DCT

2:26-cv-00147

ImberaTek LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00147, E.D. Tex., 02/23/2026
  • Venue Allegations: The complaint alleges that venue is proper in any U.S. judicial district because the Defendants are not residents of the United States. It further alleges that Defendants maintain minimum contacts with the Eastern District of Texas through the sale and marketing of infringing products within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Motorola-branded smartphones, and specifically the Power Management Integrated Circuits (PMICs) within them, infringe four U.S. patents related to semiconductor packaging and circuit board manufacturing techniques.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue concerns advanced methods for embedding and electrically connecting semiconductor components within circuit modules to enhance manufacturing efficiency, reliability, and performance in compact electronic devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Defendants have been aware of the Asserted Patents since at least January 27, 2021, when Plaintiff sent notice letters to entities within the Lenovo group. The complaint further alleges that Plaintiff provided detailed, representative claim charts for U.S. Patent Nos. 8,817,485 and 9,107,324 on July 21, 2024, and provided specific notice of infringement for U.S. Patent No. 8,487,194 on October 22, 2024. This alleged pre-suit history forms the basis for Plaintiff's willfulness claims.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-02-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,817,485 Priority Date
2005-08-04 U.S. Patent No. 8,487,194 Priority Date
2008-05-12 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,107,324 & 9,883,587 Priority Date
2013-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 8,487,194 Issued
2014-08-26 U.S. Patent No. 8,817,485 Issued
2015-08-11 U.S. Patent No. 9,107,324 Issued
2018-01-30 U.S. Patent No. 9,883,587 Issued
2020-01-01 Earliest Alleged Accused Product Launch (2020 Motorola Edge)
2021-01-27 Plaintiff Allegedly Sent First Notice Letters to Defendants
2024-07-21 Plaintiff Allegedly Sent Claim Charts for '485 and '324 Patents
2024-10-22 Plaintiff Allegedly Sent Specific Notice for '194 Patent
2026-02-23 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,107,324 - "Circuit Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section identifies a technical challenge in reliably connecting semiconductor components that have aluminum contact areas to circuit modules that use copper conductors, noting that the direct contact between these two metals is brittle and not optimal for applications involving mechanical stress (’324 Patent, col. 2:1-6).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes a circuit module structure that incorporates an "intermediate layer" between the component's aluminum contact area and the copper conductor (’324 Patent, abstract). This intermediate layer, containing a "third metal" different from both aluminum and copper (e.g., zinc or nickel), is designed to improve adhesion and mechanical durability (’324 Patent, col. 3:10-24; ’324 Patent, col. 17:62 - col. 18:2). A key structural feature is that the contact surface area between the intermediate layer and the component's contact terminal is claimed to be smaller than the total surface area of the contact terminal itself (’324 Patent, abstract).
  • Technical Importance: This layered connection structure enables the use of standard, bumpless semiconductor components with aluminum contacts in advanced, copper-based packaging, which may improve manufacturing reliability and reduce costs by avoiding separate "bumping" processes (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 17 (Compl. ¶75).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 17:
    • A circuit module comprising a multi-layer structure with a conductor layer (containing a second metal), first and second insulator layers, and an embedded component.
    • The component has contact terminals containing a first metal.
    • Contact elements connect the terminals to the conductors.
    • These contact elements include an "intermediate layer" containing a third metal.
    • A "contact surface area (ACONT 1) between the intermediate layer and the contact terminal being less than a surface area (APAD) of the contact terminal."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,487,194 - "Circuit Board Including An Embedded Component"

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background notes that while creating electrical contacts using conductive adhesive is one method for embedded components, the resulting connections may not have ideal electrical properties for critical applications (’194 Patent, col. 1:41-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention discloses a circuit board with an embedded component where the electrical connection to a single contact area on the component is made using a "plurality of individual contact elements" (’194 Patent, abstract). This approach of using multiple, smaller, discrete connections for a single, larger contact pad is intended to create a more robust and fault-tolerant connection, particularly in the presence of manufacturing misalignments (’194 Patent, col. 7:52 - col. 8:12). Figures 13 and 14 of the patent illustrate how some individual contact elements can maintain a reliable connection even if others are misaligned with the contact area.
  • Technical Importance: This redundant connection strategy improves manufacturing yield and the long-term reliability of embedded components in high-density electronic packages (Compl. ¶45).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 (Compl. ¶96).
  • Essential Elements of Independent Claim 1:
    • A circuit board comprising a conductor-pattern layer and a supporting insulating-material layer.
    • At least one component is embedded inside the insulating-material layer, having a plurality of contact areas.
    • A set of contact elements electrically connects the conductor-pattern layer to the contact areas.
    • The set of contact elements comprises "a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area."
  • The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims for this patent.

U.S. Patent No. 8,817,485 - "Single-Layer Component Package"

Technology Synopsis

The patent describes a simplified semiconductor package designed to create reliable, solderless connections (’485 Patent, col. 2:56-61). The solution involves a "single-layer component package" where a semiconductor chip is connected to a single conductive-pattern layer via "solid contact bumps" that are at least partially made of copper, forming a direct metallurgical bond (’485 Patent, abstract; ’485 Patent, claim 20).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 20 is asserted (Compl. ¶113).

Accused Features

The complaint alleges that the PMICs in the accused smartphones are single-layer packages that use solid, solderless contact bumps made of copper to connect the semiconductor chip to the conductive layer (Compl. ¶¶116-119).

U.S. Patent No. 9,883,587 - "Circuit Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same"

Technology Synopsis

As a continuation of the ’324 Patent, this invention further details a structure for connecting components with aluminum contacts to a conductor pattern. The solution is a circuit module with an embedded component having aluminum contact surfaces, where the "contact elements" include an "intermediate layer of at least one metal other than alumin[]um" directly on the contact surface, and at least one layer of copper on top of the intermediate layer (’587 Patent, claim 1; ’587 Patent, abstract).

Asserted Claims

At least independent claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶130).

Accused Features

The accused PMICs are alleged to contain components with aluminum contact terminals connected to a conductor pattern via contact elements that have an intermediate layer (e.g., titanium) and a copper layer (Compl. ¶¶134-136).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies numerous Motorola-branded smartphones, including models from the "Motorola Edge," "Motorola Razr," and "Moto G Stylus" product lines released between 2020 and 2025 (Compl. ¶52). The specifically accused components are the Power Management Integrated Circuits (PMICs) within these phones, identified by model numbers such as PM6150L, PM7250B, PM8350C, and PM8450 (Compl. ¶¶52-53).

Functionality and Market Context

PMICs are semiconductor components responsible for managing a device's power, including voltage regulation and battery charging. The complaint's infringement allegations focus on the physical construction and packaging of these PMICs, rather than their power management functions (Compl. ¶¶78-85; Compl. ¶¶99-103). The complaint alleges that the accused smartphones are commercially significant products sold throughout the United States (Compl. ¶¶54-62).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges infringement based on exemplary claim charts attached as exhibits, which were not publicly available with the initial filing (Compl. ¶77; Compl. ¶98; Compl. ¶115; Compl. ¶132). The infringement theory is summarized from the narrative allegations in the complaint.

'324 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 17) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a conductor layer comprising conductors...and at least two layers of metal between the first surface and the second surface The accused PMICs allegedly include a conductor layer with conductors having at least two layers of metal, identified as copper and titanium. ¶78 col. 10:4-7
a first insulator layer...covering the first surface of the conductors The PMICs allegedly contain a first insulator layer that covers the first surface of the conductors. ¶79 col. 9:43-47
at least one second insulator layer on the first surface of the first insulator layer The PMICs allegedly include at least one second insulator layer on the first surface of the first insulator layer. ¶80 col. 10:24-27
at least one component inside the at least one second insulator layer, the...component comprising contact terminals containing at least one layer of metal The PMICs allegedly contain at least one component inside the insulator layers, with contact terminals containing at least one layer of metal, identified as aluminum. ¶81 col. 9:56-61
contact elements...comprising an intermediate layer...a contact surface area (ACONT 1)...being less than a surface area (APAD) of the contact terminal The PMICs allegedly have contact elements with an intermediate layer of titanium, where the contact surface area between the intermediate layer and the terminal is less than the pad's surface area. ¶82 col. 3:18-24
at least one layer of metal in the contact terminals containing a first metal...at least one layer of metal in the conductors containing a second metal; and the intermediate layer containing a third metal The contact terminals allegedly contain a first metal (aluminum), the conductors contain a second metal (copper or titanium), and the intermediate layer contains a third metal (titanium). ¶¶83-85 col. 17:1-6

'194 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
a circuit board, comprising: a conductor-pattern layer The accused PMICs allegedly are or contain a circuit board with a conductor-pattern layer. ¶99 col. 2:51-52
an insulating-material layer supporting the conductor-pattern layer The PMICs allegedly include an insulating-material layer that supports the conductor-pattern layer. ¶100 col. 2:52-53
at least one component inside the insulating-material layer, the component having a plurality of contact areas The PMICs allegedly contain at least one component inside the insulating layer, which has multiple contact areas. ¶101 col. 2:54-56
a set of contact elements between the conductor-pattern layer and contact areas for electrically connecting... The PMICs allegedly have a set of contact elements for electrical connection. An Energy Dispersive X-Ray (“EDX”) copper layer image is alleged to show the copper conductor-pattern layer and copper contact elements. ¶102 col. 2:57-60
wherein the set of contact elements comprise a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area... The set of contact elements in the accused PMICs allegedly includes a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one of the component's single contact areas. ¶103 col. 2:61-64

Identified Points of Contention

  • Structural Verification: A primary technical question will be whether the physical structures of the accused PMICs match the claimed multi-layer configurations. For the ’324 Patent, this includes verifying the existence and composition of the "first," "second," and "third" metals as alleged, and for the '194 Patent, confirming the presence of multiple "individual" contact elements for a single pad.
  • Area Comparison: For the ’324 Patent, a key point of contention may be the limitation requiring the contact surface area (ACONT 1) to be less than the pad's surface area (APAD). The case may turn on how these areas are defined and measured, and whether the alleged structures meet this specific geometric constraint.
  • Functional vs. Incidental Structure: For the ’194 Patent, a potential dispute is whether the accused "plurality of individual contact elements" is a structure intentionally designed for redundancy as taught in the patent, or an incidental feature of a different, conventional manufacturing process. The question may be whether any multi-part connection to a single pad meets the claim limitation, regardless of its intended function.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

'324 Patent

  • The Term: "intermediate layer"
  • Context and Importance: This term is central to the novelty of claim 17. Its construction will determine whether conventional adhesion or barrier layers used in semiconductor manufacturing fall within the scope of the claims, or if the term is limited to a more specific structure taught for bridging incompatible metals like aluminum and copper.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is arguably broad, requiring only that the layer "contain[] at least one layer of metal" and be a "third metal" different from the terminal and conductor metals (’324 Patent, claim 17).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The abstract and detailed description frame the invention as a solution for connecting bumpless aluminum contacts to copper conductors (’324 Patent, abstract; ’324 Patent, col. 2:1-6). A party might argue that the term should be limited to layers that perform this specific function of creating a robust, non-brittle interface between those specific types of materials.

'194 Patent

  • The Term: "a plurality of individual contact elements for at least one single contact area"
  • Context and Importance: This "wherein" clause defines the point of novelty for claim 1. The case's infringement outcome will likely depend on whether the accused structures meet this definition. Practitioners may focus on this term because it distinguishes the claimed invention from a single, monolithic connection to a contact pad.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language could be read to cover any arrangement where more than one discrete conductive path connects to a single contact pad.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification explains that this structure provides redundancy to tolerate manufacturing misalignments, showing in Figures 13 and 14 how some elements can fail to connect properly while others succeed, ensuring a reliable overall connection (’194 Patent, col. 7:52 - col. 8:12). An argument could be made that the term should be construed to require a structure with physically separate elements arranged to provide this specific fault-tolerance function.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement. Inducement allegations are based on Defendants actively promoting the sale and use of the accused products through marketing materials, technical specifications, and user manuals (Compl. ¶89; Compl. ¶107; Compl. ¶123; Compl. ¶140). Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that the accused PMICs are material components of the patented inventions, are not staple articles of commerce, and are known to be especially made for use in an infringing manner (Compl. ¶90; Compl. ¶108; Compl. ¶124; Compl. ¶141).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on pre-suit knowledge of the patents. It asserts that Defendants had actual notice of all four Asserted Patents as of January 27, 2021, and received additional, specific notice of infringement for the ’485, ’324, and ’194 patents, including via claim charts, in 2024 (Compl. ¶¶65-68; Compl. ¶88; Compl. ¶106; Compl. ¶122; Compl. ¶139). The complaint characterizes Defendants' alleged failure to engage in good-faith licensing negotiations as "holdout behavior" (Compl. ¶67).

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

  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "intermediate layer" from the ’324 patent family be construed to cover what may be argued are conventional adhesion/barrier layers in semiconductor fabrication, or is it limited to a specific structure for bridging incompatible metals? Similarly, does the "plurality of individual contact elements" in the ’194 patent require a structure intentionally designed for redundancy, or can it read on any multi-part connection to a single pad?
  • A key evidentiary question will be one of physical verification: does a technical analysis of the accused PMICs confirm the presence of the specific multi-layer metallic structures, geometric area relationships, and multi-element connection arrangements required by the asserted claims?
  • Given the detailed allegations of pre-suit communications, a central question for damages will be willfulness: can Defendants demonstrate a good-faith belief of non-infringement or invalidity for the period following the alleged notices, particularly after receiving exemplary claim charts in 2024?
Loading Complaint