Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063-49/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 05-4063 CW

ORDER DENYING

SILICONWARE’S AND

CHIPMOS’S MOTIONS

FOR A TEMPORARY

RESTRAINING ORDER

AND PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION

Defendants Siliconware Precision Industries Co., Ltd. and

Siliconware USA, Inc. (together, Siliconware) move for a temporary

restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting Plaintiff

Tessera, Inc. from pursuing outside of California certain claims

against Siliconware’s customers. Separately, Defendants ChipMOS

Technologies, Inc. and ChipMOS USA, Inc. (together, ChipMOS) move

for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction

similarly prohibiting Tessera from pursuing outside of California

certain claims against ChipMOS’s customers. Tessera opposes these

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Because Tessera was given the opportunity to oppose the

motions and Siliconware and ChipMOS were given the opportunity to

submit a reply, the Court rules on the motions for a preliminary

injunction as well as the motions for a temporary restraining

order.

2

motions. The matter was taken under submission on the papers. 

Having considered all of the papers submitted by the parties, the

Court denies the motions.1

BACKGROUND

Tessera develops and patents semiconductor packaging products. 

Siliconware and ChipMOS are assembly service providers (ASPs); they

provide integrated circuit packaging services that allegedly

utilize Tessera’s technology. In 1998 and 1999, Tessera entered

into license agreements with Siliconware and ChipMOS, giving each

of them the right to use certain technologies covered by Tessera’s

patents. The agreements contain an identically worded governing

law provision that reads in part:

Both parties shall use reasonable efforts to resolve by

mutual agreement any disputes, controversies, claims or

differences which may arise from, under, out of or in

connection with this Agreement. If such disputes,

controversies, claims or differences cannot be settled

between the parties, any litigation between the parties

relating to this Agreement shall take place in San Jose,

California. The parties hereby consent to personal

jurisdiction and venue in the state and federal courts of

California.

Trinh Dec. Ex. 2 at 13.

Plaintiff brought this lawsuit in 2005. The second amended

complaint charges Siliconware and ChipMOS with both breaching their

license agreements and infringing Tessera’s patents without a

license. In April, 2007, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the

International Trade Commission (ITC) against, among others,

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 3

Defendants AMD, Spansion and STMicroelectronics. The ITC complaint

did not name Siliconware, ChipMOS or any of the other ASP

Defendants as respondents. The parties signed a stipulation

agreeing to a stay of this action in its entirety pending a final

decision in the ITC proceedings.

After the ITC proceedings had been underway for several

months, Siliconware and ChipMOS joined the other ASP Defendants in

moving for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Tessera from

initiating an ITC action against them or in any other way seeking

relief against them outside of California. The ASP Defendants

based their motion on their license agreements with Tessera, all of

which contain a forum selection clause similar to the one in the

Siliconware and ChipMOS agreements. The Court granted the ASP

Defendants’ motion in part, but only to the extent that Tessera

planned to pursue products as to which the ASP Defendants intended

to invoke a license defense. Products that the parties agreed were

not licensed were not subject to the license agreements’ forum

selection clause, and thus Tessera was permitted to pursue relief

with respect to those products outside of California. See Docket

No. 570.

The preliminary injunction, which remains in effect, requires

Tessera to provide the ASP Defendants with a copy of any proposed

complaint against them prior to filing it in the ITC or any court

outside of California. The ASP Defendants have ten days after

service of the proposed complaint to announce their position on

whether the accused products are covered by their license

agreements with Tessera. If they do not assert that the proposed

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Siliconware and ChipMOS consider the details of their

relationships with, and in some cases the identities of, their

customers to be confidential.

3

The Texas complaint does not specify any representative

accused products.

4

accused products are licensed, Tessera may proceed with its action.

In December, 2007, Tessera filed a new complaint in the ITC

against eighteen respondents, charging them with infringing

Tessera’s patents. Tessera also filed a federal lawsuit in the

Eastern District of Texas against the same eighteen companies based

on the same alleged infringement. Although none of these parties

is a Defendant in this lawsuit, Siliconware claims that “at least

two” of them are its customers and ChipMOS claims that “at least

one” of them is its customer.2

The complaints in the ITC and the Eastern District of Texas

are not clear on the precise scope of the alleged infringement. 

However, the ITC complaint identifies a number of chips employing

Tessera’s laminate-based packaging technology as representative of

the accused products.3 Tessera points out that its limited license

agreements with Siliconware and ChipMOS give these companies the

right to use Tessera’s tape-based packaging technology only. See

Trinh Dec. Ex. 2 at 3. The parties appear to acknowledge that

tape-based packaging and laminate-based packaging are, in all

respects relevant to this motion, mutually exclusive of each other. 

Tessera has offered to stipulate that “it will not, outside of

California, assert infringement or seek any type of remedy” against

Siliconware, ChipMOS or their customers “based on tape-based

package substrate packages,” and that “laminate-based package

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4Siliconware and ChipMOS express concern that laminate-based

packages “remain the subject of Tessera’s breach of contract

claims” in the action in this district. However, because Tessera

has succeeded in defeating the present motion by representing that

it is not pursuing claims in the ITC or the Eastern District of

Texas based on licensed products, it will be estopped from later

pursuing in the action before this Court a claim for breach of the

license agreement based on the products accused in those

proceedings. See New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749 (2001)

(“Where a party assumes a certain position in a legal proceeding,

and succeeds in maintaining that position, he may not thereafter,

simply because his interests have changed, assume a contrary

position, especially if it be to the prejudice of the party who has

acquiesced in the position formerly taken by him.”) (quoting Davis

v. Wakelee, 156 U.S. 680, 689 (1895)).

5

substrate . . . products are not covered” by the parties’ license

agreements. Brown Dec. of 1/25/08 Ex. 5; Brown Dec. of 1/30/08 Ex.

3. Although Siliconware and ChipMOS rejected Tessera’s proposed

stipulation because they believed it would not prevent Tessera from

pursuing its breach of contract claims in this district,4 they each

offered to stipulate that “laminate-based package substrates . . .

are not ‘flexible film circuit starting material.’” Trinh Reply

Dec. Ex. 4; Brown Dec. of 1/30/08 Ex. 4. The license agreements

define the term, “Tape” as “any flexible film circuit starting

material that may be made under certain of the Tessera Patents.” 

Trinh Dec. Ex. 2 at 1.

Regardless of whether certain laminate-based products may

conceivably fall within the scope of the license agreements,

neither Siliconware nor ChipMOS claims that any of the accused

products in the new ITC investigation or the Texas action are

licensed. In addition, the ITC complaint states, “To the extent

that any Accused Product is found to be properly licensed (through

the Limited Tape Licenses or otherwise) under Tessera’s patents,

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

The Court notes that an accused product need not be “found to

be properly licensed” in order for an infringement claim based on

that product to fall within the scope of the license agreement’s

forum selection clause. There must merely be a claim that the

product is properly licensed.

6

Tessera does not intend to bring -- nor should Tessera be construed

to have brought -- any such Accused Product(s) within the scope of

the present Investigation.” Trinh Dec. Ex. 3 ¶ 9.5

LEGAL STANDARD

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish: (1) a

reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable

harm if an injunction is not granted; (3) a balance of hardships

tipping in its favor; and (4) a public interest favoring the

injunction. Sanofi-Synthelabo v. Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1374

(Fed. Cir. 2006). These factors can be established by

demonstrating either “(1) a combination of probable success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury or (2) that

serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips

sharply in its favor.” Mikohn Gaming Corp. v. Acres Gaming, Inc.,

165 F.3d 891, 895 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Dollar Rent A Car v.

Travelers Indem. Co., 774 F.2d 1371, 1374-75 (9th Cir. 1985)). 

“These are not two distinct tests, but the poles of a ‘continuum in

which the required showing of harm varies inversely with the

required showing of meritoriousness.’” Id. (quoting Rodeo

Collection, Ltd. v. W. Seventh, 812 F.2d 1215, 1217 (9th Cir.

1987).

DISCUSSION

Neither Siliconware nor ChipMOS has established a likelihood

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

of success on the merits or the possibility of irreparable injury

because they have not shown that Tessera is pursuing or intends to

pursue an action outside of California against their customers

based on products that are arguably licensed. No dispute has

arisen in the ITC proceedings or the Texas action over whether a

particular product falls within the scope of the license agreement. 

This type of dispute would be subject to the forum selection

clause. See Texas Instruments v. Tessera, Inc., 231 F.3d 1325,

1331 (Fed. Cir. 2000). To the contrary, there is currently no

indication that those proceedings involve tape-based products that

might fall within the scope of the license agreement, nor has

Siliconware or ChipMOS taken the position that any of the products

accused in those proceedings are licensed. If they were to take

such a position, Tessera concedes that the validity of the license

defense is an issue that must be litigated in California.

It is possible that, at some future time, Tessera may seek to

pursue in the ITC proceedings or the Texas action an infringement

claim based on a product that Siliconware, ChipMOS or their

customers intends to claim is licensed. In that event, the asserted

licensee would be able to obtain the relief now sought. However,

the mere possibility that customers of Siliconware or ChipMOS may

raise a license defense in connection with some future hypothetical

claim amounts to mere speculation that Siliconware or ChipMOS stands

to suffer irreparable harm if the present motions are not granted. 

Accordingly, there is no basis for the Court to issue a preliminary

injunction at this time.

Nor is there a need for the Court to establish a procedure

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

The Court expresses no opinion as to the merit of any motion

the defendants in the Texas action may make to transfer that case

to this Court.

8

similar to the one the Court adopted when it granted the ASP

Defendants’ earlier motion for a preliminary injunction. At the

time that motion was decided, the evidence suggested that Tessera

was preparing to initiate a new ITC investigation against the ASP

Defendants, and it was not clear whether that investigation would

involve products as to which the ASP Defendants intended to claim a

license defense. With respect to the present motion, Tessera has

already initiated proceedings against customers of Siliconware and

ChipMOS, and no party argues that the accused products fall within

the scope of the license agreements. Preventing Tessera from going

forward in those proceedings would serve no purpose.6

Moreover, even if a preliminary injunction were justified, the

pre-litigation notice procedure Siliconware and ChipMOS request

would be inappropriate for two reasons. First, because Tessera has

already initiated the ITC and Texas actions, pre-litigation notice

is no longer possible. Second, because Siliconware and ChipMOS

consider the identities of their customers to be confidential,

Tessera would have no way of knowing whether a proposed defendant in

a future action is a customer of theirs. Nor would it be

practicable to require Tessera to obtain confirmation from

Siliconware and ChipMOS as to this fact prior to initiating future

litigation.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motions for a

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 9

temporary restraining order and for a preliminary injunction filed

by Siliconware (Docket Nos. 638 and 687) and ChipMOS (Docket No.

653).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2/12/08

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 742 Filed 02/12/08 Page 9 of 9