Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06495/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-06495-10/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIDGELUX, INC.,

Plaintiff, No. C 06-6495 PJH

v. ORDER CONSTRUING CLAIMS

CREE, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

_______________________________/

Plaintiff BridgeLux, Inc. (“BridgeLux”) manufactures LED (light-emitting diode) chips. 

Defendant Cree, Inc. (“Cree”) manufactures and sells various semiconductor products,

including LED chips. Defendant Cree Lighting Company was formerly a subsidiary of Cree

but was merged into its parent company in 2003 and no longer exists as a separate entity. 

Defendant Trustees of Boston University (“BU”) is the governing body of Boston University,

a non-profit educational institution.

Cree owns U.S. Patent No. 6,657,236 (“the ‘236 patent”). BU owns, and Cree

exclusively licenses, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,686,738 (“the ‘738 patent”) and 7,235,819 (“the

‘819 patent”). The three patents relate to LED devices and materials. In the present

action, BridgeLux seeks a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity as to the

‘236 and ‘738 patents; and Cree and BU have asserted a counterclaim for infringement of

the ‘819 patent. Cree, BU, and BridgeLux are also presently involved in litigation involving

other patents, in the Eastern District of Texas.

The parties now seek a judicial construction of ten terms.

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 1 of 23
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

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard 

Patent infringement analysis involves a two-step process. First, the court must

determine as a matter of law the correct scope and meaning of disputed claim terms. 

Second, the properly construed claims are compared to the accused device to see whether

the device contains all the limitations (literally or by equivalents) in the claims at issue. 

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 384 (1996). 

“[T]he 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) (citation and

quotation omitted); see also Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,

1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (claim construction “begins and ends” with the actual words of the

claims). The terms used in the claims bear a “heavy presumption” that they mean what

they say and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons

skilled in the relevant art. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.

Cir. 2002) (citation omitted). 

A patentee is presumed to have intended the ordinary meaning of a claim term in the

absence of an express intent to the contrary. See York Prods., Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm

& Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572 ( Fed. Cir. 1996). The ordinary and customary meaning

of a claim term is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the

art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The person of

ordinary skill in the art is “deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the

particular claim . . . but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id.

The words in the claim may also be interpreted in light of the prosecution history, if in

evidence. Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North Am. Corp., 299 F. 3d 1313, 1324-25 (Fed. Cir.

2002) (citations omitted). 

“[I]ntrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of

disputed claim language.” Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F. 3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.

Cir. 1996). Only if an analysis of the intrinsic evidence fails to resolve any ambiguity in the

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 2 of 23
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

claim language may the court then rely on extrinsic evidence, such as expert declarations. 

Id. at 1583 (“In those cases where the public record unambiguously describes the scope of

the patented invention, reliance on any extrinsic evidence is improper.”). 

B. The Patents and the Asserted Claims

The patents-in-suit generally relate to LEDs, which are semiconductor-based

devices that convert electrical current to light. A common design for LEDs comprises an

LED “structure” that includes a “p-type” layer, an “n-type” layer, and an active layer

between the oppositely doped p-type layer and n-type layer. When current is applied

across the “doped” layers (the p-type layer and the n-type layer), holes from the p-type

layer and electrons from the n-type layer are injected into the active layer where they

recombine, releasing energy as photons (light particles). 

The ‘236 patent relates to new structures for enhancing the extraction of light from

LEDs. The new LEDs described in the patent have light extraction structures – preferably

either arrays of light extraction elements or disperser layers – which are disposed on an

exposed surface or within the LED. These light extraction structures provide surfaces for

reflecting, refracting, or scattering light into directions that are more favorable for the light to

escape out of the LED, thereby increasing the LED’s overall efficiency. 

The ‘738 patent relates to a method of preparing highly insulating gallium nitride

(GaN) monocrystalline films in a molecular beam epitaxial growth chamber, and also

relates to a method of preparing monocrystalline n-type or p-type GaN films. The film is

epitaxially grown in a two-step process comprising a lower-temperature nucleation step,

and a high-temperature growth step. The low-temperature step is used to grow a GaN

buffer layer, and the high-temperature step is used to grow a “first growth layer” of high

quality GaN or another group III nitride material on the surface of the buffer layer. 

The ‘819 patent relates to light-emitting III-V nitride devices (a type of LED). This

patent teaches a semiconductor device that is built starting with a substrate consisting of

silicon, sapphire, gallium arsenide, magnesium oxide, zinc oxide, or silicon carbide; and

also includes a non-single-crystalline GaN buffer layer on the substrate. The buffer layer

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 3 of 23
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

4

comprises GaN, and a single-crystalline group III nitride growth layer (such as GaN) on the

buffer layer. The buffer layer coats the substrate and facilitates the growth of a high-quality

film on the surface of the buffer layer. Each layer of the structure is grown on the surface

of the layer immediately below it. A “first growth layer” is grown on the surface of the buffer

layer, a “second growth layer” is grown on the surface of the “first growth layer,” and so on. 

C. The Disputed Terms and the Claims Construction

1. active layer

This term is disputed with regard to claims 1 and 23 of the ‘236 patent. As

presented to the court, the dispute involved whether the term “active layer” refers to the

entire physical light-generating layer of semiconducting material in an LED (Cree/BU’s

position), or whether it refers to a “functional layer” that is limited to those portions of the

light-emitting layer where injected electrons and holes combine (BridgeLux’s position). 

At the claims construction hearing, the parties agreed to a construction of this term. 

Accordingly, the court finds that “active layer” means “a layer of material in a light-emitting

diode (LED) in which electrons and holes recombine to generate photons when current is

applied.”

2. adjacent

This term is disputed with regard to claims 1, 2, 3, and 23 of the ‘236 patent. Both

sides agree that “adjacent” structures (such as layers) are structures that are “next to” each

other. The primary dispute is whether or not “adjacent” structures must be in direct contact

with each other – that is, whether “adjacent” means “near” (Cree/BU’s position), or whether

it means “in direct physical contact with” (BridgeLux’s position). 

“Adjacent” is a common English word, and neither BridgeLux nor Cree/BU asserts

that it is a technical term within the field of LED design. The common dictionary meanings

of “adjacent” include “close to or nearby;” “next to or adjoining;” “lying near, close, or

contiguous;” and “neighboring.” See Webster’s II New College Dictionary (2001); Random

House Unabridged Dictionary (1999).

While it is true that a dictionary definition is generally given less probative weight

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 4 of 23
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

than is intrinsic evidence, “a judge who encounters a claim term while reading a patent

might consult a general purpose or specialized dictionary to begin understanding the

meaning of the term, before reviewing the remainder of the patent to determine how the

patentee has used the term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324. 

Phillips recognized, in addition, that “reference to such sources is not

prohibited so long as the ultimate construction given to the claims in question

is grounded in the intrinsic evidence and not based upon definitions

considered in the abstract.” Id. at 1318 (noting that “dictionaries, and

especially technical dictionaries, endeavor to collect the accepted meanings

of terms used in various fields of science and technology” and thus “have

been properly recognized as among the many tools that can assist the court

in determining the meaning of particular terminology to those of skill in the art

of the invention”).

Mangosoft, Inc. v. Oracle Corp. 525 F.3d 1327, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The intrinsic evidence supports a meaning of both “in contact with” and “near or next

to.” First, “adjacent” structures are sometimes “touching” or “contiguous.” For example, in

claim 1, the patent claims a “first spreader layer” which is “adjacent” to an “LED structure,”

and a “second spreader layer” that is “adjacent to said LED structure.” The LED structure

is itself made up of other layers (a p-type doped layer, an n-type doped layer, and an active

layer). See ‘236 patent, claim 1. 

The specification describes the LED structure as “sandwiched between a first

spreader layer and a second spreader layer.” Id., col. 3:59-61. In turn, Figure 1 illustrates

this positional requirement showing “first spreading layer 16" and “second spreading layer

20" contiguous with the LED structure, which consists of “active layer 13 sandwiched

between two oppositely doped layers 14, 15.” Id., col. 5:31-34; & Figs. 1, 2. Claims 2 and

23 recite “a substrate adjacent to said first spreader layer.” Id., claims 2, 23. Several

figures in the specification depict a substrate that is in contact with the first spreader layer. 

Id., Figs. 1, 2, 8, 9, 14, 15. 

Nevertheless, while “adjacent” may be used in some instances to be “in contact

with,” the intrinsic evidence also supports a meaning of “near or next to.” For example, as

noted above, claims 2 and 23 both describe a “substrate adjacent to said first spreader

layer.” Id., claims 2 and 23. Claims 17 and 19, which depend from claim 2, and claims 30

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 5 of 23
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

and 32, which depend from claim 23, all allow for “light extraction structures [that] are

disposed on the interface between said [adjacent] substrate and said first spreader layer.” 

Id., claims 17, 19, 30, 32. 

Those “light extraction structures” include disperser layers that can be a “layer of

microspheres” or a “roughened layer of material” made of different material than either the

spreader layer or the substrate. See id., claims 8-12, 16, 25, 26, 35; col. 4:37-44; col. 8:44-

10:14. The specification also confirms that the disperser layer can be placed between the

substrate and the first spreader layer. Id., col. 4:38-41 (“Alternatively, the new LED can

have disperser layers disposed within the LED itself. The disperser layers can be formed in

or on the substrate prior to the epitaxial growth of the LED, or within the LED epitaxial

structure itself.”). 

In other words, while the substrate is “adjacent to said first spreader layer” in claims

2 and 23, claims dependent on claims 2 and 23 allow for a disperser layer to separate the

substrate from its “adjacent” first spreader layer. Thus, limiting “adjacent” layers to those in

direct contact would be inconsistent with the use of “adjacent” in the claims. This is true

despite the fact that claims 17 and 30 recite “light extraction structures [that are] . . .

substantially within said first spreader layer,” and that claims 19 and 31 recite “light

extraction structures [that are] . . . substantially within said substrate.” Id., claims 17, 19,

30, 31. 

Even if the disperser layer is “substantially within” either the substrate or spreader

layer, the disperser layer is still described as being a layer “between” the adjacent substrate

and the spreader layer. This is confirmed by the specification, which states that “[t]he

disperser layer can be formed . . . on the substrate prior to epitaxial growth of the LED, or

within the LED epitaxial structure itself. The disperser layer is made from a material with an

index of refraction that is different from the substrate and/or epitaxial material so that light

scattering can occur.” Id., col. 4:37-43. 

A claim term must be construed “consistently with its appearance in other places in

the same claim or in other claims of the same patent.” Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 247

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 6 of 23
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

F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Because the claims and specification of the ‘236 patent

use “adjacent” to describe objects that are “next to” each other and also to describe objects

that are “near” each other, the court finds that “adjacent” means “near or next to.”

3. dopant material

This term is disputed with regard to claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 11, 15, and 18-20 of the ‘738

patent; and in claims 1, 2, 5, and 8 of the ‘819 patent. 

The parties agree that a “dopant material” is a material that is “intentionally

introduced into a semiconductor material to alter its electrical properties.” The dispute as

originally presented to the court involved whether the definition “intentionally introduced into

a semiconductor material to alter its electrical properties” is sufficient (Cree/BU’s position);

or whether the construction should include the additional limitation that introducing a

“dopant material” will also “dope [the semiconductor material] either as an acceptor or a

donor” – in other words, whether the definition must also explain how the semiconductor

material’s electrical properties are altered (BridgeLux’s position). 

At the hearing, the parties agreed that the essence of the dispute is whether the

introduction of the dopant material will dope the semiconductor material with an acceptor or

a donor (Cree/BU’s position), or will dope the semiconductor material as an acceptor or a

donor (BridgeLux’s position). 

Both the ‘738 patent and the ‘819 patent use the terms “acceptor” and “donor” to

describe types of “dopant materials,” not to describe the semiconductor materials to which

“dopant materials” are added. See ‘738 patent, claim 7 (“The semiconductor device of

claim 1 wherein the first dopant material is a donor”); id., claim 8 (“A semiconductor device

comprising . . . a first growth layer . . . comprising gallium nitride and an acceptor dopant

material” and “a second growth layer grown on the first growth layer, the second growth

layer comprising gallium nitride and a donor dopant material”); id., claim 15 (“A

semiconductor device having an activated p-type layer comprising . . . an activated p-type

growth layer comprising gallium nitride and an acceptor dopant material formed without the

use of a post-growth activation step”).

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 7 of 23
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

8

See also ‘819 patent, claim 4 (“A semiconductor device comprising . . . a first growth

layer . . . comprising a single-crystalline group III nitride and an acceptor dopant material;

and a second growth layer . . . comprising a single-crystalline group III nitride and a donor

dopant material.”); id., col. 2:5-16 (“The semiconductor device includes a substrate . . . , a

non-single crystalline buffer layer on the substrate, . . . and a single-crystalline group III

nitride growth layer . . . [which] may be a first growth layer including a first dopant material,

which may be either a donor or acceptor dopant”).

Thus, while semiconductor materials may be doped “with” an acceptor or donor

“dopant material,” they are not doped “as” an acceptor or a donor. The fact that “dopant”

and “acceptor” are terms reserved for types of dopant impurities is confirmed by the

extrinsic evidence. One generally accepted technical dictionary defines “dopant” as 

[a]n impurity which is introduced into an semiconductor material. Such an

impurity may be an acceptor impurity, which makes for a p-type

semiconductor, or it may be a donor impurity, which makes for an n-type

semiconductor. Acceptor impurities include gallium and aluminum, while

donor impurities include phosphorus and arsenic. In either case, a dopant

increases the conductivity of the semiconductor.

 Wiley Electrical and Electronics Engineering Dictionary (John Wiley & Sons, 2004)

(“Wiley”) at 208. Similarly, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers defines

“acceptor dopant” as “[a]n impurity that may induce hole conduction,” and “donor dopant”

as “[a]n impurity that may induce electron conduction.” IEEE 100, The Authoritative

Dictionary of IEEE Standards Terms (7th ed. 2000). There is no indication in the intrinsic

evidence that the inventor intended a meaning for “dopant” that is different from the

commonly accepted definition in the field of electrical engineering. 

The court finds that “dopant material” means “a material intentionally introduced

into a semiconductor material to alter its electrical properties, to dope it with either an

acceptor or a donor.” 

4. having

This term is disputed with regard to claim 1 of the ‘236 patent. Cree/BU proposes

that “having” means “including and not limited to,” while BridgeLux proposes that it means

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 8 of 23
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

“consisting only of.” The dispute centers on whether the word “having” in claim 1 is an

“open transition phrase,” which allows for additional elements beyond those recited after

the transition phrase (Cree/BU’s position); or whether it is a “closed transition phrase,” one

that does not allow for additional elements (BridgeLux’s position). 

Unlike the transitional phrase “comprising,” the use of which creates a presumption

that the body of the claim is open – that the recited elements are only a part of the device,

and that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements – the transition “having”

can make a claim open, but does not create a presumption that the body of the claim is

open. Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336,

1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, the court is required to examine the claim in the light of the

specification to determine whether open or closed claim language is intended by the use of

the term “having.” Id.; see also Lampi Corp. v. American Power Prods., Inc., 228 F.3d

1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03.

The intrinsic evidence establishes that the claimed LED structure “having” an

“epitaxially grown p-type layer; an epitaxially grown n-type layer; and an epitaxially grown

active layer between said p-type and n-type layers” means that the claimed LED structure

includes at least the three recited epitaxial layers but can also include additional layers

within or between those layers. 

For example, the specification states that “the disperser layers can be placed in

other layers including the LED structure’s layers and the substrate, and the invention

should not be limited to the placements shown.” ‘236 patent, col. 10:11-14. Further, “[t]he

disperser layer can also be formed within the other layers of the LEDs, including the layers

of the LED structures and the substrates” and “can also be formed by other methods and

with other materials.” Id., col. 9:44-47.

This interpretation is consistent with the claims of the ‘236 patent, which allow for

additional layers to be placed within the LED, which would include the LED structure. See

id., claim 11 (“[t]he LED of claim 8, wherein said disperser layer comprises a roughened

layer of material within said LED”); id., claim 15 (“[t]he LED of claim 1, wherein said light

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 9 of 23
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

10

extraction structures are disposed internal to said LED”). 

The specification also uses “open” language to describe the components of the LED

structure. See id., col. 3:57-59 (“The new LED generally comprises an LED structure

having a p-type layer, an n-type layer, and an active layer between the p-type and the ntype layers.”) This indicates that although the preferred LED structure generally comprises

p-type, n-type, and active layers, additional structures are allowed. 

The court finds that “having” means “including but not limited to.”

5. layer

The term “layer” is used in most claims of all three patents, and appears, in total,

several hundred times. This term is disputed with regard to claims 1, 2, 4, 8, 11, 12, 20, 23,

25, and 26 of the ‘236 patent; claims 1-3, 6, 9, 11, 13-15, and 18-20 of the ‘738 patent; and

claims 1-3 and 5-8 of the ‘819 patent. 

The dispute between the parties is whether the ordinary English meaning applies –

“layer of material” or “defined thickness that is part of a material” (Cree/BU’s position), or

whether “layer” should be construed as BridgeLux argues, as “a film made of a specific

composition of chemical elements and a specific doping concentration. The boundaries of

the layer are defined by a change in either the material composition or the doping

concentration (or both) during the epitaxial growth of the LED.” 

Wiley defines “layer” as “[a] defined thickness which is part of a material, or which

surrounds it,” citing as an example, “a layer in a semiconductor.” Wiley at 413. This basic

definition is consistent with the hundreds of individual uses of “layer” in the patents-in-suit. 

In addition, none of the patents require, as BridgeLux asserts, that every “layer” 

(1) be “a film,” (2) be made of “a specific composition of chemical elements,” (3) have a

“specific doping concentration,” (4) have boundaries “defined by a change in either the

material composition or the doping concentration (or both),” and (5) that this “change” be

made “during epitaxial growth of the LED.” While it is true that a “layer” might have one or

more of those properties, the court finds no evidence to support a finding that in every

instance where “layer” is used in the patents-in-suit, it must have all of those properties. 

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 10 of 23
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

11

Indeed, the patents describe dozens of “layers” that lack one or more of BridgeLux’s

required “layer” limitations. For example, a “disperser layer” in the ‘236 patent is not

necessarily a “film,” does not necessarily have a “doping concentration,” and is not

necessarily made through “epitaxial growth.” See ‘236 patent, col. 8:44-49. Similarly, the

“buffer layer” in the ‘738 patent is a different layer than the “growth layer,” yet they may

have the same material composition and doping concentration, differing only in crystalline

structure. See ‘738 patent, col. 2:9-47. 

The court finds that “layer” means “a defined thickness that is part of a material.” 

6. non-single crystalline buffer layer

This term is disputed with regard to claims 1, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18-20 of the ‘738

patent; and claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 of the ‘819 patent. The parties agree that a “non-single

crystalline layer” is “a layer that is not monocrystalline,” and that a monocrystal is a single

crystal of material. Cree/BU proposes that “non-single crystalline buffer layer” means “a

layer of material that is not monocrystalline, located between the substrate and the first

growth layer.” BridgeLux proposes that it means “an amorphous layer or a crystallized

amorphous layer with defects or a mixture thereof that isolates the substrate from the first

growth layer to facilitate two dimensional growth.” 

There are three disputes between the parties that relate to this term. The first

dispute is whether “non-single crystalline” as used in the ‘738 and ‘819 patents simply

refers to a material that is not a monocrystal (Cree/BU’s position), or whether out of all the

materials that are not a monocrystal, this term is limited to only the amorphous materials,

crystallized amorphous materials with defects, or a mixture of the two (BridgeLux’s

position). 

Both the ‘738 and the ‘819 patents describe some forms of material that are not

monocrystalline. See, e.g, ‘738 patent, col. 1:49 (“polycrystalline”); id., col. 2:41 (“film . . . is

amorphous at the low temperatures of the nucleation step”); id., claims 11, 12

(“recrystallized, partially amorphous”); ‘819 patent, col. 9:55-57 (“the temperature is one

factor in determining whether the nucleation layer will be amorphous or defective

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 11 of 23
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

12

crystalline”); id., col. 4:61-64 (“At . . . higher temperatures . . . amorphous buffer layers

crystallize and crystallinity of the defective crystalline buffer layers improves.”). However,

neither the claims nor the specification clearly defines “non-single crystalline.” 

Nevertheless, the court finds that Cree/BU’s proposed construction is consistent with

the inventor’s use of “non-crystalline” in the prosecution of the ‘819 patent, which was filed

based on an application in 2003, and was issued in 2007. The ‘819 patent is related to the

‘738 patent, which was filed based on an application in 1995, and was issued in 1997; and

is also related to other patents that were issued in the interim. In 2006, during the

prosecution of the ‘819 patent, the applicant responded to some of the examiner’s concerns

regarding what this family of patents had in common. 

With regard to the use of the term “non-single crystalline,” the applicant stated, 

“Non-single crystalline is merely a term or word used by a person of ordinary skill within the

art to characterize a buffer layer or film that is polycrystalline, amorphous, or both as

described in all the patents and application in the lineage of the present case.” See ‘819

patent, April 20, 2006, Supplemental Amendment, at 10. The applicant also stated, 

[T]o those skilled in the art, a non-single-crystalline buffer layer is

polycrystalline, amorphous, or a mixture of polycrystalline and amorphous . . .

A GaN layer in general will of necessity be characterized by one or more of

the terms crystalline, amorphous, or polycrystalline. As the buffer layer of the

present application is clearly not single crystalline according to the

disclosures, it must be non-single-crystalline, whether it is amorphous,

polycrystalline, or a mixture thereof. 

Id. at 6-7. 

BridgeLux argues, however, that the applicant disclaimed buffer layers other than

those that are amorphous or partially amorphous when deposited, when he stated in the

same Supplemental Amendment that the various application disclosures that were

combined into the ‘819 application “all have in common: (1) growth of a GaN buffer layer to

form an amorphous layer or crystallized amorphous layer with defects or a mixture thereof;

followed by (2) growth of an epitaxial growth layer that is monocrystalline and is grown over

the buffer layer.” Id. at 7-8.

Given that the applicant earlier in the same submission provided a clear definition of

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 12 of 23
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

13

“non-single crystalline,” the court finds that the subsequent statement cited by BridgeLux

does not constitute a clear and unambiguous disclaimer of claim scope. See SanDisk

Corp. v. Memorex Prods., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1286-87 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when patentee

makes clear and unmistakable prosecution arguments limiting meaning of a claim term in

order to overcome a rejection, court should limit relevant claim term to exclude disclaimed

matter). The court adopts the definition provided by the applicant. “Non-single crystalline”

refers to polycrystalline, amorphous, or a mixture of polycrystalline and amorphous – in

short, any form that is not monocrystalline. 

The second dispute is whether the “buffer layer” – which the parties agree must be

located between the substrate and the first growth layer – must also “isolate the substrate

from the first growth layer,” as BridgeLux proposes. The word “isolate” appears nowhere in

the specifications or claims of the ‘738 or ‘819 patents. The specifications describe

embodiments of the claimed invention not by using the term “isolate,” but by stating that a

“majority” (but not all) of the first growth layer “does not see” or “contact” the “underlying

substrate.” See ‘738 patent, col. 4:46-48 (“the majority of the [growth layer] grows on top of

the GaN buffer and does not see the underlying substrate”); ‘819 patent, col. 5:14-16 (“the

majority of the [growth layer] grows on top of the GaN buffer and does not contact the

underlying substrate”). The court finds that the intrinsic evidence does not support a finding

that the buffer layer must completely “isolate” the substrate from the first growth layer. 

 The third dispute is whether the construction must contain the additional limitation

that the buffer layer must “facilitate two-dimensional growth.” There is no evidence in the

intrinsic record that the buffer layer is limited to facilitating only two-dimensional growth. 

Indeed, the patents do not discuss the facilitation of two-dimensional growth. 

The specification of the ‘738 patent states that “[t]he growth layer of GaN

‘recognizes’ the GaN buffer layer and on which it can grow without defects.” ‘738 patent,

col. 4:48-50. BridgeLux cites this statement to support its assertion that “two-dimensional

growth” is implicated in the specification of the ‘738 patent, claiming that the growth layer

described in the specification must “grow without defects.” However, saying that the growth

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 13 of 23
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

14

layer “can” grow on the buffer layer without defects is not the same as saying that it “must”

grow without defects. 

The court finds that “non-single crystalline buffer layer” means “a layer of

material that is not monocrystalline, located between the first substrate and the first growth

layer.” 

7. on

The meaning of “on” is disputed (1) in claims 20 and 23 of the ‘236 patent; claims 1,

2, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 18-20 of the ‘738 patent; and claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 of the ‘819 patent;

and separately disputed as used (2) in the phrase “growth layer grown on the buffer layer”

in claims 1, 9, 11, 19 of the ‘738 patent, and claim 5 of the ‘819 patent; and (3) in the

phrase “growth layer on the buffer layer” in claims 1, 7, and 8 of the ‘819 patent. 

Cree/BU proposes that “on” means “positioned indirectly or directly above.” 

BridgeLux proposes, with regard to (1), that “on” means “positioned in direct contact with;”

with regard to (2) and (3), that both “growth layer grown on the buffer layer” and “growth

layer on the buffer layer” mean “a layer grown immediately after and positioned directly on

the buffer layer.” Thus, the basic dispute with regard to this term is whether a structure that

is “on” another structure must be in direct contact with the second structure (BridgeLux’s

position), or whether it is simply “indirectly or directly above” (Cree/BU’s position). 

The word “on” is a common English term, and the parties point to no evidence

showing that it is a technical term within the LED design field. Cree/BU cites a dictionary

definition of “on” as meaning “so as to be or remain supported by or suspended from” –

with the example of “put your package on the table.” Cree/BU contends that its

construction makes sense within this definition, as there is no dispute that a package would

be “on” the table, even if the table were covered with a tablecloth. Thus, Cree/BU asserts,

its definition incorporates “directly” (no tablecloth) and “indirectly” (with a tablecloth

between), whereas BridgeLux’s proposed construction would apply only if there were no

tablecloth between the package and the table.

Where a term's ordinary meaning is readily apparent, the court may simply refer to

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 14 of 23
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

15

the dictionary to nail down the "widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words."

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Nevertheless, where the parties actually dispute the proper

construction of a claim term, the court must still construe the term necessary to resolve the

parties’ dispute, rather than let an issue of claim interpretation be decided by the jury. O2

Micro Int'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Here, the intrinsic record shows that “on” is used to mean either direct or indirect

placement, while “directly on” is used to indicate direct placement only. For example, “on”

is used in the ‘236 patent specification to describe structures “on” each other that are not

necessarily in direct contact. See ‘236 patent, col. 4:1-6 (“the LED structure and current

spreading layers are grown on a substrate”); id., col. 5:48-50 (“[t]he LED structure,

spreading layers and contacts are formed on a substrate 24 with the first spreading layer

adjacent to the substrate”). 

The LED structure (p-type layer, n-type layer, and active layer) is sandwiched

between the first and second spreader layers. Id., col. 3:57-61. As the invention is

described in the specification, it is not possible for the LED structure and both spreader

layers to all be “on” the substrate, if by “on” we mean “directly on.” Moreover, when the

inventor intended to specify direct contact, he used the term “directly on.” Id., col. 5:51-54

(“an n-contact 28 can be deposited directly on the substrate”).

The ‘738 patent describes growing a GaN film “on” a substrate and also indicates

that a buffer layer is between the GaN film and the substrate. ‘738 patent, col. 4:46-48

(“This is because the majority of the film grows on the top of the GaN buffer and does not

see the underlying substrate”). In the ‘738 patent prosecution history, the phrase “grown

directly on” is used in the prosecution history to specify a semiconductor structure where

two layers are in direct contact. Response to Office Action, July 3, 1996, at 11 (“the first

GaN layer of Carter, which is grown directly on the substrate, is a single crystalline layer”). 

Similarly, the ‘819 patent specification also uses “directly on” to describe “direct

contact.” See ‘819 patent, col. 11:53-56 (“N-electrode 110 is then deposited directly on ntype layer 104 and p-electrode 108 is deposited directly on p-type layer 106"); id. col.

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 15 of 23
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

16

11:62-12:2 (“[A]n n-type GaN layer may be grown directly on the GaN substrate . . . P-type

layer 106 could also be grown directly on the GaN substrate”). The term “grown on” is

used in the ‘819 prosecution history to refer to being grown indirectly or directly on. 

Response to Office Action, June 29, 2004, at 6 (“Amano teaches growth of GaN on a

sapphire substrate with or without an AIN buffer”). 

Moreover, during the prosecution of the ‘819 patent, the examiner used the term “on”

to describe indirect contact and “directly on” to describe direct contact in the same

paragraph. Office Action, March 29, 2004, at 4 (“Manabe shows GaN on sapphire . . .

Manabe comprises a “buffer” of non-single crystalline GaN material directly on the sapphire

overlying lateral growth layers of crystalline GaN material”).

The court finds that “on” means “positioned indirectly or directly above.” 

8. p-type

This term is disputed with regard to claims 15 and 20 of the ‘738 patent. Claim 15 of

the ‘738 patent recites “[a] semiconductor device having an activated p-type layer

comprising . . . an activated p-type growth layer . . . . Claim 20 of the ‘738 patent recites

“[a] semiconductor device having an activated p-type layer comprising . . . an activated 

p-type growth layer . . . .” 

The dispute here is whether the proposed construction should incorporate the

definition given to “p-type” in the specification of the ‘738 patent (Cree/BU’s position), or

whether the court should adopt the more general construction of “p-type” that the parties

previously agreed to for the ‘236 patent (BridgeLux’s position). Cree/BU proposes that 

“p-type” means “having dopants, impurities, or defects resulting in a hole density that

exceeds the conduction electron density such that resistivity is less than 108

 Ohm-cm [or Ωcm] at room temperature.” BridgeLux proposes that “p-type” means “a layer in which the

majority of carriers are holes.”

The ‘738 patent discusses four types of semiconductors – intrinsic, near-intrinsic, 

n-type, and p-type. See, e.g., ‘738 patent, col. 2:3-6 (“The present invention presents a

method to prepare near-intrinsic monocrystalline GaN films and to selectively dope these

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 16 of 23
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

17

films – or p-type”); id., col. 3:27-30 (“Growth processes at lower temperatures should

reduce the numbers of nitrogen vacancies in the lattice, prevent the unintentional n-type

doping of the GaN lattice and result in intrinsic GaN.”). 

An intrinsic semiconductor has no dopants and a relatively high resistivity, in

contrast to an extrinsic semiconductor, which has dopants added. Wiley, at 390. “For

intrinsic GaN, . . . the resistivity is 3.6x1012 Ω-cm.” ‘738 patent, col. 1:23-25. That is,

because it has excess holes compared to an intrinsic semiconductor, a “near-intrinsic”

semiconductor has a lower resistivity than an intrinsic semiconductor.

The parties have already agreed that a “near-intrinsic” semiconductor in the ‘738

patent is one “having a resistivity of greater than 108

 Ohm-cm [Ω-cm] at room temperature.”

As noted above, the ‘738 patent distinguishes near-intrinsic from n-type and p-type

semiconductors. The ‘738 patent “presents a method to prepare near-intrinsic

monocrystalline GaN films and to selectively dope those films – or p-type.” ‘738 patent, col.

2:3-6. “P-type and n-type semiconductors can be selectively prepared simply by choice of

surface or grid bias and impurity source.” Id., col. 3-3-5. 

The ‘738 patent uses “near intrinsic” to describe materials having some excess holes

or some excess electrons, but not enough for the material to be useful for conducting

current in a semiconductor device. See ‘738 patent, col. 1:66-2:1 (“Current methods of

preparing GaN does not permit control of nitrogen vacancies within the lattice. Thus it has

not been possible to prepare intrinsic GaN.”). 

The p-type and n-type materials differ from near-intrinsic materials because they

have a higher concentration of dopants, impurities, or defects, and are therefore more

conductive to electricity than near-intrinsic materials. Thus, as noted above, the patent

distinguishes “p-type” semiconductors having significantly more holes than electrons (and

therefore having resistivities lower than 108 Ω-cm at room temperature) from “near intrinsic”

semiconductors, which may have more holes than electrons, but not enough to make the

semiconductor sufficiently conductive. 

The applicant also relied on the distinction between a near-intrinsic layer and – and

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 17 of 23
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

18

p-type layers to overcome the prior art. Response to Office Action, July 3, 1996, at 10

(“The Office Action fails to assert that either Amano or Boulou disclose a device having a

near intrinsic gallium nitride layer with resistivity of greater than 108 Ω-cm at room

temperature. Applicant asserts that neither reference discloses or suggests this feature.”). 

BridgeLux’s proposed construction is inconsistent with the use of “p-type” in the ‘738

patent because it eliminates the distinction between a “near-intrinsic” layer and a “p-type”

layer. ‘738 patent, col. 2:3-6 (“The present invention presents a method to prepare nearintrinsic monocrystalline GaN films and to selectively dope these films – or p-type.”). In the

‘738 patent, a “near-intrinsic” material does not become “p-type” until it has sufficient

dopants, impurities, or defects to lower the resistivity of the material to less than 108 Ω-cm

at room temperature. 

While the formerly-agreed-upon construction (in the Texas action) also applies in the

context of the ‘236 patent, the term “p-type” is used somewhat differently in the context of

the ‘738 patent, and the construction agreed for the ‘236 patent will not work here. The

‘236 patent divides certain LED layers into two groups – p-type layers in which a majority of

the charge carriers are holes, and n-type layers in which the majority of charge carriers are

electrons. ‘236 patent, col. 3:57-59 (“The new LED comprises an LED structure having a ptype layer, an n-type layer, and an active layer between the p-type and the n-type layers.”). 

The agreed construction for the ‘236 patent does not account for the “near-intrinsic”

materials described and claimed in the ‘738 patent. 

As described in the specification, the method taught by the ‘738 patent is to, first,

prepare near-intrinsic monocrystalline GaN films, and second, to dope those films so they

become either p-type or n-type. The distinction between “near intrinsic” and “p-type” (as

well as n-type) materials is fundamental to the invention of the ‘738 patent, as specified in

col. 2:3-6 (“The present invention presents a method to prepare near-intrinsic

monocrystalline GaN films and to selectively dope these films – or p-type.”). BridgeLux’s

proposed construction would eliminate that distinction, as a “near-intrinsic” material has an

imbalance of either holes or electrons, even though the imbalance would not be significant

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 18 of 23
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

19

or high enough to enable conductivity.

The court finds that “p-type” as used in the ‘738 patent means “having dopants,

impurities, or defects resulting in a hole density that exceeds the conduction electron

density such that resistivity is less than 108

 Ohm-cm [or Ω-cm] at room temperature.” 

9. spreader layer

This term is disputed with regard to claims 1, 2, 20, and 23 of the ‘236 patent. The

parties agree that a “spreader layer” is a layer that spreads current in an LED. Cree/BU

proposes that “spreader layer” means simply “a layer that spreads current.” BridgeLux

proposes that “spreader layer” means “a layer intended to, and having as its primary

purpose, the spreading of electrical current laterally in a direction parallel to the LED

layers,“ and adds the further limitations that a “spreader layer” is “designed to avoid current

crowding and provide nearly uniform current injection,” and is “separate from the p-type, ntype, and active layers in ‘the LED structure.’” 

The dispute between the parties is whether the construction of “spreader layer” must

also include the additional limitations found in BridgeLux’s proposed construction. These

limitations are (1) that the spreader layer is “intended to” and “has as its primary purpose

to” spread electrical current; (2) that the spreader layer is “designed to” avoid current

crowding and provide nearly uniform current injection; and (3) that the spreader layer is

“separate from” the p-type layer, the n-type layer, and the active layer in the LED structure.

The court is not persuaded that any of these limitations are necessary to the proper

construction of “spreader layer.” The LED structure taught in the ‘236 patent has a p-type

layer, an n-type layer, and an active layer between the p-type layer and the n-type layer;

and is “sandwiched between a first spreader layer and a second spreader layer.” ‘236

patent, col. 3:57-58-61. These “spreader layers” are “semiconducting or conducting

layers.” Id., col. 3:61-62. 

It is clear from the specification that it is the function of the spreader layers to spread

electrical current. Id., col. 61-64 (“spreader layers . . . distribute current across the plane of

the device so that current is efficiently injected into the active layer;” id. col. 5:37-44 (“a first

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 19 of 23
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

20

spreading layer . . . is made of a conductive material which spreads current from a first

contact pad . . . [and a] second spreading layer of conducting material is also included in

the LED structure’s top layer to spread current from a second contact”). 

BridgeLux argues that while it is accurate to say that the spreader layers disclosed

by the ‘236 patent are layers that “spread current,” it is also arguably accurate to say that

about almost every other layer of the ‘236 patent. Thus, BridgeLux asserts, Cree/BU’s

proposed construction is inconsistent with the embodiments of the ‘236 patent, because all

layers in the device that have some measure of conductivity would be “spreader layers.”

 The court finds, however, that BridgeLux has not established that one of skill in the

art would presume that any layer that “conducts” current also “spreads” that current as

described in the ‘236 patent. The inventor distinguished “conducting” electrical current from

“spreading” electrical current. While it is true that some, if not all, of the other layers in the

‘236 patent’s LED structure have some measure of conductivity to pass electrical current, it

is only the spreader layer that is identified as “spreading” or “distributing” current across the

plane of the LED device “so that current is efficiently injected into the active layer” in order

to “increas[e] the LED’s light extraction and overall efficiency.” Id., col. 3:53-64. 

In addition, the ‘236 patent indicates that electrically conductive structures in an LED

can have various purposes and functions and still act as spreader layers. For example,

claim 3 recites “[t]he LED of claim 1, wherein said substrate is electrically conductive and

serves as a spreader layer.” Id., claim 3. Similarly, in describing one embodiment, the

specification explains that “the LEO growth conditions are adjusted to create LEE voids 92

over the mask material 94. The voids 92 serve as linear (or curved) LEEs internal to the

first spreader layer 96.” Id., col. 8:17-21. In two other embodiments, the specification

notes that “Figs. 10 and 11 show new LEDs 130 and 140, where their respective disperser

layers 134, 144 are placed within their first spreader layer 132, 142.” Id., col. 9:28-30. 

Nor is there any reason to limit a “spreader layer” to being “separate from” the 

p-type, n-type, and active layers in the LED structure. The ‘236 patent explicitly allows for

other layers to be placed in the LED structure, as noted above in the discussion of the

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 20 of 23
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

21

disputed term “having.” Moreover, the addition of the phrase “separate from” introduces

ambiguity into the claim term because it implies that the spreader layer is never in direct

contact with the LED structure, when the intrinsic evidence makes clear that the spreader

layer can be both indirectly or directly “adjacent” or “on” the LED structure. See id., claim 1

(“first spreader layer adjacent to said LED structure”); id., claim 23 (“second spreader layer

on said top layer”).

The court finds that “spreader layer” means “a layer that spreads current.” 

10. substrate

 This term is disputed with regard to claims 2 and 23 of the ‘236 patent; claims 1, 6,

9, 11, 13, 15, and 18-20 of the ‘738 patent; and claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 of the ‘819 patent.

Cree/BU proposes that “substrate” means “the base material upon which the layers

of the light emitting diode are formed.” Although BridgeLux does not believe that it is

necessary to construe “substrate” in this action, BridgeLux offers as a proposed

construction, “the base material or other surface upon which something is deposited,

etched, attached or otherwise prepared or fabricated. A substrate also provides physical

support.” 

The dispute here is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand

“substrate” as used in the patents-in-suit to be base material upon which the layers of the

LED are formed (Cree/BU’s position), or to have a broad meaning encompassing types of

base materials from various fields outside of LED manufacturing (BridgeLux’s position).

The patents-in-suit describe “substrate” to mean a base material in a semiconductor

growth process for LEDs. See ‘236 patent, col. 3:24-27 (“GaN devices are grown on

sapphire substrates”); id., col. 4:1-4 (“In most embodiments, the LED structure and current

spreading layers are grown on a substrate that is adjacent to the first spreader layer”); id.,

col. 4:39-41 (“The disperser layer can be formed in or on the substrate prior to epitaxial

growth of the LED”); id., col. 5:48-50 (“The LED structure, spreading layers and contacts

are formed on a substrate”); ‘738 patent, col. 5:1-8 (“The growth process is carried out . . .

so that Ga, nitrogen, and acceptor are deposited on the electron-rich surface of the

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 21 of 23
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

22

substrate”); ‘819 patent, col. 4:2-4 (“On certain substrates, GaN films grow in the wurtzite

structure and on others in the zincblend structure”); id., col. 5:34-37 (“The growth process is

carried out . . . so that gallium, nitrogen and acceptors are deposited on the electron-rich

surface of the substrate”).

Moreover, the ‘236 patent distinguishes a “substrate” – upon which additional layers

of an LED are epitaxially grown or formed – from a “submount” – upon which layers of an

LED are “affixed” or “mounted.” See ‘236 patent, claims 2 and 22 (claiming an LED with a

“substrate” (claim 2) and further comprising a “submount” (claim 22)); id., col. 10:15-44 &

Figs. 14, 15 (describing LEDs grown on a substrate and then mounted on a submount

using flip-chip bonding techniques, distinguishing between the “submount” to which things

are attached, and the “substrate” on which things are grown). 

The court finds that “substrate” means “the base material upon which the layers of

the light emitting diode are formed.”

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, the court finds as follows:

1. “Active layer” means “a layer of material in a light-emitting diode (LED) in

which electrons and holes recombine to generate photons when current is applied.”

2. “Adjacent” means “near or next to.”

3. “Dopant material” means “a material intentionally introduced into a

semiconductor material to alter its electrical properties, to dope it with either an acceptor or

a donor.”

4. “Having” means “including but not limited to.”

5. “Layer” means “a defined thickness that is part of a material.”

6. “Non-single crystalline buffer layer” means “a layer of material that is not

monocrystalline, located between the first substrate and the first growth layer.”

7. “On” means “positioned indirectly or directly above.” 

8. “P-type” as used in the ‘738 patent means “having dopants, impurities, or

defects resulting in a hole density that exceeds the conduction electron density such that

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 22 of 23
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

23

resistivity is less than 108 Ohm-cm [or Ω-cm] at room temperature.”

9. “Spreader layer” means “a layer that spreads current.”

10. “Substrate” means “the base material upon which the layers of the light

emitting diode are formed.”

Per the standing order, the court will conduct a case management conference on

September 18, 2008, at 2:30 p.m.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2008 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:06-cv-06495-PJH Document 109 Filed 08/15/08 Page 23 of 23