessera’s patents, a technology tutorial and “claim construction hearing” 

was held in order to resolve the parties’ dispute over the scope of patent claims. 

Federal jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). Having considered the claims, 

specifications, prosecution histories, and other relevant evidence along with supplemental briefing

filed by the parties, and having heard the arguments made at the hearing, the court construes the 

contested language of the patents as set forth below.

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 1 of 21
2

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

I. BACKGROUND

Tessera is a company with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. See Dkt. 

No. 300 at 1. Tessera is a patent holding company and developer of semiconductor packaging 

technology, which is sometimes referred to as “microBGA technology.” See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 1 

at 1-2. Semiconductor packages serve as the electrical interface between semiconductor chips and 

the systems in which they operate. See Dkt. No. 300, at 1. They also protect delicate chips from 

damage, contamination, and stress resulting from repeated heating and cooling. See id. Tessera 

has developed semiconductor technologies and owns a portfolio of hundreds of patents on these 

technologies. See id. Many of the companies in the semiconductor and electronics industries

have obtained patent license agreements from Tessera, which grants limited licenses under 

specified circumstances to practice certain Tessera patents and other technology, including 

Tessera’s proprietary technical know-how related to semiconductor packaging. See id. Tessera’s 

technology allows companies around the world to meet the growing demand for smaller, faster, 

less expensive and more reliable electronic products. See id. 

UTC is a Taiwan-based provider of assembly services for semiconductor packages. See

Dkt. No. 185, at 6. It is a subsidiary of United Test and Assembly Center Ltd., which in turn is 

owned by TPG Capital, a leading global private investment firm headquartered in San Francisco, 

and Affinity Equity Partners, a leading Asian private investment firm, and their respective 

affiliates. See id. In particular, UTC manufactures semiconductor packages by encasing 

integrated circuits in protective coating, supporting the integrated circuit’s electrical contacts so 

that it can connect to a printed circuit board, and testing the product to make sure that it is 

functional. See id. at 1-2.

In 2001, UTC began manufacturing a small-format ball grid array package, which it called 

“window BGA” or “wBGA.” See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 10 at 24:14-20; Ex. 12. By March 2001, a 

third party named Computer Technology System Corporation (“CTS”) had approached UTC 

regarding a potential patent infringement claim it believed it had against UTC’s wBGA package. 

See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 9. Shortly thereafter, UTC met with Tessera and raised its concern over a 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 2 of 21
3

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

potential patent infringement suit by CTS. On April 27, 2001 Tessera’s counsel, Christopher 

Pickett, sent a letter to UTC’s President, C.C. Tsai, addressing UTC’s concern and particularly 

noting that, should UTC take a license under Tessera’s MicroBGA Technology and patents, and in 

particular Tessera’s U.S Patents 5,950,304 (“the ‘304 patent”) and 6,133,627 (“the ‘627 patent”),

it could continue to manufacture the packaging using methods that would likely not be held to 

infringe CTS’s patents. Id. In May 2001, Tessera faxed a license term sheet “TCC License 

Agreement” to UTC. See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 11.

A. The License Agreement

The parties met in person in Taiwan on June 20, 2001 and August 9, 2001 to discuss terms 

of the licensing agreement, Tessera’s willingness to introduce UTC to potential customers, and the 

parties’ interest in working together on future technology development. See Dkt. No. 138, Exs. 

12-13. After these meetings, on August 22, 2001, UTC’s legal and intellectual property manager

Wei-Heng Shan emailed Mr. Pickett to express UTC’s willingness to enter into a licensing 

agreement provided the parties could agree on a licensing fee and royalties. See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 

15. In that email, Mr. Shan also noted that UTC executives were “impressed” by Tessera’s 

presentation of its “business cooperation plan” and that they hoped to meet with Tessera’s 

“strategic partners” during an upcoming trip to the United States. Id. Tessera and UTC entered 

into a License and Joint Cooperation Agreement on December 3, 2001 (the “Agreement”). See

Dkt. No. 300, at 2.

The Agreement defines the term “TCC” as “an acronym for Tessera Compliant Chip, a 

type of integrated circuit (‘IC’) package which is the subject matter of certain Tessera Patents 

licensed hereunder.” See Dkt. No. 49, at 2-3. The Agreement further states that UTAC Taiwan 

shall pay a certain amount “per Billable Pin for TCC packages made by UTC hereunder, whether 

sold, transferred or used internally.” See id.

In August 2002, UTC contacted Tessera regarding a Taiwanese tax issue it faced as a result 

of the Agreement. See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 22. To remedy the issue, UTC requested a change in 

wording of two provisions of the Agreement to make clear that the Agreement involved a transfer 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 3 of 21
4

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

of technology. Accordingly, the parties executed the First Amendment to TCC License 

Agreement and Joint Cooperation Agreement (the “Amended Agreement”) on September 24, 

2002. See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 24.

Following the parties’ execution of the Agreement, UTC began to accrue and pay royalties 

on its wBGA package. UTC asserts that the royalties covered its use of the Tessera ’627 and ’304

patents, which are part of a patent family known as the Khandros patents. The Khandros patents 

expired on September 24, 2010. See Dkt. No. 142, Exs. 17, 18. The day before the expiration 

date, UTC notified Tessera that it considered the Khandros patents to be the only basis for its 

royalty payments under the Agreement and that it would cease making payments once those 

patents expired. See Dkt. No. 138, Ex. 42.

B. Technology Overview

The patents at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 5,477,611 (“the ‘611 patent”); 5,659,952 (“the 

‘952 patent”); 5,966,587 (“the ‘587 patent”); 6,169,328 (“the ‘328 patent”); 6,521,480 (“the ‘480

patent”); 6,870,272 (“the ‘272 patent”); and 7,091,820 (“the ‘820 patent”). In addition, there are 

several foreign patents: European Patent No. 0,552,382 (“the EP ‘382 patent”); European Patent 

No. 1,353,374 (“the EP ‘374 patent”); Canadian Patent No. 2,091,438 (“the CA ‘438 patent”); 

Japanese Patent No. 2,924,923 (“the JP ‘923 patent”); and Korean Patent No. 1997-0005709 (“the 

KR ‘709 patent”). 

The patents generally relate to the art of semiconductor packaging. See Dkt. No 229, at 3. 

A semiconductor chip is a widely-used miniaturized electronic circuit that has been manufactured 

in the surface of semiconductor material. Spansion, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 629 F.3d 1331, 

1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A semiconductor chip package includes both the casing, which protects the 

chip, and the electrical connections (sometimes called “terminals” or “contact pads”), which allow 

the chip to be attached to a printed circuit board (“PCB”). See id. The printed circuit board, in 

turn, can be connected to other components of an electrical device. See id.

 Semiconductor devices generate heat during operation and subsequently cool when 

operation ceases. See id. at 1338. The electrical interconnections within the package (between the 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 4 of 21
5

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

semiconductor chip and the backing element) and between the package and the PCB are subjected 

to substantial strain resulting from expansion and contraction caused by these changes in 

temperature. See id. Since the components are ordinarily formed by different materials having 

different coefficients of thermal expansion (“CTE”), the chip, the backing element, and the PCB

expand and contract by different amounts with each power cycle. See id. This difference, called 

the differential thermal expansion, causes the electrical contacts on one component to move 

relative to the contacts of another component to which it is attached as the temperatures of the 

different components change. See id. For instance, a semiconductor chip has a much lower 

coefficient of thermal expansion than either the backing element or the PCB. See id. During 

heating, the backing element beneath the chip tends to be constrained by the chip and expands 

much less than the board on which it is mounted, causing relative movement between the two 

components. See id. This relative movement causes mechanical stress on the solder balls 

because the bottoms of the solder balls get pulled outward relative to the tops, causing distortion. 

See id. Repeated cycles of heating and cooling can ultimately lead to permanent damage to the 

solder balls and breakage of the electrical interconnections. See id.

Prior to the invention described in the patents at issue, the differential thermal expansion 

problem was known. See id. at 1340. Several design strategies to address the problem also were 

known. See id. In particular, the patents at issue address certain problems due to stress caused by 

mismatches in CTE between the various materials, e.g., the semiconductor chip, the package 

substrate, and/or the printed circuit board, used in a semiconductor assembly. See, e.g., the ‘272

patent at “Background of the Invention.”

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he court has the power and obligation to construe as a matter of law the meaning of 

language used in the patent claim.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 

(Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d 517 U.S. 370, 577 (1996). This tenet of patent jurisprudence 

“follows . . . from the general rule applicable to written instruments” since a patent is a fully 

integrated writing. Id. at 978. 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 5 of 21
6

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

In construing disputed terms, the court looks first to the claims themselves, for “[i]t is a 

‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to which the 

patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 

2005) (en banc) (internal quotation marks omitted). Generally, the words of a claim should be 

given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is “the meaning that the term[s] would have 

to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1312-13. In 

some instances, the ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art is clear, and claim construction 

may involve “little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly 

understood words.” Id. at 1314. 

In many cases, however, the meaning of a term to a person skilled in the art will not be 

readily apparent, and the court must look to other sources to determine the term’s meaning. Id. 

Under these circumstances, the court should consider the context in which the term is used in an 

asserted claim or in related claims, bearing in mind that “the person of ordinary skill in the art is 

deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed 

term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. 

Indeed, the specification is “‘always highly relevant’ “and “‘[u]sually [ ] dispositive; it is the 

single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. 

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 

The court may also consider the patent’s prosecution history, which consists of the 

complete record of proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and 

includes the cited prior art references. The court may consider prosecution history where it is in 

evidence, for the prosecution history “can often inform the meaning of the claim language by 

demonstrating how the inventor understood the invention and whether the inventor limited the 

invention in the course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it otherwise would 

be.” Id. at 1317 (internal citations omitted).

Finally, the court is also authorized to consider extrinsic evidence in construing claims, 

such as “expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 6 of 21
7

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

980 (internal citations omitted). Although the court may consider evidence extrinsic to the patent 

and prosecution history, such evidence is considered “less significant than the intrinsic record” and 

“less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” 

Id. at 1317-18 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, while extrinsic evidence may 

be useful in claim construction, ultimately “it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of 

patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319.

III. DISCUSSION1

A. “said pads providing a standoff between said structure and said terminals”

Tessera UTC

Plain and ordinary meaning; OR

“the pads providing a separation distance 

between the structure and the terminals.” 

Furthermore, “said pads” refer to “compliant 

pads,” which is proposed below. A

construction of “terminal” is also proposed

below.

“The compliant pads disposed between the 

terminals and the structures provide a standoff, 

which is an empty space having a controlled

height between adjacent pads, to accommodate

for the thermal coefficient of expansion

mismatch between the chip and the supporting

substrate thereby alleviating much of the stress

on the connections therebetween.”

This disputed term appears in Tessera’s ‘272 patent, Claims 1 and 21. Claim 1 reads:

1. An assembly comprising:

(a) A structure;

(b) A plurality of terminals; and

(c) A plurality of non-conductive, compliant pads disposed between said terminals and 

said structure, said terminals being aligned with at least some of said pads, said pads 

providing a standoff between said structure and said terminals.

Here, the claim terms and the specification do not provide a clear definition of the term. 

 

1 Claim terms related to the foreign patents are not construed in this order. Thus, the court does 

not construe the terms “flexible” or “terminals are/being movable with respect to said chip,” both 

of which would require the Court to construe one or more of the foreign patents. The court also 

does not construe the term “connecting at least some of said contacts with at least some of said 

bonding terminals by a plurality of flexible leads while supporting said bonding terminals against 

vertical movement towards said front surface of said element to facilitate said connection” because 

it requires construction of the term “flexible.” 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 7 of 21
8

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

For example, other than the abstract and the claims, “standoff” appears in only one sentence in the 

patent, which explains that “[i]t is important to understand that the function of the compliant pads 

is to provide a uniformly supported, planar standoff between the chip and the dielectric film, while 

allowing the compliant filler to be injected between the adjacent pads 100 to create a compliant 

encapsulation layer having a controlled thickness.” See Dkt. No. 215, at 3; ‘272 patent, at 7:19-

24. 

Tessera proposes adoption of the plain and ordinary meaning because the language 

describes “an arrangement in which pads are placed between the structure and the terminals to 

create separation between the structure and the terminals.” See Dkt. No. 215, at 3. For example, 

as illustrated in the figure below, a semiconductor chip (120) is separated from the terminals (140) 

by the height of the tallest compliant pads (110) placed between the chip and terminals. 

See 272 patent, at Figure 1. 

UTC argues that “standoff” should be clarified to mean “empty” because “if it was not 

empty, it would be impossible to ‘allow[] the compliant filler to be injected’ into the space.” See

Dkt No. 218, at 9. However, as seen in the figure, the “standoff” is not “empty” because in 

addition to the compliant pads (110), there are contacts (130), terminals (140), and leads (150). 

Again, the specification adds little to the definition of “standoff.” However, in support of 

its claim construction, Tessera point to several extrinsic sources - specifically, dictionary 

definitions - to support its argument that “standoff” refers to a “separation distance.” See Dkt. No. 

215, at 3-4. For example, Tessera cites to dictionary definitions that establish the meaning of 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 8 of 21
9

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

“standoff” as: (1) “to keep or cause to keep at a distance;” (2) “to hold at a distance;” or (3) “used 

for holding something at a distance from a surface.” See id. 

As a legal matter, extrinsic evidence is often less useful to claim construction than intrinsic 

evidence. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. However, in light of the lack of intrinsic evidence in the 

record to guide the construction of this term, the court finds the extrinsic evidence provided by 

Tessera is a useful tool in understanding the meaning of “standoff.” From the extrinsic evidence, 

the court finds that “standoff” refers to a “separation distance.” 

Accordingly, the Court construes “said pads providing a standoff between said structure 

and said terminals” as “the compliant pads providing a separation distance between the structure 

and the terminals.” The terms “compliant pads” and “terminals” will be construed below.

B. “compliant pad”

Tessera UTC

Plain and ordinary meaning; OR

“pad yielding to an applied force”

“A compliant pad is a discrete, non-sheetlike 

body of vertically compressible material which 

is placed between a chip and a supporting 

structure or terminals in order to create an 

empty space, to accommodate for the thermal 

coefficient of expansion mismatch between the 

chip and a supporting substrate thereby 

alleviating much of the stress on the 

connections therebetween. A compliant pad is 

distinct from a ‘compliant layer.’”

This disputed term appears in Tessera’s ‘272, ‘328, ‘480, and ‘952 patents. See Dkt. No. 

215, at 21. For example, Claim 1 of the ‘328 patent recites “a substrate having a first and a second 

surface,” “one or more compliant pads . . . juxtaposed with said first substrate surface,” and “a 

chip unit . . . being attached to said one or more compliant pads.” Also, illustrated in the figure 

below is a plurality of dielectric compliant pads (110), typically made of a curable liquid elastomer 

material and where the height of the compliant pads is nominally uniform, as defined by the 

measurement from the base of the pads. See ‘328 patent, at 5:1-9. However, exact uniformity in 

height is not critical. See id. 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 9 of 21
10

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

See ‘328 patent, at Figure 1.

Tessera proposes the court adopt the plain and ordinary meaning to the term “compliant 

pad” or “pad yielding to an applied force” based on the dictionary definition of “compliant.” See

Dkt. No. 215, at 22-23. UTC, for its part, contends that “compliant pad” must have “a discrete, 

non-sheetlike body.” See Dkt. No. 218 at 14. This, however, is contrary to the intrinsic evidence. 

The ‘328 patent specification expressly teaches that “[t]he size or shape of the compliant pads is 

not critical and will be dictated by the desirable results achieved in particular chip package 

designs” (‘328 patent, at 12:45-48), and that compliant pads having “a ratio of width to height of 

each pad (110) is desirably about two to one (2:1) or greater in order to maintain good pad 

structural integrity.” See id. at 5:10-13. A person having skill in the art could include other 

bodies based on the preferred ratio to be sheet-like (e.g., a very flat structure having a width that is 

many multiples of its height). See Dkt. No. 229 at 40. 

Next, UTC proposes that compliant pads be “placed between a chip and a supporting 

structure or terminals in order to create an empty space to accommodate for the thermal coefficient 

of expansion mismatch between the chip and a supporting substrate thereby alleviating much of 

the stress on the connections therebetween.” See Dkt. No. 218, at 13. This proposed construction 

improperly injects structural limitations into the definition that are contrary to the plain claim 

language and the specification. Thus, UTC’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the 

definition of “compliant pad” and with the disclosure of the patent, and will lead to disputes about 

what it really means.

Moreover, another judge of this district, Judge Claudia Wilken, construed “compliant” to

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 10 of 21
11

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

mean “yielding to an applied force” in a patent case involving both Tessera and similar packages. 

Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Tessera Techs., Inc., No. C 02-5837 CW, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

31074, at *24, 2004 WL 5644704 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2004) (“The Court construes ‘compliant’ to 

mean ‘yielding to an applied force.’”). Similarly, Tessera’s construction here is also consistent 

with the use of the term in the specification as a “pad yielding to an applied force”:

Typically, the first surface of the chip is pressed against the pads to 

compress them, thus ensuring the chip is uniformly supported across 

its first surface and further ensuring the planarity of the first support 

structure, or flexible dielectric film, with respect to the first surface 

of the chip. 

See ‘272 patent, at 3:38-43. 

 Accordingly, the Court adopts Tessera’s proposed construction of “compliant pad” to 

mean “pad yielding to an applied force.”

C. “compliant pads defining/define channels/at least one channel therebetween”

Tessera UTC

Plain and ordinary meaning; OR

“pads yielding to an applied force that are 

arranged so that there are channels between 

them”

“pads yielding to an applied force that are 

arranged so that there is at least one channel 

between them”

“A channel is a conduit between the chip and 

the support structure defined by adjacent 

compliant pads through which liquid may be 

directed to provide for a compliant 

encapsulation layer having a controlled 

thickness, to accommodate for the thermal 

coefficient of expansion mismatch between the 

chip and the supporting substrate thereby 

alleviating much of the stress on the 

connections between the chip and the 

supporting substrate.”

These disputed terms appear in Tessera’s ‘328, ‘480, and ‘952 patents. See Dkt. No. 215, 

at 24. For example, Claim 34 of the ‘952 patent recites “attaching a plurality of compliant pads to 

the first surface of the support structure, the pads defining channels therebetween; . . . and 

disposing a liquid between the channels.” 

Tessera argues that the term is used for its plain and ordinary meaning. See Dkt. No. 215,

at 24- 25. Here, the plain language of the claim describes pads arranged such that there is space 

between adjacent pads into which liquids can be introduced. See id. An example of this is 

illustrated by the figure below, in which “pads 220 [are] disposed in a grid . . . so that the pads 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 11 of 21
12

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

define channels 203 therebetween” allowing “the compliant filler [to be] introduced into the 

channels 203 between the pads.” See ‘480 patent, at 7:45-50, 8:18-21.

See id., at Figure 5A.

UTC does not dispute the physical structure as defined by the “channels” limitation. See

Dkt. No. 218, at 14. However, UTC’s proposed construction adds limitations, i.e., “liquid may be 

directed” through the channel and “to accommodate for the thermal coefficient of expansion 

mismatch . . . between the chip and the supporting substrate.” See id. UTC’s construction is 

contrary to the intrinsic evidence. 

As a matter of law, where a claim term does not include a limitation, such as a “liquid may 

be directed” or “to accommodate for the thermal coefficient of expansion mismatch . . . between 

the chip and the supporting substrate,” it is improper to read such a limitation into the claims. Am. 

Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc., 637 F.3d 1324, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“It is well settled 

that the role of a district court in construing claims is not to redefine claim recitations or to read 

limitations into the claims . . . but rather to give meaning to the limitations actually contained in 

the claims . . . . ”). Accordingly, the court adopts the plain and ordinary meaning of the term.

D. “terminal”

Tessera UTC

“an end point for connection of the package to 

the outside”

“A conductive structure that provides electrical 

connection to the outside of the package.”

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 12 of 21
13

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

This disputed term appears in Tessera’s ‘272, ‘328, ‘480, and ‘952 patents. See Dkt. No. 

218, at 24. For example, Claim 1 of the ‘480 patent recites “electrically connecting the chip 

contacts to the terminals with leads . . . .” The arrangement is shown in the figure below, where 

the contacts (130) on the chip (120) are electrically connected to the terminals (140) through a 

flexible lead (150). 

See ‘480 patent, at Figure 1.

UTC’s proposed construction is objectionable because it “makes no mention of the 

terminal as an ‘end point’ for connecting the package to the outside” and does not consider the 

function of the terminals in the patented inventions or the structural relationship between the 

terminals and other elements of a particular claim’s assembly. See Dkt. No. 215 at 19. For 

example, UTC’s proposed construction would include other structures not intended to be 

terminals, such as the wires on the chip inside of a package, leads that connect the chip to the 

terminals, and any conductive structures attached to the outside of the packages. See id. But the

specification refers to these structures as distinct from terminals. For example:

[L]eads connect to traces on an inner substrate surface and connect 

to a respective terminal disposed on an outer substrate surface 

through a conductive via extending between the inner substrate 

surface and the outer substrate surface. However, the terminals 

could also reside on the inner substrate surface and an aperture could 

be created in the substrate to expose such terminals for attachment 

of heat activated joining units.

See ‘480 patent, at 13:62-14:3. The claims also treat these structures as distinct from terminals. 

As an example, Claim 6 of the ‘272 patent recites “[a]n assembly as claimed in claim 2 further 

comprising flexible leads extending between said terminals and said chip, said terminals being 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 13 of 21
14

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

connected to said chip through said flexible leads.” See Dkt. No. 215 at 20; see also Applied Med. 

Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that “the use 

of two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings”).

In addition, courts have construed “terminal” to mean “an end point for connection of the 

package to the outside” in the context of other Tessera patents involving similar packages. See, 

e.g., Tessera, Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 624, 629 (E.D. Tex. 2006); In re Certain 

Semiconductor Chips With Minimized Chip Package Size And Products Containing Same, 

Investigation No. 337-TA-432; Samsung, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31074, at *21; Tessera, Inc. v. 

Int’l Trade Comm’n, 646 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“terminals serve as an endpoint for 

electrically connecting the package to another device, such as a printed circuit board”).

Tessera’s proposed construction takes into account the intrinsic and the extrinsic evidence. 

In contrast, UTC’s proposed construction will invariably result in arguments as to whether various 

claimed structures are terminals as the term was used in the context of the asserted patents. 

Accordingly, the court adopts Tessera’s proposed construction of “terminal” to mean “an end 

point for connection of the package to the outside.” 

E. “chip carrier”

Tessera UTC

“a chip-supporting structure that includes a 

dielectric layer”

“A structure that, before being connected to a 

chip, has terminals and leads in electrical 

connection with the terminals.”

This disputed term appears in Claim 1 of Tessera’s ‘611 patent: “providing a flexible chip 

carrier having . . . terminals disposed on [it] and leads in electrical connection with said terminals. 

Placing said chip carrier a given distance above said chip to create a gap between said chip carrier 

and said chip, said bottom surface facing said chip . . . introducing a liquid into said gap, such that 

said liquid is disposed between said chip carrier and said chip.” The ‘611 patent generally relates 

to a mounting structure for a semiconductor chip which includes placing a chip carrier above the 

chip to create a gap between the chip carrier and chip, and introducing a liquid into the gap, such 

that the liquid is disposed between the chip carrier and the chip. See ‘611 patent, at 1:46-50. 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 14 of 21
15

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

UTC’s proposed construction requires that a chip carrier include terminals and leads in 

electrical connection with the terminals because Claim 1 and the specification expressly include 

this requirement. See Dkt. No. 218, at 18-19. This is incorrect, however, because Claim 1 recites 

terminals and leads in electrical connection with the terminals in addition to the chip carrier. See

‘611 patent, Claim 1. UTC’s proposed construction “improperly repeats other language within the 

claim and ascribes meaning to the term that is already implicit (indeed, explicit) in the remainder 

of the claim” by adding “has terminals and leads in electrical connection with the terminals.” 

Network Appliance Inc. v. Sun Microsystems Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

76713, at *82, 2008 WL 4193049 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2008). With UTC’s proposed construction, 

the claim would read “providing a flexible structure that, before being connected to a chip, has 

terminals and leads in electrical connection with the terminals having . . . terminals . . . and leads 

in electrical connection with said terminals.” Dkt. No. 228, at 12. Such a construction “would 

create a strange and awkward redundancy in the claim language.” Network Appliance, 2008 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 76713, at *82. 

Next, UTC proposes that the structure cannot be a chip carrier unless certain electrical 

connections have been made before the chip carrier is connected to a chip. See Dkt. No. 218, at 

19. However, Claim 1 does not recite an ordering limitation and “unless the steps of a method 

actually recite an order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Altris , Inc. v. 

Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Finally, a person of ordinary skill in the 

art would know that the terminals must be separated from conductive layers by a dielectric layer. 

See Dkt. No. 215, at 20. For example, the specification explains that the chip carrier must contain 

a layer of dielectric material: “the chip carrier (26) includes a support structure or dielectric layer 

(28), leads (29), and terminals (30). The dielectric layer or support structure (28) is a thin sheetlike 

flexible dielectric material, such as polyimide.” See ‘611 patent, at 4:24-30. If the chip carrier 

lacked a layer of dielectric material, the package would short circuit if the terminals were all 

placed in contact with an electrically conductive chip carrier. See Dkt. No. 215, at 20. Therefore, 

a person skilled in the art would understand a “chip carrier” in this context to include a layer of 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 15 of 21
16

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

dielectric material.

Accordingly, the court adopts Tessera’s proposed construction of “chip carrier” to mean “a 

chip-supporting structure that includes a dielectric layer.”

F. “placing said chip carrier a given distance above said chip to create a gap 

between said chip carrier and said chip”

Tessera UTC

“creating a gap between the chip carrier and the 

chip by placing the chip carrier a given distance 

above the chip and substantially maintaining the 

gap until the terminals have been electrically

connected to the chip contacts”

“Positioning the chip carrier a determined 

distance above the chip so that all or most of the 

space between the chip carrier and the chip is 

empty. The empty space is capable of being 

filled with a liquid that is resilient when cured 

in order to allow for movement to relieve stress 

and increase reliability of the chip assembly.”

This disputed term also appears in Claim 1 of Tessera’s ‘611 patent. See Dkt. No. 215, at 

12. The method includes a step of providing a flexible chip carrier, and “placing said chip carrier 

a given distance above said chip to create a gap between said chip carrier and said chip.” 

A key dispute as to this clause is whether the “gap” created by placing the chip carrier a 

given distance above the chip is empty. See Dkt. No. 218, at 20. UTC argues that the “‘gap’ is an 

empty space that occupies the entire area between the chip carrier and the chip, which is 

subsequently filled with the referenced ‘liquid.’” See id. Tessera argues that “gap” as it appears 

in the claims is a spatial term “meaning that a separation distance is created between the chip and 

chip carrier.” See Dkt. No. 228, at 7. In addition, Tessera argues that “empty” does not appear in 

the claims and “nothing in the patent suggests that the area between the chip carrier and the chip 

must be free of all matter.” See id. The court notes that in a preferred embodiment, the gap (34) 

can include contacts (14) and leads (29) and, as such, is not “empty.” See ‘611 patent, at Figure 3. 

Furthermore, a construction that excludes a preferred embodiment described in the specification 

“is rarely, if ever correct and would require a highly persuasive evidentiary support.” Vitronics, 

90 F.3d at 1583. 

Next, UTC proposes that “the empty space is capable of being filled with a liquid that is 

resilient when cured in order to allow for movement to relieve stress and increase reliability of the 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 16 of 21
17

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

chip assembly.” See Dkt. No. 218, at 20. However, this proposal is contrary to Claim 1. See ‘611 

patent, at Claim 1; see also Dkt No. 215, at 13. In fact, it appears UTC is attempting to import 

elements from Claims 2, 3, and 4 into Claim 1. For example, Claim 4, which is dependent on

Claims 1 through 3, explicitly recites “curing said liquid,” indicating that Claims 1 through 3 do 

not contain such a limitation. See id. at 14. Thus, adding curing requirements to Claim 1 would 

violate the doctrine of claim differentiation. Seachange Intern., Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 

1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“[D]ifferent words or phrases used in separate claims are presumed 

to indicate that the claims have different meanings and scope.”).

As to Tessera’s proposed construction of “substantially maintaining the gap until the 

terminals have been electrically connected to the chip contacts,” it does not offer any support for 

adding this requirement. In fact, this addition might improperly inject structural limitations into 

the definition that are contrary to the plain claim language. Accordingly, the court modifies and 

adopts Tessera’s proposed construction of “placing said chip carrier a given distance above said 

chip to create a gap between said chip carrier and said chip” to mean “creating a gap between the 

chip carrier and the chip by placing the chip carrier a given distance above the chip.”

G. “liquid”

Tessera UTC

Plain and ordinary meaning; OR

“a substance that can flow, has no fixed shape, 

and is not a solid or a gas.”

“A material characterized by a readiness to flow 

that is resilient when cured to allow movement 

to relieve stress so to increase reliability of the 

chip assembly.”

This disputed term is used in Tessera’s ‘611 and ‘952 patents. For example: “placing [a] 

chip carrier a given distance above [a] chip to create a gap between said chip carrier and said chip . 

. . and introducing a liquid into said gap, such that said liquid is disposed between said chip carrier 

and said chip.” See ‘611 patent, at Claim 1. 

Tessera argues that the term “liquid” is used in its ordinary sense in the patents and as such 

should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. See Dkt. No. 215, at 6. Tessera points to the ‘611 

and ‘952 patents themselves, where the term “liquid” is referenced with the physical properties 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 17 of 21
18

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

that one would associate with a liquid, such as how the liquid can cover surfaces by “wetting” or 

can be forced into an area by “injection.” See ‘611 patent, at 2:10-16; see also ‘952 patent, at 

3:43-47, 3:65-6; 6:53; 6:66; 7:1-3; 7:1-7. Alternatively, Tessera proposes “liquid” to mean “a 

substance that can flow, has no fixed shape, and is not a solid or gas,” and argues that it is 

consistent with the patents’ claims and specification. See Dkt. No. 215, at 6. 

UTC argues Tessera’s proposed construction is too broad and points out that “liquid” in 

this context could not encompass water or “Kool-Aid, milk, and orange juice” because injecting 

such “liquids” would short circuit and destroy the package. See Dkt. No. 218, at 21-22. That is, 

“liquid” has a specialized meaning in the context of these patents and must be construed 

accordingly. See id. As such, UTC’s proposed construction for “liquid” is that “after curing or 

hardening, it provides resilience, in order to allow movement to relieve stress to increase reliability 

of the chip package.” See id. 

Tessera, however, correctly argues that UTC’s proposal improperly adds limitations from 

examples (“liquid as ‘liquid elastomer,’ ‘liquid curable elastomer,’ and ‘liquid compliant filler’”) 

in the specification. See Kara Tech. Inc. v. Stamps.com Inc., 582 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (“The patentee is entitled to the full scope of his claims, and we will not limit him to his 

preferred embodiment or import a limitation from the specification into the claims.”). Moreover, 

UTC adds “resilient layer,” “hardening,” and “curing” limitations from Claim 2 through 4 into 

Claim 1. This improperly injects limitations because claim differentiation creates a presumption 

that independent claims are broader than dependent claims. Praxair, Inc. v. ATMI, Inc., 543 F.3d 

1306, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Finally, “to act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must clearly set forth a definition of the 

disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary meaning and must clearly express an intent to 

redefine the term.” See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 

2014); see also Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989 (Fed. Cir. 

1999) (“General descriptive terms will ordinarily be given their full meaning; modifiers will not 

be added to broad terms standing alone.”). Here, the term “liquid” was never redefined in the 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 18 of 21
19

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

claims or the specification. Accordingly, the court adopts Tessera’s proposed construction for 

“liquid” to mean “a substance that can flow, has no fixed shape, and is not a solid or a gas.”

H. “an encapsulant surrounding said one or more compliant pads so that said 

encapsulant and said one or more compliant pads form a composite layer 

between said chip unit and said substrate”

Tessera UTC

Plain and ordinary meaning; OR

“an encapsulant surrounding one or more pads 

yielding to an applied force so that the 

encapsulant and one or more pads yielding to an 

applied force form a layer made of distinct parts 

between the chip unit and the substrate” (‘328

patent, Claim 1)

“disposing an encapsulant around at least one 

pad yielding to an applied force and between 

the chip unit and the substrate so that the 

encapsulant and at least one pad yielding to an 

applied force form a layer made up of distinct 

parts between the chip unit and the substrate.” 

(‘480 patent, Claim 1)

“The encapsulant surrounds the circumference 

of one or more compliant pads in the plane of 

the layers, so that the cured encapsulant and 

pads cooperatively form a composite layer, a 

composite being a structural material in which 

two or more distinct components, one of which 

contains the other(s), are combined in order to 

produce desired structural or functional 

properties not present in any individual 

component. The composite layer allows the 

terminals to move during thermal cycling of the 

chip while controlling flexing of the leads to 

provide mechanical strength.”

This term appears in Claim 1 of the ‘480 and ‘328 patents. See Dkt. No. 215, at 8. These 

claims generally describe assemblies that include a substrate, a chip, one or more compliant pads, 

leads, and an “encapsulant” surrounding the one or more compliant pads so as to “form a 

composite layer” between the chip and the substrate. A central dispute between the parties is how 

to define the required “composite layer.” See Dkt. No. 218, at 16. 

UTC argues that a “composite” layer is choosing components having differing 

characteristics that work cooperatively to produce desired properties not present in any individual 

component. See Dkt. No. 218 at 16. UTC cites to the specification which states that “the pads 

and the [encapsulant] filler form a composite layer including two materials of different 

characteristics, disposed between the chip unit and the substrate,” and that “it has been found that 

if the package assembly is viewed as a total system, differing characteristics for the encapsulant 

filler and the compliant pad can facilitate total chip package reliability.” See ’480 patent, at 10:51-

67; ‘328 patent, at 10:51-67; see also Dkt. No. 218 at 17. Therefore, UTC argues that “composite 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 19 of 21
20

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

layer” is not merely having two distinct materials next to each other; but rather, the two materials 

are to work cooperatively. See Dkt. No. 218 at 17. However, the claims do not recite limitations 

to particular material characteristics. For example, Claim 1 of the ‘480 patent specifies only 

particular thermal limitations; “wherein the encapsulant has a second CTE that is lower than the 

first CTE.” The claim term requires the encapsulant to have a CTE that is lower than the CTE of 

the compliant pad but the claim is not limited to a particular material characteristic, although the 

dependent claims do recite the specific thermal limitations (“The method of claim 1, wherein the 

first CTE is between 50 to 400 ppm/C., and further wherein the second CTE is between 15 to 300 

ppm/C.”). See ‘480 patent, at Claim 18; see also ‘480 patent, at Claim 15. Similarly, UTC 

improperly adds limitations regarding thermal cycling of the chip which is described in the 

summary of the invention but not recited in Claim 1. See Dkt. No. 218, at 17-18. As such, UTC’s 

proposed construction is inconsistent with the doctrine of claim differentiation. Virnetx, 767 F.3d

at 1316 (“[T]he doctrine of claim differentiation disfavors reading a limitation from a dependent 

claim into an independent claim”).

Next, UTC again improperly adds limitations from embodiments and dependent claims to 

its proposal. See Kara Tech, 582 F.3d at 1348; see also Praxair, 543 F.3d at 1326. For example, 

UTC adds a requirement that the encapsulant be “cured” which is not recited in Claim 1 but 

recited in the dependent Claim 2, which adds the limitation that “the disposing step includes 

disposing a curable material and curing the curable material to form the encapsulant.” See Dkt. 

No. 215, at 9. In addition, UTC adds other limitations, such as “circumference,” “terminals,”

“modulus,” “moving” and “flexing,” which are improper because they are neither a part of the 

claims being interpreted nor shown in the preferred embodiments. See Dkt. No. 215, at 9; see 

also‘480 patent, at 12:12-20 (“By looking at the total package system of FIG. 8, it is desirable to 

allow the terminals to move . . . .”); see also ‘328 patent, at 12:12-20. This is not permitted. See

DSW, Inc. v. Shoe Pavilion, Inc., 537 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (The Federal Circuit “has 

consistently adhered to the proposition that courts cannot alter what the patentee has chosen to 

claim as his invention . . . and that interpreting what is meant by a word in a claim is not to be 

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 20 of 21
21

Case No.: 5:10-cv-04435-EJD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

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

confused with adding an extraneous limitation . . . , which is improper.”).

Tessera’s proposed construction describes “composite” to mean “made of distinct parts,” 

which is consistent with the claim language and the dictionary definition. See Dkt. No. 215, at 8-

9. 

Accordingly, the court adopts Tessera’s proposed construction for Claim 1 of the ‘328 

patent to mean “an encapsulant surrounding one or more pads yielding to an applied force so that 

the encapsulant and one or more pads yielding to an applied force form a layer made of distinct 

parts between the chip unit and the substrate,” and for Claim 1 of the ‘480 patent to mean 

“disposing an encapsulant around at least one pad yielding to an applied force and between the 

chip unit and the substrate so that the encapsulant and at least one pad yielding to an applied force 

form a layer made up of distinct parts between the chip unit and the substrate.”

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons explained, the court construes the disputed terms and phrases in the foregoing 

manner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2015

______________________________________

EDWARD J. DAVILA

United States District Judge

Case 5:10-cv-04435-EJD Document 384 Filed 11/30/15 Page 21 of 21