DCT

2:26-cv-00546

ImberaTek LLC v. Kyocera Corp

Log In
Key Events
Complaint
complaint Intelligence

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00546, E.D. Tex., 07/02/2026
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on Defendant being a foreign corporation organized under the laws of Japan, which permits suit in any judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). The complaint also alleges sales of accused products within the Eastern District of Texas.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that certain semiconductor components (PMICs and APs) within Defendant’s mobile phones infringe four U.S. patents related to advanced semiconductor packaging and manufacturing methods.
  • Technical Context: The technology at issue involves methods for embedding electronic components directly into circuit boards and modules, aiming to create more compact, reliable, and cost-effective electronic devices.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff first notified Defendant of potential infringement of the asserted patents in a letter dated January 27, 2021. Subsequent communications are alleged to have occurred in August and October of 2024, which form the basis for the willfulness allegations.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-04-01 Earliest Priority Date for ’527 Patent & ’723 Patent
2004-08-05 Earliest Priority Date for ’194 Patent
2008-05-12 Earliest Priority Date for ’324 Patent
2009-10-27 ’527 Patent Issued
2012-07-17 ’723 Patent Issued
2013-07-16 ’194 Patent Issued
2015-08-11 ’324 Patent Issued
2021-01-27 Plaintiff allegedly sent first notice letter to Defendant
2021-XX-XX Defendant allegedly began selling DuraSport 5G UW & DuraForce Ultra 5G UW
2023-XX-XX Defendant allegedly began selling DuraForce Pro 3 5G
2024-08-28 Plaintiff allegedly sent follow-up email to Defendant
2024-10-14 Plaintiff allegedly sent second follow-up email to Defendant
2024-10-17 Defendant allegedly responded to Plaintiff's communications
2024-10-22 Plaintiff allegedly responded to Defendant, noting infringement of ’194 Patent
2026-07-02 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,609,527 - "Electronic Module"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,609,527, "Electronic Module," issued October 27, 2009 (Compl. ¶15).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the unreliability and manufacturing complexity of conventional "flip-chip" technology, where semiconductor components are directly attached to a circuit board, noting issues arising from mechanical and thermal stress ('527 Patent, col. 1:44-2:5).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes embedding a component within an insulating material layer of an electronic module. The connection is made without solder by metallurgically bonding "solid contact bumps" on a conductive layer to "flat contact zones" on the component ('527 Patent, abstract). This integrated structure is intended to be more mechanically durable and space-efficient ('527 Patent, col. 3:36-44; '527 Patent, Fig. 5C).
  • Technical Importance: This solderless, embedded packaging technique allows for the creation of smaller and more reliable electronic modules by eliminating separate component casings and traditional soldering processes ('527 Patent, col. 4:51-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶35).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An electronic module comprising a first conductive-pattern layer with a first surface.
    • First solid contact bumps "solderlessly made" on the first surface of the conductive layer.
    • A component with "flat contact zones."
    • Second solid contact bumps "solderlessly made" on the flat contact zones.
    • An insulating-material layer on the first surface of the conductive layer.
    • The component is embedded in the insulating layer, and the second solid contact bumps are "metallurgically, electrically and solderlessly connected" to the first solid contact bumps.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶30).

U.S. Patent No. 8,222,723 - "Electronic Module Having A Conductive Pattern Layer"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,222,723, "Electronic Module Having A Conductive Pattern Layer," issued July 17, 2012 (Compl. ¶16).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the challenge of reliably integrating components into a circuit module structure, a recurring theme in advanced packaging technology ('723 Patent, col. 1:15-2:40).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention describes an electronic module where a component is embedded and connected to a conductive layer through holes (vias) filled with conductive material. A key aspect is the use of a "first hardened adhesive layer" on the component and a "second hardened adhesive layer" in contact with the first, where the two adhesive layers have "different" compositions ('723 Patent, abstract; '723 Patent, cl. 1).
  • Technical Importance: Employing two adhesive layers with different compositions allows for the optimization of material properties (e.g., adhesion, thermal coefficient, dielectric properties) at different interfaces within the module, potentially improving manufacturing yield and reliability ('723 Patent, col. 7:20-43).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts at least independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶52).
  • The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
    • An electronic module with a conductive-pattern layer and a supporting insulating-material layer.
    • At least one component inside the insulating layer with a first surface and contact zones.
    • A "first hardened adhesive layer" on the component's first surface.
    • A "second hardened adhesive layer" in contact with both the conductive-pattern layer and the first hardened adhesive layer.
    • Holes in both adhesive layers at the contact zone locations.
    • Conductive material filling the holes to create an electrical connection.
    • A "wherein" clause requiring the first and second hardened adhesive layers to have different compositions.
  • The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶30).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,107,324, "Circuit Module and Method of Manufacturing the Same," issued August 11, 2015 (Compl. ¶18).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent addresses the difficulty of forming reliable connections between aluminum contact areas on a semiconductor component and copper conductors on a circuit board ('324 Patent, col. 2:1-11). The proposed solution is a contact structure that uses an intermediate layer of a "third metal" (e.g., titanium) to act as a bridge between the incompatible aluminum and copper, with a specific geometry where the contact surface area is smaller than the full pad area ('324 Patent, abstract; '324 Patent, cl. 17).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 17 is asserted (Compl. ¶73).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses certain PMIC components in Defendant’s mobile phones of infringing the ’324 Patent (Compl. ¶73).

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

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,487,194, "Circuit Board Including An Embedded Component," issued July 16, 2013 (Compl. ¶17).
  • Technology Synopsis: The patent describes a circuit board with an embedded component where the electrical connection is made by a "set of contact elements" ('194 Patent, abstract). The invention specifically claims a structure where "a plurality of individual contact elements" connects to "at least one single contact area," a design intended to provide redundancy and improve reliability against manufacturing misalignments ('194 Patent, col. 8:7-14:23).
  • Asserted Claims: At least independent Claim 1 is asserted (Compl. ¶94).
  • Accused Features: The complaint accuses certain PMIC and AP components in Defendant’s mobile phones of infringing the ’194 Patent (Compl. ¶94).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused instrumentalities are the DuraSport 5G UW, DuraForce Ultra 5G UW, and DuraForce Pro 3 5G mobile phones (Compl. ¶20). The infringement allegations, however, focus on specific internal components: the PM6150L, PM7150L, PM6350, PM7250, PM7250B, and PM7350C Power Management Integrated Circuits (PMICs), and the SM4350 and SM7450 Application Processors (APs) (Compl. ¶20).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The complaint alleges that these PMICs and APs are semiconductor chips that incorporate the patented packaging technologies (Compl. ¶¶14, 20). The allegations are based on structural analysis of the components themselves, rather than their end-use functionality in the phone (Compl. ¶31). The complaint states that cross-sections of the accused PMICs show conductive layers, insulating materials, and embedded components (Compl. ¶¶38-43; Compl. ¶¶55-62). For example, the complaint references a copper Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) map as evidence of a conductive layer in the accused products (Compl. ¶38). This visual, based on material analysis of a product cross-section, is alleged to show an infringing structure.
  • The accused phones are marketed as ruggedized 5G devices sold in the U.S. through channels including Verizon and Walmart, indicating their commercial presence in the U.S. market (Compl. ¶¶8-9; Compl. ¶¶21-23).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'527 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An electronic module, comprising: a first conductive-pattern layer having a first surface, The accused PMICs are alleged to be electronic modules containing a conductive copper layer, as shown by a copper EDX map. ¶38 col. 5:25-34
first solid contact bumps solderlessly made on the first surface of the first conductive-pattern layer and metallurgically and electrically connected thereto, The accused PMICs allegedly include a first solid contact bump made solderlessly, as shown by the absence of tin and presence of copper in an EDX map. ¶39 col. 6:66-7:4
a component having flat contact zones, Cross-sections of the accused PMICs allegedly show a component with flat contact zones. ¶40 col. 6:35-39
second solid contact bumps solderlessly made on the flat contact zones and metallurgically and electrically connected thereto, and The accused PMICs allegedly include a second solid contact bump made solderlessly by plating, as shown by the absence of tin in an EDS layered image. ¶41 col. 12:60-62
an insulating-material layer on the first surface of the first conductive pattern layer, Cross-sections of the accused PMICs allegedly show an insulating material layer containing non-conductive materials like Oxygen and Silicon, as shown in EDX maps. ¶42 col. 3:13-18
wherein the component is embedded in the insulating-material layer and wherein the second solid contact bumps... are metallurgically, electrically and solderlessly connected to the first solid contact bumps... The accused PMICs allegedly show the component embedded in the insulating layer, with the bumps connected solderlessly as evidenced by the absence of tin. ¶43 col. 12:65-13:4
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Question: A potential dispute may arise over the term "solderlessly made." The patent specification emphasizes methods like ultrasonic or thermo-compression bonding ('527 Patent, col. 6:38-41). The complaint alleges infringement via "plating" and points to the "absence of tin" as evidence (Compl. ¶¶39, 41). The court may need to determine if a plating process falls within the scope of "solderlessly made" as understood in the context of the patent.
    • Technical Question: The infringement claim hinges on whether the physical structures within the accused PMICs constitute "solid contact bumps" as required by the claim. The complaint's reliance on cross-sectional images (Compl. ¶¶38-43) suggests this will be a highly factual dispute centered on expert analysis of the accused components' micro-architecture.

'723 Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An electronic module, comprising: a conductive-pattern layer; an insulating-material layer supporting the conductive-pattern layer; The accused PMICs allegedly contain a conductive copper layer supported by an insulating layer made of polymer dielectrics containing oxygen and silicon. ¶55; ¶56 col. 5:32-40
at least one component inside the insulating-material layer... comprising a first surface and contact zones on the first surface; Cross-sections of the accused PMICs allegedly show at least one component with a first surface and contact zones, positioned inside the insulating layer. ¶57 col. 5:3-7
a first hardened adhesive layer on the first surface of the at least one component; The accused PMICs allegedly show a first hardened adhesive layer on the component's surface. ¶58 col. 5:46-6:44
a second hardened adhesive layer in contact with the conductive-pattern layer and the first hardened adhesive layer; The accused PMICs allegedly show a second hardened adhesive layer in contact with the first adhesive layer and the conductive layer. ¶59 col. 5:46-6:44
holes in the first and second hardened adhesive layer at the locations of the contact zones; and Cross-sections of the accused PMICs allegedly show holes in the adhesive layers at the contact zones. ¶60 col. 7:12-25
conductive material in the holes and in electrical connection with the contact zones... and the conductive-pattern layer, Electrical connection is allegedly formed by conductive material in the holes, as shown in a copper EDX map. ¶61 col. 8:31-38
wherein the first hardened adhesive layer has a first composition and the second hardened adhesive layer has a second composition different from the first composition. The complaint alleges the two adhesive layers have different compositions, as evidenced by "different textures in a Scanning Electron Microscope ('SEM') image." ¶62 col. 7:20-34
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: The central dispute is likely to be whether the accused PMICs actually use two distinct adhesive layers with different compositions. The complaint's primary evidence is an allegation of "different textures" in an SEM image (Compl. ¶62). This raises the evidentiary question of whether a difference in texture is sufficient to prove a difference in chemical "composition" as required by the claim, or if it could be an artifact of the manufacturing process.
    • Scope Question: The court may be asked to construe the term "composition." A key question will be what degree of chemical or material variance is required to meet the "different from" limitation.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

For the ’527 Patent

  • The Term: "solid contact bumps solderlessly made"
  • Context and Importance: This term defines the core connection mechanism of the invention. The complaint’s theory is that the accused structures, allegedly formed by plating without tin, meet this limitation (Compl. ¶¶39, 41). The definition of "solderlessly made" will be critical to determining whether the accused manufacturing process infringes.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claim does not specify a particular manufacturing method, only that it be "solderless." This may support an interpretation that includes any connection process not involving solder, such as the alleged plating.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly discusses "ultrasonic or thermo-compression methods" as the means for creating the connection ('527 Patent, col. 5:40-49; '527 Patent, col. 6:38-41). A party could argue that the term should be limited to these disclosed mechanical bonding techniques, potentially excluding chemical processes like plating.

For the ’723 Patent

  • The Term: "a second composition different from the first composition"
  • Context and Importance: This limitation is the key point of novelty recited in Claim 1. The infringement case rests on proving that the accused products contain two adhesive layers that meet this "different composition" requirement. The complaint relies on visual evidence of "different textures" from an SEM image to support this element (Compl. ¶62).
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim term does not quantify the required difference. Any detectable variation in chemical makeup, fillers, or polymer structure could arguably render the compositions "different."
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification suggests the purpose of using different adhesives is to achieve different functional properties ('723 Patent, col. 7:20-34). A party may argue that "different composition" requires a material difference substantial enough to alter the functional properties of the layers, not just incidental variations or textural differences that might result from a single adhesive curing in different conditions.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement, stating that Defendant actively encourages infringement by providing marketing materials, technical specifications, and user manuals for the accused products (Compl. ¶¶46, 65, 87, 105). It also alleges contributory infringement, asserting that the accused PMIC and AP components are material components especially made for use in an infringing manner and are not staple articles of commerce (Compl. ¶¶47, 66, 88, 106).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s alleged knowledge of the patents since at least January 27, 2021, from a letter sent by Plaintiff (Compl. ¶26). The complaint further cites subsequent communications in 2024 and characterizes Defendant’s alleged lack of substantive response as "holdout behavior," which it argues supports a finding of willful and deliberate infringement (Compl. ¶¶28, 45, 64, 86, 104).

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

This case appears to center on highly technical questions of claim construction and evidentiary proof related to semiconductor micro-architecture. The key questions for the court will likely include:

  1. A core issue will be one of definitional scope: Can the term "solid contact bumps solderlessly made" from the ’527 patent, described in the specification in the context of mechanical bonding, be construed to cover the accused structures allegedly formed by a chemical plating process?
  2. A key evidentiary question will be one of material science: For the ’723 patent, does the "different texture" observed in an SEM image, as alleged in the complaint, provide sufficient proof of two adhesive layers having "different compositions," or could this be a non-infringing artifact of a single material's processing?
  3. A central question for the ’194 patent will be one of structural interpretation: Do the accused products' connections, which allegedly involve multiple contact elements to a single contact area, meet the specific structural requirements of the claims and provide the functional redundancy contemplated by the patent?
Loading Complaint