DCT

2:26-cv-00239

ExactoJoin LLC v. Addlink Technology Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00239, E.D. Tex., 03/24/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Eastern District of Texas because the Defendant is a foreign corporation and has committed acts of infringement within the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant infringes a patent related to the structure of compact semiconductor memory devices.
  • Technical Context: The patent-in-suit concerns the design of high-density semiconductor memory, such as DRAM, focusing on physical cell layouts that aim to reduce size and complexity.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint does not allege any prior litigation, licensing history, or other procedural events involving the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2008-09-02 '581 Patent - Earliest Priority Date (U.S. Prov. App. 61/093,726)
2015-04-07 '581 Patent - Issue Date
2026-03-24 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,001,581 - Compact semiconductor memory device having reduced number of contacts, methods of operating and methods of making

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,001,581, "Compact semiconductor memory device having reduced number of contacts, methods of operating and methods of making," issued April 7, 2015 (the "'581 Patent").

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes the challenge of scaling down conventional semiconductor memory devices like Dynamic Random-Access Memory (DRAM) '581 Patent, col. 1:56-62 Specifically, it notes that the one-transistor/one-capacitor (1T/1C) structure of a typical DRAM cell is difficult to shrink further, limiting memory density '581 Patent, col. 1:62-67
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes a memory device architecture composed of a "string or link" of memory cells connected in series '581 Patent, abstract Each cell uses an electrically "floating body region" to store charge, representing a data state '581 Patent, col. 2:21-23 By arranging multiple cells in a series and connecting them with a reduced number of electrical contacts, the overall footprint of the memory array is decreased '581 Patent, col. 17:10-18 The core concept is that the number of contacts required to operate the string of cells is less than the number of memory cells in that string, thereby increasing density '581 Patent, abstract
  • Technical Importance: This approach aims to create smaller, more densely packed memory arrays, a persistent goal in the semiconductor industry to improve performance and reduce manufacturing costs.

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims in its text, instead referring to "Exemplary '581 Patent Claims" in an attached exhibit that was not provided with the complaint Compl. ¶11 However, Claim 1 is the first independent claim of the patent.

  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A semiconductor memory device comprising:
    • a plurality of semiconductor memory cells;
    • at least one contact configured to electrically connect said memory cells to a control line;
    • wherein the number of said contacts is less than the number of said memory cells; and
    • said memory cells being electrically configured to perform at least one of injecting charge into or extracting charge out of a portion of at least one of said memory cells to maintain a state of said one or more memory cells.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint does not identify any specific accused products by name Compl. ¶11 It refers generally to "Exemplary Defendant Products" that are purportedly identified in claim charts attached as Exhibit 2 Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶16 That exhibit was not provided.

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality or market context.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges direct and induced infringement of the '581 Patent Compl. ¶11 Compl. ¶15 However, it does not contain specific factual allegations mapping claim elements to features of an accused product. Instead, it incorporates by reference claim charts from an external document (Exhibit 2) that was not provided Compl. ¶16 Compl. ¶17 The complaint's narrative theory of infringement is limited to the conclusory statement that "the Exemplary Defendant Products practice the technology claimed by the '581 Patent" and "satisfy all elements of the Exemplary '581 Patent Claims" Compl. ¶16

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

  • Identified Points of Contention: Lacking a specific infringement theory, analysis must focus on the general requirements of the patent's claims. A central dispute may revolve around the structural limitations of the claims. For example, a key question will be whether the accused devices, once identified, actually contain a structure where multiple memory cells are serviced by a number of contacts that is "less than the number of said memory cells" as required by Claim 1. Further, a technical question may arise as to whether the mechanism used for data storage in the accused devices functions by "injecting charge into or extracting charge out of" a "floating body region," as described in the patent specification.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The complaint does not provide a basis for identifying specific claim construction disputes. However, based on the language of Claim 1 and the technology, the following terms may become central to the case.

  • The Term: "floating body region"

  • Context and Importance: This term is fundamental to how the patented memory cell stores data. The definition of what constitutes a "floating body region" will be critical to determining whether the accused devices meet this element. Practitioners may focus on this term because its technical meaning, derived from the specification, will define the scope of the memory cell structures covered by the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims themselves do not specify the material or exact configuration of the floating body region, suggesting it could cover any semiconductor region that is electrically floating and capable of storing charge.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes the floating body region in the context of specific embodiments, for example as "a p-type conductivity type, such as p-type, region" formed on a substrate '581 Patent, col. 11:45-48 A defendant may argue that the term should be limited to the particular types of structures disclosed.

  • The Term: "the number of said contacts is less than the number of said memory cells"

  • Context and Importance: This limitation quantifies the core structural innovation aimed at increasing memory density. The interpretation of what qualifies as a "contact" for the purpose of this comparison, and how cells and contacts are counted within the architecture of an accused device, will likely be a primary point of contention.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language is plain and mathematical. A plaintiff may argue for a straightforward counting of physical contacts and memory cells as depicted in an accused device's layout.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent describes specific "string" or "link" arrangements where this ratio is achieved '581 Patent, abstract '581 Patent, col. 17:35-43 A defendant may argue that the term should be interpreted in the context of these specific serial architectures and not apply to different memory array designs that might incidentally meet the ratio.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant distributes "product literature and website materials inducing end users and others to use its products in the customary and intended manner that infringes the '581 Patent" Compl. ¶14
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint does not use the term "willful." However, it alleges that Defendant has "Actual Knowledge of Infringement" from the date of service of the complaint and that it continues to infringe "Despite such actual knowledge," which may form the basis for a claim of post-suit willful infringement Compl. ¶13 Compl. ¶14

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

Given the limited factual detail in the initial pleading, the case appears poised to turn on the following fundamental questions:

  • Evidentiary Sufficiency: The primary initial question is one of pleading and proof. What specific products are accused of infringement, and what technical evidence will Plaintiff produce to substantiate its currently conclusory allegation that these products meet every limitation of an asserted claim?
  • Architectural Equivalence: A central technical dispute will likely be whether the architecture of the accused memory devices, once revealed, falls within the scope of the claims. This will hinge on a construction of key structural terms, particularly whether the accused products embody a configuration where "the number of said contacts is less than the number of said memory cells."
  • Mechanism of Operation: A key technical question will be one of functional correspondence. Does the data storage mechanism in the accused devices operate by "injecting charge into or extracting charge out of" a structure that can be properly defined as a "floating body region" under the patent's intrinsic record?
Loading Complaint