Avalanche Technology Inc v. Everspin Tech Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Avalanche Technology, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Everspin Technologies, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.; Tensegrity Law Group LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00091, D. Del., 01/28/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted in the District of Delaware on the basis that Defendant is a Delaware corporation and therefore resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s Spin-Transfer Torque Magnetoresistive Random Access Memory (STT-MRAM) products infringe four U.S. patents related to the architecture and material composition of STT-MRAM memory elements.
• Technical Context: The dispute centers on STT-MRAM, a non-volatile memory technology that uses electron spin to store data, offering potential advantages in speed, endurance, and power consumption over conventional memory like Flash and SRAM.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint notes that a parallel infringement proceeding before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) was filed contemporaneously with the district court action, a common strategy used to seek an exclusion order in addition to monetary damages.

Case Timeline

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,318,179 - "Spin-transfer torque magnetic random access memory with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy multilayers," issued April 19, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes challenges in prior art MRAM, including high write currents, complex architectures, and poor scalability ’179 Patent, col. 1:42-46 A core technical problem in STT-MRAM is reducing the electrical current required to switch the memory state while maintaining high thermal stability for reliable data retention Compl. ¶29 Using a single magnetic layer for data storage presents a difficult trade-off: if too thin, the layer is unstable; if too thick, it loses the desired perpendicular magnetic properties Compl. ¶29
• The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) where the data storage layer (the "free layer") and the reference layer (the "pinned layer") are not single magnetic layers, but composite structures made of one or more repeating "bilayer units" ’179 Patent, Abstract Each bilayer unit consists of an insulator layer and a magnetic layer Compl. ¶31 This multilayer approach is designed to enhance perpendicular magnetic anisotropy through its multiple interfaces, which allows for a lower switching current density while preserving the thermal stability necessary for data retention ’179 Patent, col. 3:45-54
• Technical Importance: This multilayer stack approach with interfacial anisotropy represented a technical solution to the recognized challenges of balancing switching current, thermal stability, and scalability in STT-MRAM design Compl. ¶32

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one independent claim Compl. ¶55 Independent Claim 1 includes the following essential elements:
  • A composite free layer including one or more repeats of a bilayer unit, which comprises an insulator layer and a magnetic layer.
  • A magnetic pinned layer with a first fixed magnetization direction.
  • A tunnel barrier layer between the composite free layer and the magnetic pinned layer.
  • A magnetic fixed layer coupled to the pinned layer through an anti-ferromagnetic coupling layer, where the fixed layer has a magnetization direction opposite to the pinned layer.

U.S. Patent No. 9,419,210 - "Spin-transfer torque magnetic random access memory with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy multilayers," issued August 16, 2016

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’179 Patent, the ’210 Patent addresses the same fundamental problems of high write currents and the trade-off between switching current and thermal stability in prior STT-MRAM devices Compl. ¶¶34-35 ’210 Patent, col. 1:44-60
• The Patented Solution: The ’210 Patent discloses a similar solution based on a composite free layer constructed from repeating bilayer units ’210 Patent, Abstract The complaint highlights that this patent further describes including a "boron absorption layer" within the bilayer structure, which allegedly captures diffusing boron atoms to make the multilayer structure more thermally stable and enhance its perpendicular anisotropy Compl. ¶37 ’210 Patent, col. 4:20-30
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a refined multilayer structure intended to further improve thermal stability and reduce switching current density in STT-MRAM products Compl. ¶38

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts at least one independent claim Compl. ¶70 Independent Claim 1 includes elements similar to the ’179 Patent, with additional specificity:
  • A composite free layer including one or more stacks of a bilayer unit (insulator and magnetic layer).
  • The magnetic layer of the bilayer unit further comprises first and second magnetic sublayers separated by a first boron absorption layer.
  • A magnetic pinned layer, which can also comprise one or more bilayer units including a second boron absorption layer.
  • A tunnel barrier layer.
  • A magnetic fixed layer coupled to the pinned layer via an anti-ferromagnetic coupling layer.

U.S. Patent No. 11,678,586 - "Memory system having thermally stable perpendicular magneto tunnel junction (MTJ) and a method of manufacturing same," issued June 13, 2023

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses limitations in prior art STT-MRAM with perpendicular MTJs (pMTJs), specifically that conventional materials could introduce high magnetic damping (leading to high switching current) and require high-temperature manufacturing processes that could degrade performance ’586 Patent, col. 2:16-28 The claimed solution is a novel pMTJ architecture with a free layer comprising two ferromagnetic sub-layers separated by a thin perpendicular enhancement layer (PEL) to reduce damping and enhance anisotropy without high-temperature processing Compl. ¶¶40-41
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least one independent claim Compl. ¶85 Claim 1 is asserted.
• Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant’s STT-MRAM products, including the PERSYST and STT-DDR device families Compl. ¶¶15, 79

U.S. Patent No. 10,490,737 - "Magnetic memory element including magnesium perpendicular enhancement layer," issued November 26, 2019

• Technology Synopsis: This patent addresses the challenge that as STT-MRAM memory cells are scaled down in size to increase density, their thermal stability degrades, compromising data retention ’737 Patent, col. 2:64-3:5 The invention discloses an MTJ structure with a magnetic free layer and a magnetic reference layer, where the reference layer itself includes two sub-layers separated by a non-magnetic perpendicular enhancement layer, designed to provide thermal stability in a smaller, inexpensively manufactured device Compl. ¶¶43-44
• Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts at least one independent claim Compl. ¶100 Claim 1 is asserted.
• Accused Features: The accused features are Defendant’s STT-MRAM products, including the PERSYST and STT-DDR device families Compl. ¶¶15, 94

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused instrumentalities are Defendant Everspin’s STT-MRAM products, including at least the "PERSYST xSPI Octal Interface MRAM devices, PERSYST xSPI Quad Interface MRAM devices, and STT-DDR devices" Compl. ¶15

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint alleges these products are non-volatile memory devices that use spin-transfer torque technology Compl. ¶13 Citing Defendant’s website, the complaint describes the accused functionality as using a perpendicular magnetic tunnel junction (pMTJ) where a "polarizing current passing through the MTJ will determine the magnetic state of the free layer" relative to a fixed layer Compl. ¶14 This change in magnetic state (parallel vs. anti-parallel) creates a low or high resistance state, corresponding to a stored data bit Compl. ¶14 The complaint provides a diagram from Defendant's website illustrating this free layer/fixed layer structure. Compl. ¶14, p. 4
• The complaint alleges these products are positioned to compete directly with Plaintiff’s STT-MRAM product portfolio and are marketed for use in applications such as industrial IoT and embedded systems Compl. ¶¶12, 18 The complaint repeatedly references a screenshot of Defendant's "World-Wide Sales Offices" to allege that Defendant offers to sell these products in the United States. Compl. ¶50, p. 17

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint references claim chart exhibits that were not provided with the filed document. The infringement theory is therefore summarized from the complaint’s narrative allegations.

For both the ’179 and ’210 Patents, the complaint alleges that the Everspin Accused Products infringe because they are STT-MRAM devices that practice the claimed technology Compl. ¶¶15, 49 The core of the infringement theory appears to be that the accused products are "specifically manufactured, designed, and intended to include a magnetic tunnel junction with perpendicular magnetic anisotropy that is used to infringe" the patents Compl. ¶¶54, 69 The description of the accused products' operation—using a current to flip the magnetic state of a "free layer" relative to a "fixed layer" in a perpendicular MTJ—aligns at a high level with the technology described in the patents Compl. ¶14

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: A central issue may be whether the term "composite free layer including one or more repeats of a bilayer unit" ’179 Patent, Claim 1 can be construed to read on the specific multi-layer stack structure used in the accused products. The dispute will likely focus on whether Defendant's products contain this specific repeating architectural motif, as opposed to a different type of multi-layer structure.
• Technical Questions: A key factual question will be what the detailed layer-by-layer composition of the accused products is. The complaint does not provide this level of detail. Discovery will be required to determine if the accused products contain specific structures recited in the claims, such as the "bilayer unit" comprising an "insulator layer and a magnetic layer" ’179 Patent, Claim 1 or a "boron absorption layer" ’210 Patent, Claim 1

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "composite free layer including one or more repeats of a bilayer unit that comprises an insulator layer and a magnetic layer" (from ’179 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the core structure of the invention. The infringement analysis will likely turn on whether the accused products' free layer, which the complaint alleges is a multi-layer structure, meets this precise definition of a repeating "bilayer unit." Practitioners may focus on whether "repeats" implies identical copies of the unit and whether any multi-layer structure can be characterized this way.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "one or more repeats" could be argued to encompass structures with only one instance of the unit followed by other layers, or where the "repeats" are not perfectly identical. The specification’s general discussion of leveraging multiple interfaces to enhance anisotropy could support a broader functional interpretation Compl. ¶31
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent’s detailed description and figures showing specific embodiments of the repeating bilayer unit could be cited to argue that the term is limited to those specific examples ’179 Patent, col. 3:45-54; Fig. 2 The choice of "bilayer unit" as a specific term of art may also suggest a more limited scope than a generic "multi-layer structure."

The Term: "boron absorption layer" (from ’210 Patent, Claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term recites a specific, functional component within the claimed structure. Its presence, composition, and function in the accused device will be a critical, fact-intensive point of dispute. Whether a layer in the accused product performs the function of capturing "boron atoms diffusing from the CoFeB layers" will be central Compl. ¶37
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification describes the layer functionally as one that "can capture boron atoms" and helps make the structure "more thermally stable" ’210 Patent, col. 4:20-29 This functional language could support construing the term to cover any layer that achieves this result, regardless of its specific material composition.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent may disclose specific materials for this layer (e.g., Ta, Ti, Ru) in its preferred embodiments. A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed materials, particularly if the specification criticizes other alternatives or suggests these materials are critical to achieving the stated function.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. The inducement allegations are based on Defendant’s marketing materials, datasheets, user guides, and provision of evaluation boards, which allegedly instruct and encourage customers and end-users to operate the accused products in an infringing manner Compl. ¶¶ 18-19, 23, 52 The contributory infringement allegations assert that the accused products are a material part of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are especially designed to practice the claimed STT-MRAM technology (Compl. ¶¶ 54, 69).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willfulness based on Defendant’s awareness of the asserted patents "at least as of filing of this Complaint and the Parallel ITC Complaint" Compl. ¶¶ 53, 58 This frames the willfulness claim as arising from alleged post-suit continuation of infringing activities.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of structural correspondence: Does the physical, layer-by-layer architecture of the accused Everspin MRAM products map onto the specific multi-layer structures recited in the asserted claims? The case will likely require detailed claim construction and expert testimony to determine if Defendant’s devices contain the claimed "repeating bilayer units," "perpendicular enhancement layers," or "boron absorption layers."
• A key evidentiary question will be one of material composition: Beyond the physical structure, what are the precise materials used in each layer of the accused products? The outcome may depend on whether these materials fall within the scope of claim terms that recite specific elements (e.g., "cobalt, iron, and boron") or functional characteristics.
• The dispute over willfulness will raise the question of post-notice conduct: Can Plaintiff demonstrate that Defendant’s continued commercial activity after being served with the complaint and a parallel ITC complaint constitutes the type of egregious conduct required to justify an award of enhanced damages under the Halo standard?