{"cached_at":"2026-11-01T12:43:26.143210+00:00","cl_docket_id":"71824787","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","id":71824787,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txwd/","court_id":"txwd","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/8566/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2025-10-30T13:07:11.622642-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-26T12:05:57.305639-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"David Counts","referred_to_str":"Derek T. Gilliland","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2025-10-30","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-10-26","case_name_short":"","case_name":"CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc","docket_number":"7:25-cv-00505","docket_number_core":"2500505","docket_number_raw":"7:25-cv-00505","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"7","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"DC","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"DTG","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"1172872553","cause":"35:271 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Both","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2025-10-30T13:07:11.549002-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20129121/","id":20129121,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794588/","attorney_id":13794588,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794586/","attorney_id":13794586,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794586/","attorney_id":13794586,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794587/","attorney_id":13794587,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"name":"Counter Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-02T07:44:12.475528-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T07:44:12.475541-07:00","name":"STMicroelectronics, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/20129120/","id":20129120,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794576/","attorney_id":13794576,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794576/","attorney_id":13794576,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794577/","attorney_id":13794577,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794577/","attorney_id":13794577,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794578/","attorney_id":13794578,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794578/","attorney_id":13794578,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794579/","attorney_id":13794579,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794579/","attorney_id":13794579,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794580/","attorney_id":13794580,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794580/","attorney_id":13794580,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794581/","attorney_id":13794581,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794581/","attorney_id":13794581,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794582/","attorney_id":13794582,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794582/","attorney_id":13794582,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794583/","attorney_id":13794583,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794583/","attorney_id":13794583,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794584/","attorney_id":13794584,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794584/","attorney_id":13794584,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13794585/","attorney_id":13794585,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]},{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","docket_id":71824787,"name":"Counter Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-07-02T07:44:10.862145-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-02T07:44:10.862166-07:00","name":"CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/482809895/","id":482809895,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/498603928/","id":498603928,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/64/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-26T11:08:32.212770-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-26T12:05:58.020775-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"64","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037683571","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":true,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Filed","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-26T11:08:32.187827-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-26T12:05:57.446543-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-26","time_filed":"12:58:26","entry_number":64,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":196,"description":"Transcript filed of Proceedings held on September 3, 2026, Proceedings Transcribed: Motions Hearing. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Arlinda Rodriguez, Telephone number: 512-391-8791. Parties are notified of their duty to review the transcript to ensure compliance with the FRCP 5.2(a)/FRCrP 49.1(a). A copy may be purchased from the court reporter or viewed at the clerk's office public terminal. If redaction is necessary, a Notice of Redaction Request must be filed within 21 days. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript will be made available via PACER without redaction after 90 calendar days. The clerk will mail a copy of this notice to parties not electronically noticed Redaction Request due 11/16/2026, Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/27/2026, Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/25/2027, (Rodriguez, Arlinda)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/481392965/","id":481392965,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/497134133/","id":497134133,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/63/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-10-13T15:18:15.995368-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-14T02:45:09.035901-07:00","sha1":"888bcb7ecdb1a6a10a05b278bf30ea4c280113bb","page_count":1,"file_size":444144,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.63.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.63.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" AO 435 Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 63 Filed 10/13/26 Page 1 of 1\n(Rev. 10/23)\n ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS FOR COURT USE ONLY\n\n DUE DATE:\n TRANSCRIPT ORDER\nPlease Read Instructions:\n1. NAME 2. PHONE NUMBER 3. DATE\nNolan McQueen (214) 953-6525 10/13/2026\n4. DELIVERY ADDRESS OR EMAIL 5. CITY 6. STATE 7. ZIP CODE\nnolan.mcqueen@bakerbotts.com Dallas TX 75201\n8. CASE NUMBER 9. JUDGE DATES OF PROCEEDINGS\n7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Mag. Judge Gilliland 10. FROM 9/3/2026 11. TO 9/3/2026\n12. CASE NAME LOCATION OF PROCEEDINGS\nChip Packaging Technologies v STMicroelectronics 13. CITY Waco 14. STATE TX\n15. ORDER FOR\n\u2019 APPEAL \u2019 CRIMINAL \u2019 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT \u2019 BANKRUPTCY\n\u2019 NON-APPEAL \u2019 CIVIL \u2019 IN FORMA PAUPERIS \u2019 OTHER (Specify)\n16. TRANSCRIPT REQUESTED (Specify portion(s) and date(s) of proceeding(s) for which transcript is requested)\n\n PORTIONS DATE(S) PORTION(S) DATE(S)\n\u2019 VOIR DIRE \u2019 TESTIMONY (Specify Witness)\n\n\u2019 OPENING STATEMENT (Plaintiff)\n\u2019 OPENING STATEMENT (Defendant)\n\u2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT (Plaintiff) \u2019 PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDING (Spcy)\n\u2019 CLOSING ARGUMENT (Defendant)\n\u2019 OPINION OF COURT\n\u2019 JURY INSTRUCTIONS \u2019 OTHER (Specify)\n\u2019 SENTENCING Motion Hearing re [39] 9/3/2026\n\u2019 BAIL HEARING Motion to Stay Case\n 17. ORDER\n ORIGINAL ADDITIONAL\n CATEGORY (Includes Certified Copy to FIRST COPY NO. OF PAGES ESTIMATE COSTS\n Clerk for Records of the Court)\n COPIES\n NO. OF COPIES\n 30-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n 14-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n 7-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n 3-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n Next-Day \u2019 \u2019\n NO. OF COPIES\n 2-Hour \u2019 \u2019\n REALTIME \u2019 \u2019\n CERTIFICATION (18. & 19.)\n By signing below, I certify that I will pay all charges ESTIMATE TOTAL\n (deposit plus additional). $ 0.00 0.00\n18. SIGNATURE PROCESSED BY\n/s/ Nolan McQueen\n19. DATE PHONE NUMBER\n10/13/2026\nTRANSCRIPT TO BE PREPARED BY COURT ADDRESS\n\n\n\n DATE BY\nORDER RECEIVED\n\nDEPOSIT PAID DEPOSIT PAID\n\nTRANSCRIPT ORDERED TOTAL CHARGES $ 0.00 0.00\n\nTRANSCRIPT RECEIVED LESS DEPOSIT $ 0.00 0.00\nORDERING PARTY NOTIFIED\nTO PICK UP TRANSCRIPT TOTAL REFUNDED\n\nPARTY RECEIVED TRANSCRIPT TOTAL DUE $ 0.00 0.00\n DISTRIBUTION: COURT COPY TRANSCRIPTION COPY ORDER RECEIPT ORDER COPY\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-10-13T15:18:16.458387-07:00","document_number":"63","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037592743","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Transcript Request (Miscellaneous)","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-10-13T15:18:15.962386-07:00","date_modified":"2026-10-13T15:18:52.103663-07:00","date_filed":"2026-10-13","time_filed":"17:11:17","entry_number":63,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-10-13.001","pacer_sequence_number":194,"description":"TRANSCRIPT REQUEST by STMicroelectronics, Inc. for proceedings held on 09/03/2026. Proceedings Transcribed: Motion Hearing re [39] Motion to Stay. Court Reporter: FTR. (McQueen, Nolan)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477272359/","id":477272359,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492862089/","id":492862089,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/62/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-08T14:40:57.507950-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T21:39:50.040695-07:00","sha1":"0d648b0cd45a70ab3d8e2c16d33813d1de362d61","page_count":10,"file_size":148883,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.62.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.62.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES,\nLLC, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\nDefendant.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT\u2019S\n RULE 72(a) OBJECTIONS (DKT. 57)\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1\nII. LEGAL STANDARD......................................................................................................... 2\nIII. JUDGE GILLILAND\u2019S DENIAL OF THE STRIKE WAS NEITHER CLEARLY\n ERRONEOUS NOR CONTRARY TO LAW .................................................................... 3\n A. CPT showed the uncharted products are reasonably similar to the charted exemplars. ..... 3\n B. ST would require CPT to prove its groupings before discovery. ....................................... 4\n C. The list corrections do not undermine the reasonably similar groupings. .......................... 4\n D. None of ST\u2019s cases required a strike, and remand is unnecessary...................................... 5\nIV. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nCoast Runner, Inc. v. Kickstarter, PBC,\n No. 7:25-cv-00396-DC-RCG, Dkt. No. 107 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2026) ..............................2, 3\n\nIGT v. Zynga Inc.,\n No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) ....................................2, 3, 4\n\nIntell. Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs. Corp.,\n No. 6:19-cv-00628-ADA, Dkt. No. 31 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2020) ..........................................5\n\nLaborfest LLC v. City of San Antonio,\n No. 5:19-cv-00060-JKP, Dkt. No. 91 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2021) ............................................3\n\nSVV Tech. Innovations, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n No. 6:20-cv-00139-ADA, Dkt. No. 35 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020) ............................................5\n\nTrs. of Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics N.V.,\n No. 6:21-cv-00727-ADA, 2023 WL 11995494 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2023) ............................5\n\nWSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co.,\n No. 6:20-CV-00952-ADA, 2022 WL 174517 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) ................................5\n\nStatutes\n\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1)(A) .................................................................................................................2\n\nOther Authorities\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 72 .............................................................................................................................5\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ....................................................................................................................2, 5\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Plaintiff Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC (\u201cCPT\u201d) respectfully submits this response\n\nto the objections (Dkt. 57, the \u201cObjections\u201d or \u201cObj.\u201d) of Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.\n\n(\u201cST\u201d) to Judge Gilliland\u2019s August 17, 2026 order denying ST\u2019s request to strike the uncharted\n\naccused products (the \u201cOrder,\u201d Dkt. 50).1\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n The asserted patents claim structures inside ST\u2019s semiconductor packages: lead frames,\n\npower and ground bars, mold locks, and the sensor gel, diaphragm, and lid. None of these\n\npatented structures are visible from the outside of a finished package. As a practical matter, there\n\nare two ways to see inside an ST package: (1) destroy a publicly available physical unit, or (2)\n\nanalyze ST\u2019s internal design and assembly documents. Dkt. 50 at 2. CPT took the path available\n\nto it before discovery. It tore down and X-rayed one exemplar for each asserted patent and\n\ncharted every claim element. Obj. at 3. From the outset, CPT also accused products ST markets\n\nwithin the same package families, on the good-faith belief that they share the exemplars\u2019 internal\n\nstructures. Dkt. 50 at 2. When ST demanded a complete product-by-product list, CPT supplied\n\none, built from ST\u2019s own catalog. When ST demanded a more explicit representativeness\n\nexplanation, CPT revised the list and made that basis explicit, patent by patent.\n\n ST then asked Judge Gilliland to strike every accused product CPT did not physically\n\ndeconstruct\u2014before fact discovery has opened, and before ST has produced the internal\n\ndocuments that can confirm or disprove CPT\u2019s disclosed groupings. Judge Gilliland reviewed the\n\nparties\u2019 joint submission, found a hearing unnecessary, and declined. Dkt. 50 at 1. A companion\n\norder denied CPT\u2019s request for early production of those internal documents \u201cwithout prejudice\n\nto seeking the information once fact discovery opens.\u201d Dkt. 49 at 1. Together, the two orders left\n\nthe groupings to be tested in fact discovery.\n\n\n1\n On September 3, 2026, the Court granted ST\u2019s motion to stay this action pending ex parte\nreexamination. Dkt. 59. The Court thereafter administratively closed the case, while confirming\nthat the stay remains in full force and effect. Dkt. 60. CPT nevertheless files this response out of\nan abundance of caution because its response to ST\u2019s Objections would otherwise have been due\nSeptember 8, 2026.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\n The question under Rule 72(a) is narrow: was it clearly erroneous or contrary to law to\n\nallow CPT to test its disclosed product groupings in fact discovery rather than strike them at the\n\noutset? At this preliminary stage, CPT needed only to show that the uncharted products are\n\n\u201creasonably similar\u201d to the charted exemplars, a materially lower bar than the one governing\n\nfinal contentions. IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA, Dkt. No. 61 at 4 (W.D. Tex. Mar.\n\n1, 2022). CPT did exactly that: its teardown charts, its package-family groupings, and its patent-\n\nby-patent identification of the shared internal features amply supported letting the groupings\n\nproceed to discovery. ST\u2019s Objections acknowledge that they raise the same arguments ST made\n\nin the joint chart. Obj. at 1. Judge Gilliland reviewed those arguments and rejected them. Dkt. 50\n\nat 1.\n\n ST\u2019s Objections rest on the false premise that the Order shifted to ST the burden of\n\nestablishing whether CPT\u2019s product groupings are proper. It did not. The Order simply permits\n\nCPT to test its preliminary showing in fact discovery rather than requiring CPT to prove its\n\ngroupings conclusively before discovery begins. Nothing in ST\u2019s cited cases requires otherwise,\n\nmuch less supports striking accused products at this stage. Nor is remand necessary: the joint\n\nchart incorporated into the Order identifies the disputed groupings and the basis on which they\n\nwere permitted to proceed. The Objections should be overruled.\n\nII. LEGAL STANDARD\n The Order is a nondispositive pretrial ruling reviewed under Rule 72(a). \u201cFactual findings\n\nare reviewed for clear error while legal conclusions are reviewed under the contrary to law\n\nstandard\u201d; \u201c[d]e novo review applies to the contrary to law standard.\u201d Coast Runner, Inc. v.\n\nKickstarter, PBC, No. 7:25-cv-00396-DC-RCG, Dkt. No. 107 at 6 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2026);\n\nsee Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1)(A).\n\n Clear-error review is \u201chighly deferential\u201d: an order stands unless the reviewing court is\n\nleft with \u201cthe definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.\u201d Coast Runner,\n\nDkt. No. 107 at 6. A district court may not reverse merely because it would have decided the\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\nmatter differently. Laborfest LLC v. City of San Antonio, No. 5:19-cv-00060-JKP, Dkt. No. 91 at\n\n2\u20133 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2021). Once the law is correctly applied, the remaining range of case-\n\nmanagement choices is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. ST cannot show that Judge\n\nGilliland\u2019s ruling fell outside those bounds.\n\nIII. JUDGE GILLILAND\u2019S DENIAL OF THE STRIKE WAS NEITHER CLEARLY\n ERRONEOUS NOR CONTRARY TO LAW\n\n A. CPT showed the uncharted products are reasonably similar to the charted\n exemplars.\n On February 12, 2026, CPT served preliminary infringement contentions charting one\n\nexemplary product for each asserted patent: STL220N6F7 for U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299,\n\nSPC582B60E1 for U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646, STM32G071CB for U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189,\n\nSR5E1E7 for U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351, and LPS28DFW for U.S. Patent No. 10,151,658. Obj.\n\nat 3. As both parties described those charts to Judge Gilliland, they relied on physical teardowns,\n\nincluding annotated reverse-engineering photographs, X-ray images, and cross-sectional views.\n\nDkt. 50 at 2; Obj. at 3. From the outset, the contentions referred to additional accused products\n\nbeyond those five, and at ST\u2019s request the March 27, 2026 supplement named them individually:\n\nby family, part number, and package. See Obj. at 3; Dkt. 50 at 2.\n\n When ST then demanded a more explicit statement of representativeness, the June 16,\n\n2026 supplement clarified the groupings CPT had previously provided at ST\u2019s request: for each\npatent, it identified the accused products and the internal feature they allegedly share with the\n\ncharted exemplar, based on CPT\u2019s reverse engineering of the exemplars and ST\u2019s published\n\npackage and datasheet documentation, on information and belief. Ex. A to the Objections (\u201cEx.\n\nA\u201d) (Dkt. 57-1) at 12, 14\u201315, 17, 19, 22, 25\u201326. Having charted the claimed structures in the\n\nexemplars, CPT grouped the accused products by package type and product line based on the\n\npackage-level structures relevant to the asserted claims. Id. at 14\u201326. That is all the preliminary\n\nstage requires: uncharted products need only be \u201creasonably similar\u201d to those specifically\n\ncharted. IGT, Dkt. No. 61 at 4.\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\n B. ST would require CPT to prove its groupings before discovery.\n ST faults CPT for not confirming, before discovery, that every product in each family\n\nshares the accused internal structure. Obj. at 7\u20139. That would require CPT to prove before\n\ndiscovery the very internal similarities that discovery is needed to test. Seeing inside a package\n\nmeans destroying it or reading ST\u2019s internal design and assembly documents, so ST would have\n\nCPT buy and tear down hundreds of parts to answer a question ST can answer from its own files,\n\nfiles ST has opposed producing before fact discovery. Dkt. 50 at 2\u20133; see also Dkt. 49 at 1. And\n\nthe statement ST quotes as a concession was CPT\u2019s complaint about ST\u2019s deficient production,\n\nnot an admission: ST\u2019s public documents \u201cdo not show the internal package structures at all.\u201d\n\nEx. A at 5\u20136.\n\n IGT says the same thing: \u201ceven if [the defendant] is correct that products are not fairly\n\nrepresented, Plaintiff is still entitled to discovery to verify it when such information is not\n\npublicly available.\u201d IGT, Dkt. 61 at 5. That discovery is defined and waiting. CPT\u2019s June 16,\n\n2026 letter mapped each accused package group to the ST design and assembly documents that\n\nwill verify the groupings, and the companion order preserves CPT\u2019s right to seek them once fact\n\ndiscovery opens. Ex. A at 9\u201310; Dkt. 49 at 1. ST has offered nothing on the merits: no\n\ndeclaration and no technical document, \u201conly attorney argument and pin counts.\u201d Dkt. 50 at 3.\n\nStriking the products now would not cure anything; it would cut off the verification IGT permits.\n\n C. The list corrections do not undermine the reasonably similar groupings.\n The list ST attacks is the list ST demanded. When ST insisted on part numbers, CPT built\n\nthe list from ST\u2019s own datasheets and part-numbering conventions\u2014a good-faith effort to map a\n\nsprawling catalog that ST alone controls. Obj. at 3; Dkt. 50 at 2; Ex. A at 2\u20133. The corrections do\n\nnot undermine those groupings. Whether a predicted part number exists, or carries a different pin\n\ncount, is something ST could confirm from its own catalog, and ST took weeks to do so. Dkt. 50\n\nat 3. CPT dropped each part promptly once ST identified it: more than 70 entries, all before\n\nJudge Gilliland ruled. Ex. A at 12, 14, 19, 21\u201322, 24\u201325; Dkt. 50 at 3. The list was about naming\n\nproducts. Whether the remaining products contain the claimed internal features is a different\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\nquestion, one the catalogs never answered, and one CPT will answer with ST\u2019s documents in fact\n\ndiscovery; if a product lacks the feature, CPT will narrow its contentions.\n\n D. None of ST\u2019s cases required a strike, and remand is unnecessary.\n None of ST\u2019s cases required the wholesale strike ST seeks here. See Intell. Tech LLC v.\n\nZebra Techs. Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00628-ADA, Dkt. No. 31 at 1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2020)\n\n(ordering supplemental charts and a representativeness analysis rather than striking products);\n\nWSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., No. 6:20-CV-00952-ADA, 2022 WL\n\n174517, at *2\u20133 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022) (denying motion to strike and directing further detail\n\nto imminent final contentions); SVV Tech. Innovations, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:20-cv-\n\n00139-ADA, Dkt. No. 35 at 2\u20133 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020) (declining plaintiff\u2019s proposed\n\nrepresentative-product scheduling procedure; no products stricken).\n\n Remand is unnecessary. ST does not contend that a hearing or detailed findings were\n\nrequired. Obj. at 5, 10. Its argument is only that the record does not permit meaningful review. It\n\ndoes. The joint chart attached to the Order presents the dispute, the evidence, and both sides\u2019\n\nrequested relief, and it is before this Court just as it was before Judge Gilliland. Dkt. 50 at 1\u20134.\n\nPurdue reinforces the procedural point: there, ST likewise sought Rule 72 review of Judge\n\nGilliland\u2019s denial of a motion to strike infringement contentions, and Judge Albright overruled\n\nthe objections without remanding. Trs. of Purdue Univ. v. STMicroelectronics N.V., No. 6:21-cv-\n\n00727-ADA, 2023 WL 11995494 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2023).\n\nIV. CONCLUSION\n For the foregoing reasons, CPT respectfully requests that the Court overrule ST\u2019s Rule\n\n72(a) Objections (Dkt. 57).\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\nDated: September 8, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Natalie Lieber\n Garland Stephens (Texas Bar No. 24053910)\n garland@bluepeak.law\n Robert Magee (pro hac vice)\n robert@bluepeak.law\n Justin Constant (pro hac vice)\n justin@bluepeak.law\n Richard Koehl (Texas Bar No. 24115754)\n richard@bluepeak.law\n Kate Falkenstien (pro hac vice)\n kate@bluepeak.law\n Heng Gong (New York Bar No. 4930509)\n heng@bluepeak.law\n Natalie Lieber (New York Bar No. 4672762)\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n Ameet Modi (pro hac vice)\n modi@bluepeak.law\n BLUE PEAK LAW GROUP LLP\n 3139 West Holcombe Blvd.\n PMB 8160\n Houston, TX 77025\n Telephone: (281) 972-3036\n\n Of Counsel:\n Mark D. Siegmund (Texas Bar No. 24117055)\n msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor\n Waco, TX 76710\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n William D. Ellerman (Texas Bar No. 24007151)\n wellerman@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n One Glen Lakes Tower\n 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105\n Dallas, TX 75231\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHIP\n PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 62 Filed 09/08/26 Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n A true and correct copy of Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition to Defendant\u2019s Rule 72(a) Objections\n\n(Dkt. 57) was served via CM/ECF to all counsel of record on September 8, 2026.\n\n\n\n /s/ Natalie Lieber\n Natalie Lieber\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-08T14:40:57.909012-07:00","document_number":"62","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037359917","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Response","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-08T14:40:57.462829-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T15:05:44.903152-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-08","time_filed":"16:38:11","entry_number":62,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":191,"description":"RESPONSE in Opposition to [57] Miscellaneous Objection, by CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,. (Lieber, Natalie)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477217477/","id":477217477,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492806087/","id":492806087,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/61/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-08T10:42:53.816589-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-09T14:19:52.436391-07:00","sha1":"92629e4be6382d98b45cf49a4a29663b60befe91","page_count":2,"file_size":109865,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.61.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.61.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 61 Filed 09/08/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n\n ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR\n\n For the reasons explained in the Order Appointing Technical Advisor previously\n\nentered in the above-captioned case, the Court found the technology in this case to be\n\nexceptionally complex. Accordingly, the Court appointed Darryl J. Adams to serve as\n\ntechnical advisor. The Court has reviewed Mr. Adams\u2019 invoice for services through today,\n\nwhich include analyzing the parties\u2019 claim construction positions. The Court finds the\n\nrequested amount to be reasonable and necessary. As such, the Court ORDERS payment\n\nto be made within 21 days as follows:\n\n Plaintiff: $9540.00\n Defendant: $9540.00\n\n Mr. Adams\u2019 contact information has changed to the following:\n\n Darryl J. Adams\n 12600 Hill Country Blvd.\n Suite R130-235\n Austin, TX 78738\n E-mail: adamsiplawyers.com\n Phone: 512-296-3198\n\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 2\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 61 Filed 09/08/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-08T10:42:54.108940-07:00","document_number":"61","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037356179","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-08T10:42:53.773375-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T11:02:59.733373-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-08","time_filed":"12:40:54","entry_number":61,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":189,"description":"ORDER TO PAY TECHNICAL ADVISOR. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476985834/","id":476985834,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492564340/","id":492564340,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/60/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-04T10:00:26.618644-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T04:01:18.932080-07:00","sha1":"4f1af7790ce3d775329db669773c33bce57e1e9f","page_count":2,"file_size":169694,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.60.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.60.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 60 Filed 09/04/26 Page 1 of 2\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\n CHIP PACKAGING \u00a7\n TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7 CASE NO. 7:25-CV-00505-DC-DTG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., \u00a7\n \u00a7\n Defendant, \u00a7\n\n ORDER\n\n On this day the Court considered the above-styled and numbered cause. The Court\n\npreviously stayed this action pending resolution of ex parte reexaminations in all five of the\n\nasserted patents in this case. See Dkt. No. 59.\n\n In light of the stay, and for administrative purposes only, the Clerk of Court is directed to\n\nADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSE this case.1 This administrative closure is not a dismissal or final\n\nadjudication and does not affect the stayed status of this action.\n\n All provisions of the Court\u2019s prior stay order remain in full force and effect, including the\n\nrequirements that the parties file a joint notice updating the Court as to the status of\n\nthe ex parte reexaminations every ninety (90) days, within fourteen (14) days of the conclusion of\n\nany of the ex parte reexaminations, and a motion requesting a status conference within thirty (30)\n\ndays of a final disposition in the last ex parte reexamination.\n\n It is so ORDERED.\n\n\n\n1\n See Mire v. Full Spectrum Lending, Inc., 389 F.3d 163, 167 (5th Cir. 2014) (\u201cDistrict courts\nfrequently make use of this device to remove from their pending cases suits which are temporarily\nactive elsewhere (such as before an arbitration panel) or stayed (such as where a bankruptcy is\npending). The effect of an administrative closure is no different from a simple stay. . . .\u201d).\n Page 1 of 2\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 60 Filed 09/04/26 Page 2 of 2\n\n\n\n\n SIGNED this 4th day of September, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n __________________________________\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 2\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T10:00:26.912525-07:00","document_number":"60","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037346441","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T10:00:26.580406-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T10:06:48.825511-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":"11:58:52","entry_number":60,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":186,"description":"ORDER. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476950484/","id":476950484,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492528222/","id":492528222,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/59/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-04T06:19:17.220724-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T03:47:19.218765-07:00","sha1":"0872af1c343ab0b9f75d21912b128f8c0789c425","page_count":4,"file_size":199094,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.59.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.59.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 59 Filed 09/03/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, \u00a7\nLLC, \u00a7\n Plaintiff, \u00a7\n \u00a7 No. 7:25-CV-00505-DC-DTG\n v. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC., \u00a7\n Defendant. \u00a7\n\n\n ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PENDING\n EX PARTE REEXAMINATION (DKT. NO. 39)\n\n\n Before the Court is Defendant\u2019s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination. (Dkt.\n\nNo. 39). On September 3, 2026, the Court held a hearing. Dkt. No 56. Having considered the\n\nMotion, related briefings, and the parties\u2019 arguments, the Court finds that the Motion is\n\nGRANTED.\n\n I. BACKGROUND\n\n The plaintiff, Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC, alleges that the defendant,\n\nSTMicroelectronics, Inc., infringes five patents\u2014U.S. Patent Nos. 9,685,351 (the \u2019351 Patent),\n\n9,263,299 (the \u2019299 patent), 9,299,646 (the \u2019646 Patent), 8,643,189 (the \u2019189 Patent), and\n\n10,151,658 (the \u2019658 Patent). Dkt. No. 1. All five patents are currently subject to ex parte\n\nreexaminations\u2014four requested by third parties and two requested by the defendant. Dkt. No. 39\n\nat 3. While only some of the ex parte reexaminations had been instituted when the defendant\n\nfiled its opening brief, by the conclusion of the briefing, the USPTO had ordered the\n\nreexamination of all five of the asserted patents. Dkt. No. 44; Dkt. No. 51. By the time of the\n\nhearing, the USPTO had also issued Non-Final Office Actions rejecting all claims of the \u2019351\n\n\n\n Page 1 of 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 59 Filed 09/03/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\nPatent and the \u2019646 Patent. Dkt. No. 53. Reexamination of the \u2019299 Patent, the \u2019189 Patent, and\n\nthe \u2019658 Patent is still pending. Dkt. No. 53. The defendant requested a hearing on the Motion\n\nbecause the current claim construction hearing is set for September 9, 2026. Dkt. No. 46.\n\n II. ANALYSIS\n\n Whether to grant a stay is a discretionary decision for the Court. \u201cCourts have inherent\n\npower to manage their dockets and stay proceedings, including the authority to order a stay\n\npending conclusion of a PTO reexamination.\u201d (internal citations omitted) Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,\n\n849 F.2d 1422, 1426\u201327 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In deciding whether to stay a case pending USPTO\n\nproceedings, courts consider the following three factors: (1) whether a stay will simplify the\n\nissues for trial; (2) the status of the litigation, including whether discovery is complete and a trial\n\ndate is set; and (3) whether a stay would cause the non-movant undue prejudice or give the\n\nmovant a clear tactical advantage. Kirsch Rsch. & Dev., LLC v. IKO Indus., Inc., No. 6:20-CV-\n\n00317-ADA, 2021 WL 4555610, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021). Courts have found that the\n\nUSPTO\u2019s granting of ex parte reexaminations as to all claims of all asserted patents in a case\n\nmay render a stay proper. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00359-\n\nJRG, 2021 WL 465424, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021).\n\n The defendant argues that all three factors favor staying this case. They note that all the\n\nasserted claims of all the asserted patents are subject to pending ex parte reexaminations. They\n\npoint out that this case is in the early stages as a claim construction hearing has not occurred and\n\nfact discovery has not started. Finally, as the plaintiff seeks only monetary relief, the defendant\n\ncontends that the plaintiff will suffer minimal prejudice. Dkt. No. 39. The defendant also argues\n\nthat any potential prejudice is minimized because of the defendant\u2019s willingness to agree to a\n\nlimited estoppel. See Dkt. No. 39 at 6, n.7.\n\n\n\n Page 2 of 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 59 Filed 09/03/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n The plaintiff opposes a stay. Dkt. No. 40. The plaintiff argues that whether the ex parte\n\nreexaminations will simplify the case is speculative at best. It contends that the defendant\u2019s\n\nlimited conditional estoppel does not eliminate the prejudice created by the tactical advantage the\n\ndefendant will receive from the ex parte reexaminations. The plaintiff also argues that the parties\n\nhave incurred substantial costs briefing and preparing for the upcoming claim construction\n\nhearing. Finally, they contend that a stay would cause a substantial delay in the current trial date.\n\nDkt. No. 40.\n\n Having considered the factors outlined above and the unique circumstances of this case,\n\nthe Court finds that a stay is justified. As of the hearing on this motion, the USPTO has begun\n\nreexaminations of all five of the asserted patents and has issued Non-Final Office Actions\n\nrejecting all claims in two of the patents. Dkt. No. 44; Dkt. No. 51; Dkt. No. 53. As the parties\n\nacknowledged during the hearing, Non-Final Office Actions are anticipated in the other ex parte\n\nreexaminations as well. Those office actions and any responses will become part of the intrinsic\n\nrecord, which will inform the Court\u2019s constructions of any claims. Additionally, granting a stay\n\nin this particular case furthers judicial efficiency because cancellation or modification of claims\n\nduring the ex parte reexaminations will also affect the Court\u2019s claim construction duties. See\n\nM.P.E.P. \u00a7 2258 (a patent owner may cancel or submit new claims when original claims are\n\nrejected in an ex parte reexamination). While the parties have completed claim construction\n\nbriefing, the Court has not conducted a claim construction hearing or issued a claim construction\n\norder, and fact discovery has not begun. While some prejudice will accompany a delay, the Court\n\nfinds that insufficient under the facts and circumstances of this case to outweigh the benefits of a\n\nstay. Therefore, the Court finds that a stay is warranted in this case.\n\n\n\n\n Page 3 of 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 59 Filed 09/03/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n III. CONCLUSION\n\n Considering the above, the Defendant\u2019s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination\n\n(Dkt. No. 39) is GRANTED. The parties are ORDERED to file a joint notice updating the\n\nCourt as to the status of the ex parte reexaminations every ninety (90) days, within fourteen (14)\n\ndays of the conclusion of any of the ex parte reexaminations, and a motion requesting a status\n\nconference within thirty (30) days of a final disposition in the last ex parte reexamination.\n\n Further, in light of this Order, the claim construction hearing set for September 9, 2026,\n\nis HEREBY CANCELLED.\n\n SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n Page 4 of 4\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-09-04T06:19:17.661358-07:00","document_number":"59","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037343965","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion to Stay Case","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-04T06:19:17.149529-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-04T07:06:48.644442-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-04","time_filed":"08:17:56","entry_number":59,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":184,"description":"ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY PENDING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION (DKT. NO. [39]) Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476806823/","id":476806823,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/492380427/","id":492380427,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/58/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-03T08:23:31.273318-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T08:23:31.355779-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"58","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037332822","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":true,"document_type":1,"description":"Motion Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-03T08:23:31.244156-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-03T09:03:58.159963-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-03","time_filed":"10:21:55","entry_number":58,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":181,"description":"Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Derek T. Gilliland: Motion Hearing held on 9/3/2026 re [39] MOTION to Stay Case Pending Ex Parte Reexamination filed by STMicroelectronics, Inc. (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.) Case called for Motions Hearing via Zoom. Parties announced ready. Statements and arguments of counsel heard. Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (ECF 39) is GRANTED and the Markman hearing scheduled for Wednesday, September 9, 2026 at 9am is CANCELLED. Order to follow. (Court Reporter FTR.)(llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476399255/","id":476399255,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491960971/","id":491960971,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/57/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-31T11:45:21.638755-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T20:37:46.148999-07:00","sha1":"2bd63e1cb2bcf701183cab85f7678ab3a302fc18","page_count":12,"file_size":509514,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.57.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.57.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-\n DTG\n v.\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\u2019S RULE 72(A)\n OBJECTIONS TO THE AUGUST 17, 2026 ORDER REGARDING\n DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION\n\n Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (\u201cST\u201d) respectfully objects under Federal Rule of\n\nCivil Procedure 72(a) to the portion of Magistrate Judge Gilliland\u2019s August 17, 2026 Order\n\nRegarding July 16, 2026 Discovery Dispute Over Product Identification (Dkt. 50) denying ST\u2019s\n\nrequest to strike the products in Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC\u2019s (\u201cCPT\u201d) accused-product\n\nlist that are not specifically charted in Appendices A\u2013E to CPT\u2019s preliminary infringement\n\ncontentions. Each argument advanced in these objections, together with the supporting evidence,\n\nwas raised or fairly encompassed by, and is consistent with, ST\u2019s position in the parties\u2019 joint\n\ndiscovery-dispute chart and accompanying Exhibit A, which were before Magistrate Judge\n\nGilliland. Dkt. 50 at 2\u20134; Ex. A (Exhibit A to the parties\u2019 joint discovery-dispute chart, containing\n\nthe correspondence and CPT\u2019s Second Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions\n\nsubmitted with and cited in that chart, and cited herein as \u201cEx. A\u201d).\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n The challenged ruling permits CPT to continue accusing hundreds of products that it did\n\nnot chart and for which its supplemental statements supply no representativeness analysis. The\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 2 of 12\n\n\n\n\ngoverning requirement is straightforward. The Court\u2019s Standing Order Governing Patent\n\nProceedings (\u201cOGP\u201d) requires a plaintiff\u2019s preliminary infringement contentions \u201cin the form of a\n\nchart setting forth where in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are\n\nfound.\u201d OGP at Appendix A (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2022). Courts in this District allow plaintiffs to\n\npursue a representativeness theory for uncharted products only when they are \u201creasonably similar\u201d\n\nto those specifically charted. See, e.g., IGT v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00331-ADA, 2022 WL\n\n606719, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022). CPT did not meet that threshold, and the Court\u2019s order\n\ndenying ST\u2019s motion to strike was thus clearly erroneous and contrary to this District\u2019s precedent.\n\n CPT\u2019s June 16, 2026 statements declare that a single charted product is \u201crepresentative\u201d\n\nand then allege that hundreds of other products contain structures required by the claims, with no\n\nanalysis or factual basis as to how the charted products are representative. Worse, CPT\n\nsimultaneously told ST that the public materials used to assemble its list say nothing about the\n\ninternal structures supplying the asserted claims\u2019 limitations. See Ex. A at 4\u20135 (\u201cWhere ST\u2019s\n\ndocuments do address packaging, they describe only exterior features (e.g., pinouts and exterior\n\npackage outline drawings) and do not show the internal package structures at all or otherwise\n\ndescribe their construction.\u201d). On this record, CPT lacked a reasonable factual basis to infer that\n\nthe uncharted products shared the same relevant structures as the charted representative products,\n\nmuch less infringed. The Order does not explain why CPT\u2019s bare accusation of hundreds of\n\nproducts with no charts and no factual support or representativeness analysis satisfies this Court\u2019s\n\nrules. ST requests that the Court set aside the product-list ruling and strike the uncharted products\n\nwithout prejudice to CPT seeking leave to add a specific product if it can articulate a good-faith\n\nfactual basis for alleging infringement in a requisite claim chart. At a minimum, the Court should\n\nvacate and remand for a reasoned determination under the correct standard with reviewable\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 3 of 12\n\n\n\n\nfindings.\n\nII. BACKGROUND\n\n A. CPT Charted Five Products Through Product-Specific Teardowns\n\n On February 12, 2026, CPT served preliminary infringement contentions charting five\n\nexemplary products: STL220N6F7 for the \u2019299 Patent; SPC582B60E1 for the \u2019646 Patent;\n\nSTM32G071CB for the \u2019189 Patent; SR5E1E7 for the \u2019351 Patent; and LPS28DFW for the \u2019658\n\nPatent. The charts relied on physical teardowns, including annotated reverse-engineering\n\nphotographs, X-ray images, and cross-sectional views. See Dkt. 50 at 2; Ex. A at 4, 11, 13. CPT\n\nalso vaguely referred to additional products, but did not specifically identify them.\n\n B. CPT Expanded the List Without Product-Specific Analysis\n\n At ST\u2019s request for \u201ca complete list of specifically identified ST products (by product\n\nname),\u201d CPT served supplemental contentions on March 27, 2026. The list added approximately\n\n320 products but, as the dispute chart records, supplied no infringement explanation for those\n\nadditions. CPT said it built the list from ST\u2019s public product-family pages and parametric tables,\n\ndatasheets, application notes, product briefs, distributor catalogs, and alleged part-numbering\n\nconventions, attempting to include all variants within a family. See Dkt. 50 at 2; Ex. A at 1\u20132, 11.\n\nThose sources and methodology supplied names and external classifications, not a technical\n\ncomparison showing that each listed product or group shared the same claimed internal structures\n\nas the five charted representative products.\n\n C. CPT\u2019s Own Correspondence Described the Limits of Its Public Sources\n\n In its May 27, 2026 letter, CPT admitted that ST\u2019s publicly available datasheets describe\n\nonly exterior features\u2014such as pinouts and package-outline drawings\u2014and \u201cdo not show the\n\ninternal package structures at all or otherwise describe their construction.\u201d Ex. A at 4\u20135. In its June\n\n16 letter, CPT likewise stated that a package\u2019s pin count \u201csays nothing about whether it shares the\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 4 of 12\n\n\n\n\nclaimed internal construction\u201d and that ST had identified no internal difference. Id. at 11\u201312.\n\n D. CPT Removed and Corrected Entries\n\n ST\u2019s position in the dispute chart reported that its review identified more than 50 listed part\n\nnumbers that did not even exist and more than 20 listed products that were unaccused, while the\n\nproducts that did exist spanned multiple package types, pin counts, and configurations. Dkt. 50 at\n\n2\u20133. CPT\u2019s June 16 supplement removed more than 70 products and corrected package\n\ndesignations; it explained that certain entries used the suffix for a corresponding ball-grid-array\n\nvariant even though CPT meant the lead-frame product. Dkt. 50 at 3; Ex. A at 11\u201312, 18, 21, 23\u2013\n\n24. CPT also acknowledged that compiling a list from public materials alone might make it over-\n\ninclusive at the margins. Ex. A at 2. These are not abstract differences in nomenclature. They show\n\nthat extrapolating from part-number conventions and external package information did not reliably\n\nestablish whether a product existed, which package it had, or whether it contained the claimed\n\nstructures necessary to establish infringement. CPT simply failed to meet its burden of establishing\n\nwhy the uncharted products could possibly infringe the asserted patents.\n\n E. CPT\u2019s June 16 Supplement Added Labels, Not Analysis\n\n CPT\u2019s June 16 supplement added one representativeness sentence per patent allegedly\n\ncovering all uncharted products, asserting on information and belief that those products contained\n\ncertain recited structures in the claim. The contentions contained no theory of representativeness\n\nnor explained how the products are allegedly reasonably similar to the five charted products.\n\n F. The Parties Presented the Dispute to Magistrate Judge Gilliland\n\n On July 16, the parties submitted a joint discovery-dispute chart addressing whether CPT\n\ncould continue accusing products not specifically charted in Appendices A\u2013E. ST requested that\n\nthose products be stricken without prejudice to CPT seeking leave to add a specific product\n\nidentified through discovery for which CPT could articulate a good-faith basis for alleging\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 5 of 12\n\n\n\n\ninfringement. CPT opposed, relying on its position that uncharted products need only be\n\n\u201creasonably similar\u201d to the charted products. Dkt. 50 at 2\u20134. On August 17, Judge Gilliland found\n\na hearing unnecessary and denied ST\u2019s request to strike. Dkt. 50 at 1. The Order does not state the\n\nstandard, explain how CPT satisfies that standard, or make factual findings. See id.\n\nIII. STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\n Under Rule 72(a), the district judge must consider timely objections and modify or set aside\n\nany part of a magistrate judge\u2019s nondispositive order that is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 636(b)(1)(A). A factual finding is clearly erroneous when, after\n\nreviewing the record, the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake\n\nhas been committed. See Sparling v. Doyle, No. EP-13-CV-00323-DCG, 2016 WL 236266, at *2\n\n(W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016). Legal conclusions are reviewed de novo under the \u201cless stringent\n\n\u2018contrary to law\u2019\u201d standard, which is met when an order fails to apply or misapplies relevant\n\nstatutes, case law, or rules of procedure. See Daedalus Blue, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:20-\n\nCV-01152-ADA, 2022 WL 3031076, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2022); Arroyo v. Oprona, Inc., No.\n\nCV H-16-852, 2017 WL 1106318, at *1 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2017).\n\n This objection presents both forms of Rule 72(a) error. The product-list ruling rests on an\n\nerroneous legal premise\u2014that CPT could continue accusing uncharted products without first\n\nshowing reasonable similarity in claim-relevant respects\u2014and on a conclusion unsupported by the\n\nrecord that CPT made that showing. ST does not contend that the absence of a hearing, standing\n\nalone, requires relief. The problem is that the Order gives no way to determine what standard\n\ngoverned, how it was applied, or what facts supported the result.\n\nIV. ARGUMENT\n\n A. CPT Bore the Threshold Burden to Show Reasonable Similarity in Claim-\n Relevant Respects\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 6 of 12\n\n\n\n\n The governing substantive requirement is straightforward. Judge Counts\u2019s OGP requires\n\nthe plaintiff to serve preliminary infringement contentions \u201cin the form of a chart setting forth\n\nwhere in the accused product(s) each element of the asserted claim(s) are found.\u201d OGP at Appendix\n\nA. At the preliminary stage, IGT permits representative-product charting only when the additional\n\nproducts are \u201creasonably similar\u201d to the specifically charted products. IGT, 2022 WL 606719, at\n\n*2. That standard is modest, but it is a threshold burden on the patentee: CPT had to present enough\n\nfacts to permit a reasonable inference that the uncharted products shared the same structural\n\nfeatures required by its infringement theories.\n\n Zebra confirms that representativeness requires analysis rather than a label. There, the\n\ncourt ordered the plaintiff to provide either an infringement chart for specified products and \u201can\n\nanalysis explaining why\u201d its charts were representative of all accused products, or a chart for a\n\nrepresentative product from each group of similar products. Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Techs.\n\nCorp., No. 6:19-CV-00628-ADA, Dkt. 31 at 1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2020). WSOU applied the same\n\nprinciple: lists of products were not specific enough, and the plaintiff had to provide either\n\nindividual charts or detailed descriptions of how each product was represented by the single\n\ncharted product. WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., No. 6:20-CV-00952-ADA,\n\n2022 WL 174517, at *2\u20133 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022). Although WSOU denied a motion to strike\n\nwithout prejudice on timing and diligence grounds, it expressly stated that the denial did not accept\n\nthe existing contentions and required greater detail. Id. at *3.\n\n B. CPT\u2019s Supplemental Statements Are Conclusory Representativeness\n Assertions, Not Analysis\n\n Not only did CPT fail to meet its threshold burden, its admissions show that it had no basis\n\nto have made a representativeness allegation in the first place. Instead, CPT added merely\n\nconclusory accusations of representativeness. For example, the supplement does not compare the\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 7 of 12\n\n\n\n\ncharted product to any uncharted product or defined group. The supplement does not explain why\n\na product family, technology generation, package type, or part-number pattern establishes the\n\npresence of the claimed internal structure required by the asserted patents. Nor does it identify a\n\ntechnical document, teardown, or other source showing that the feature is present in any uncharted\n\nproduct. See Dkt. 50 at 2\u20133; Ex. A at 1\u20132, 4\u20135, 11\u201312, 16, 18. Zebra required \u201can analysis\n\nexplaining why\u201d the chart was representative, and WSOU required detailed descriptions for each\n\nproduct or group. CPT supplied neither.\n\n CPT\u2019s reliance on a bare \u201crepresentativeness\u201d sentence also conflicts with SVV. There, the\n\ncourt refused to create a standard in which representative products could \u201cbe used as remedy for\n\nincomplete PICs,\u201d while allowing the request to be renewed after the start of fact discovery if\n\nrepresentative products would fairly streamline the case. See SVV Tech. Innovations, Inc. v.\n\nSamsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:20-cv-00139-ADA, Dkt. 35 at 2\u20133 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020).\n\nRepresentative-product charting may streamline an adequate preliminary disclosure; it cannot\n\nreplace the disclosure\u2019s necessary factual basis.\n\n That distinction matters here. CPT did not present smaller representative buckets, identify\n\nthe common internal feature that defines each bucket, or explain why known differences in\n\npackage type and pin count did not matter to its particular claim theories. It simply extended five\n\nteardown-based charts to a much larger list. The supplement therefore left ST and the Court\n\nwithout the notice the preliminary-contention requirement is designed to provide.\n\n C. CPT\u2019s Own Record Shows It Lacked a Basis to Infer Similarity or\n Infringement\n\n More fundamentally, CPT\u2019s own correspondence negates the factual premise of any\n\npotential representativeness theory, making any amendment to add such analysis futile. CPT told\n\nST that the public packaging materials it reviewed to identify the products describe only exterior\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 8 of 12\n\n\n\n\nfeatures and \u201cdo not show the internal package structures at all or otherwise describe their\n\nconstruction.\u201d Ex. A at 4\u20135. CPT further stated that \u201c[t]hat a package has 48 pins rather than 176\n\nsays nothing about whether it shares the claimed internal construction.\u201d Id. at 11\u201312. These\n\nstatements affirmatively establish that the information CPT relied on to compile its accused\n\nproducts list reveals no basis to assert a theory of representativeness, much less infringement.\n\n Indeed, rather than defend its contentions as presenting any legitimate theory of\n\nrepresentativeness, CPT\u2019s responsive dispute chart submission merely alleges that actually\n\nexamining each product to develop a basis of infringement would have been too hard. See Dkt. 50\n\nat 2 (CPT responding that \u201cST would have CPT buy and tear down hundreds of parts to answer a\n\nquestion ST can answer from its own files,\u201d and that \u201cST demands the impossible\u201d). CPT cannot\n\nescape this Court\u2019s rules for having a basis for asserting infringement based on burden. If CPT\n\ncannot afford to conduct an infringement analysis of each product, the answer is not to accuse the\n\nproduct of infringement anyway and then engage in a fishing expedition based on guesswork. CPT\n\ncannot use the absence of internal information to justify accusing products and then use that same\n\nabsence to demand discovery to find out whether the accusations were warranted.\n\n D. The List\u2019s Nonexistent and Unaccused Entries Confirm the Unreliability of\n CPT\u2019s Extrapolation\n\n The subsequent corrections confirm that CPT\u2019s methodology was not a reliable means of\n\nidentifying accused products. The dispute chart reports that more than 50 predicted part numbers\n\ndid not exist, that more than 20 listed products were unaccused, and that the list swept together\n\nmultiple package types, pin counts, and configurations.1 Dkt. 50 at 2\u20133. CPT then removed more\n\nthan 70 entries and corrected package designations, including entries that had used a ball-grid-\n\n\n1\n \u201cDespite the plausible inference, CPT denies that it used AI to construct the list. Pressed on\nhow it could rely on \u2018representativeness\u2019 for hundreds of different products, CPT promised a\nremedy while conceding the list included non-existent and unaccused products.\u201d Dkt. 50 at 3.\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 9 of 12\n\n\n\n\narray suffix for a lead-frame product. Ex. A at 11\u201312, 18, 21, 23\u201324. Those corrections show that\n\nproduct names, numbering conventions, and external package information did not reliably identify\n\nthe products or their packages\u2014much less their internal construction.\n\n E. The Order Improperly Shifted CPT\u2019s Threshold Burden to ST and Allowed\n Discovery to Create the Missing Basis\n\n The ruling reverses the required sequence. CPT cannot simply accuse swathes of products\n\nwith no chart and no representativeness theory and thereby shift the burden to ST to show the\n\ncharted products are not representative. Instead, the ruling permits discovery to continue with\n\nrespect to hundreds of products without requiring CPT to show those products relate in any way\n\nto its infringement theories. Dkt. 50 at 2\u20133; Ex. A at 4\u20135, 11\u201312. That shifts CPT\u2019s burden to ST\n\nand turns discovery into a mechanism for fabricating, rather than proving, a preliminary\n\ninfringement theory.\n\n IGT does not support that inversion. There, the court found that IGT met the reasonably-\n\nsimilar standard\u2014but \u201conly barely\u201d\u2014because all the uncharted games were run by Zynga, were\n\nalleged to work in the same way, and the accused communication with servers remained unrebutted\n\nby Zynga\u2019s arguments or evidence. IGT, 2022 WL 606719, at *2. Only after finding that threshold\n\nshowing did the court discount Zynga\u2019s position for lack of a declaration or technical document\n\nshowing that certain games never communicated with a server. Id. IGT therefore considered the\n\ndefendant\u2019s lack of rebuttal evidence after the plaintiff had supplied a basis for similarity; it did\n\nnot hold that a defendant must disprove similarity before the plaintiff provides any analysis. Here,\n\nCPT\u2019s record supplies no comparable technical or product-specific basis and affirmatively states\n\nthat its public sources did not reveal the relevant internal structures.\n\n F. The Order\u2019s Silence Compounds and Confirms the Rule 72(a) Error\n\n Finally, the Order contains no governing standard, reasoning, application, or reviewable\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 10 of 12\n\n\n\n\nfindings for the challenged product-list ruling. It states only that a hearing is unnecessary and that\n\nST\u2019s request to strike is denied. Dkt. 50 at 1. ST does not assert a freestanding requirement that\n\nevery discovery ruling contain detailed findings, and it does not contend that the absence of a\n\nhearing alone requires relief. The narrower problem is that, in resolving whether preliminary\n\ncontentions support hundreds of uncharted accusations, the Order gives no way to tell whether\n\nJudge Gilliland applied the preliminary-contention requirement, IGT\u2019s reasonably-similar\n\nstandard, or any standard at all.\n\n That omission compounds and confirms the Rule 72(a) error. The record cannot support\n\nthe result under the correct standard: CPT\u2019s statements are conclusory, its public sources did not\n\nreveal the internal structures at issue, and its list contained nonexistent and unaccused entries that\n\nit later removed or corrected. Without a stated standard and findings applying it, the Court cannot\n\ndistinguish a permissible factual judgment from a legal misallocation of the threshold burden. The\n\nproduct-list ruling should therefore be set aside; at minimum, it should be vacated and remanded\n\nfor a reasoned determination under the correct standard, with reviewable findings addressing\n\nwhether CPT showed reasonable similarity in claim-relevant respects.\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n ST respectfully requests that the Court set aside the August 17, 2026 Order to the extent it\n\ndenies ST\u2019s request to strike products not specifically charted in Appendices A\u2013E to CPT\u2019s\n\npreliminary infringement contentions; and strike those uncharted products without prejudice to\n\nCPT seeking leave to add a specific product when CPT can articulate a good-faith factual basis for\n\nalleging infringement. At minimum, ST requests vacatur and remand to Magistrate Judge Gilliland\n\nfor a reasoned determination under the correct governing standard, with reviewable findings\n\napplying that standard to the record presented to him. ST requests such other relief as the Court\n\ndeems just and proper.\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 11 of 12\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 31, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n Texas State Bar No. 24069354\n Nolan McQueen\n Texas State Bar No. 24125322\n Spencer Nayar\n Texas State Bar No. 24149241\n BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.\n 2001 Ross Ave, Suite 900\n Dallas, Texas 75201\n Telephone: (214) 953-6500\n Facsimile: (214) 953-6503\n Email: Jeff.Becker@BakerBotts.com\n Email: Nolan.McQueen@BakerBotts.com\n Email: Spencer.Nayar@BakerBotts.com\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57 Filed 08/31/26 Page 12 of 12\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 31, 2026.\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T11:45:21.894180-07:00","document_number":"57","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037303131","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Objection","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491960996/","id":491960996,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/57/1/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-31T11:45:23.000664-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T20:37:44.871288-07:00","sha1":"e76aea397b37ad22b066b845fcf37ec23001762a","page_count":28,"file_size":1214431,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.57.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.57.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 28\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 2 of 28\n\n\n\n\nMay 14, 2026\n\n[Via Email]\n\nJeffery S. Becker\nBaker Botts L.L.P.\n2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\nDallas, Texas 75201-2980\n\nRE: Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00505-\nDC-DTG (W.D. Tex.)\n\nDear Mr. Becker:\n\nWe write in response to your letter of May 8, 2026, raising questions about a subset of the accused\nproducts identified in Chip Packaging\u2019s March 27, 2026 Supplemental Preliminary Infringement\nContentions. Your letter requests that Chip Packaging confirm it will amend the supplemental\ncontentions to remove part numbers that ST contends are not currently associated with any ST\nproduct, and, in the alternative, that Chip Packaging provide the basis for its identification of those\nparts.\n\nBefore turning to the parts themselves, we address the framing of your letter. Your speculation\nthat Chip Packaging \u201cfabricated its list of accused products using a generative AI tool,\u201d and your\ndemand that we either confirm or deny that speculation, are improper. The investigative methods\nof counsel are work product, and we decline to characterize them. The footnote citation to public\nbenchmarks of AI \u201challucination rates\u201d adds nothing. An arithmetic comparison between a number\nderived from ST\u2019s own (still unsubstantiated) list and a published benchmark does not establish\nanything about the methodology Chip Packaging actually used. We accordingly reject the\ninsinuation that Chip Packaging has conducted any aspect of this litigation in bad faith.\nNonetheless, in an effort to resolve this issue without unnecessary motion practice, Chip Packaging\nprovides the following information about the list of accused products.\n\nThe supplemental list of accused products was developed from publicly available information,\nincluding ST\u2019s own product-family pages and parametric tables on st.com, ST datasheets that\ndescribe families of variants within a single document, the application notes and product briefs ST\npublishes for each technology generation, third-party distributor and aggregator catalogs\n(DigiKey, Mouser, Octopart, Findchips, TME, Arrow, Newark), industry press, and marketing\nmaterials. Where ST documentation described a family of devices by reference to a systematic\nnaming convention, Chip Packaging made a good-faith effort to compile all variants within that\nfamily and within the temporal scope of the patent in question. This work was performed despite\nthe fact that ST refused (and continues to refuse) to identify its own products, denied (and\ncontinues to deny) in its pleadings that it even operates the website located at www.st.com (see,\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 3 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nMay 14, 2026\nPage 2\n\ne.g., Dkt. No. 30 at \u00b6\u00b6 34-38), and has yet to produce the technical documents ST itself maintains,\nwhich would have permitted direct verification.\n\nWe acknowledge that compilation of an accused-product list from public materials alone, without\nST\u2019s cooperation, may have resulted in a list that could be over-inclusive at the margins.\n\nChip Packaging has reviewed the parts listed in your letter against the public materials from which\nthe supplemental list was compiled. Based on that review, Chip Packaging is prepared to amend\nthe supplemental contentions to remove those parts from the list, subject to the reservations of\nrights below.\n\nTo permit Chip Packaging to make an additional amendment, we ask that ST confirm in writing\nthat, for each of the parts identified in your May 8 letter, the part has never been manufactured,\nsold, marketed, distributed, sampled, or otherwise made available by ST or any predecessor-in-\ninterest, parent, subsidiary, affiliate, or contract manufacturer, under any product number, custom\ndesignation, OEM/JV channel, or sales-region-specific branding. ST is in the unique position of\nbeing able to confirm or refute the existence of its own products from its own records.\n\nChip Packaging\u2019s willingness to remove parts from the supplemental list is without prejudice to\nits right to re-add any such part, or any other part, upon receipt of discovery that reveals the\nexistence of a previously undisclosed product or confirms the existence of any of the accused\nvariants. Final Infringement Contentions are not due until November 5, 2026, and Chip Packaging\nexpects further amendment as ST\u2019s still-outstanding core technical document production and sales\nrecords are received.\n\nTo the extent your May 8 letter renews the representative-product-charting arguments first raised\nin ST\u2019s April 3 letter, those arguments remain contrary to controlling authority. The Federal Circuit\nhas recognized that where \u201cpublicly available information might not have been available\u201d for some\naccused products, the patentee \u201ccould not have been more diligent,\u201d and that product-by-product\nanalysis \u201cmight place an undue strain on the judicial resources of the district court.\u201d Keranos, LLC\nv. Silicon Storage Tech., Inc., 797 F.3d 1025, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This District accordingly\napproves representative-product charting at the preliminary contention stage. See, e.g., IGT v.\nZynga Inc., No. W-21-CV-00331-ADA, 2022 WL 606719, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022)\n(holding that where uncharted products are \u201creasonably similar\u201d to those specifically charted, a\ndefendant \u201ccannot refuse to comply with discovery just because [it] believes it does not infringe\u201d).\nST\u2019s contrary citation to Intellectual Tech LLC v. Zebra Technologies Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00628-\nADA, ECF No. 31 at 1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 29, 2020) itself requires only that a plaintiff provide \u201can\nanalysis explaining why\u201d its chart is representative, which Chip Packaging\u2019s supplemental\ncontentions do by identifying each accused product family by package type, technology\ngeneration, and structural features. Chip Packaging stands on its prior responses dated March 6\nand March 27, 2026 for the substantive merits of these arguments.\n\nChip Packaging is available to meet and confer regarding these issues on May 15 between 1:00\np.m. and 2:00 p.m. or between 3:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central. Please let us know which time\nworks for ST.\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 4 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nMay 14, 2026\nPage 3\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n ______________________________________\n Robert Magee\n Blue Peak Law Group LLP\n robert@bluepeak.law\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 5 of 28\n\n\n\n\nMay 27, 2026\n\n[Via Email]\n\nJeffery S. Becker\nBaker Botts L.L.P.\n2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\nDallas, TX 75201\n\nRE: Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00505-\nDC-DTG (W.D. Tex.) \u2014 Deficiencies in ST\u2019s May 18, 2026 Technical Production\n\nDear Jeff,\n\nWe write regarding Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cST\u201d) May 18, 2026 core technical\ndocument production. As explained in detail below, the production is deficient and does not satisfy\nST\u2019s discovery obligations under the Amended Scheduling Order (Dkt. 38). We request that ST\npromptly supplement its production no later than June 3, 2026.\n\nPursuant to the original Scheduling Order, CPT timely served its Preliminary Infringement\nContentions on February 12 and further served Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions\non March 27. CPT\u2019s contentions chart each element of every asserted claim against the Accused\nProducts, supported by annotated reverse-engineering photographs, X-ray images, and cross-\nsectional views, among other materials. ST\u2019s core technical production was originally due on April 16.\nOn April 3, ST requested a one-month extension to May 18, representing that \u201cmore time is needed\nfor ST to prepare its preliminary invalidity contentions and \u2018sufficient to show\u2019 production.\u201d Dkt. 37\nat 1. CPT agreed, the parties jointly moved, and the Court granted the extension. Dkt. 38.\n\nAs you know, the Asserted Patents in this case are directed to the physical structures and construction\nof semiconductor packages, particularly features inside the package. Despite this, the vast majority of\nST\u2019s technical production appears limited to public, freely available, customer-facing literature drawn\nfrom st.com, including marketing materials, training decks, application notes, reference manuals, and\ntechnical notes.1 As an initial matter, much of what ST produced is unrelated to packaging at all\u2014it is\ngeneric ST material on firmware, peripherals, software tools, training decks, and application examples.\nSee, e.g., ST_CPT_00070161 (an installation guide for third-party software); ST_CPT_00066527\n(programming manual covering instruction set and core peripherals). Where ST\u2019s documents do\naddress packaging, they describe only exterior features (e.g., pinouts and exterior package outline\n\n\n1 See, e.g., ST_CPT_00010886 (STL220N6F7 datasheet, DS10089 Rev 6), available at\nhttps://www.st.com/resource/en/datasheet/stl220n6f7.pdf, and ST_CPT_00005079 (Application Note AN2548,\n\u201cIntroduction to DMA controller for STM32 MCUs\u201d), available at\nhttps://www.st.com/resource/en/application_note/an2548-introduction-to-dma-controller-for-stm32-mcus-\nstmicroelectronics.pdf.\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 6 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nMay 27, 2026\nPage 2\n\ndrawings) and do not show the internal package structures at all or otherwise describe their\nconstruction.\n\nST\u2019s production is deficient because it does not contain any design documents that show how the\naccused infringing features of the packages are constructed. By way of example and not limitation,\nthe production contains no lead-frame design files and mechanical drawings, die-pad layout drawings,\ninternal X-ray and SEM cross-section reference images, package CAD files, wire-bond and clip-bond\ndiagrams, assembly process specifications and travelers, bills of material specifying alloy and mold-\ncompound choices, mold-compound supplier specifications, gel composition specifications,\ndiaphragm design drawings, or lid assembly drawings.\n\nThe Federal Circuit has explained that early discovery and contention requirements are designed,\namong other things, \u201cto allow the plaintiff to pin down the defendant\u2019s theories of defense.\u201d O2 Micro\nInt\u2019l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In I-Flow Corp. v. Apex\nMed. Techs., Inc., 250 F.R.D. 508, 510 (S.D. Cal. 2008), the court held that defendant\u2019s technical\nproduction was inadequate because it provided \u201cno detail of the internal structure,\u201d \u201cno technical\nspecifications describing the components or materials used to manufacture the accused device,\u201d and\ndid not \u201cidentify the dimensions of the structural components.\u201d Id. ST\u2019s production presents the same\ndeficiencies.\n\nBy Wednesday, June 3, 2026, please produce, for each accused product in CPT\u2019s March 27\nsupplemental contentions, the core technical documents sufficient to show the internal structures and\nphysical construction of each accused package. Such documents should include, as applicable,\nlead-frame design files and mechanical drawings, die-pad layout drawings, internal X-ray and SEM\ncross-section reference images, package CAD files, wire-bond and clip-bond diagrams, assembly\nprocess specifications and travelers, bills of material specifying alloy and mold-compound choices,\nmold-compound supplier specifications, gel composition specifications, diaphragm design drawings,\nand lid assembly drawings, among others. We note that ST appears to have access to confidential\nengineering documents held by its affiliates. See, e.g., ST_CPT_00050561 and ST_CPT_00055616\n(memory architecture inventories for the SPC58 microcontroller family, each stamped \u201cST\nRestricted\u201d). The technical production should include affiliate documents under ST\u2019s possession,\ncustody, or control.\n\nFurther, to the extent that ST does not intend to supplement its production for any particular accused\nproduct because it contends that it does not have possession, custody, or control over responsive\ndocuments, please identify, for each product, the specific entity that has possession, custody, or\ncontrol of each category of responsive documents. CPT first raised the foreign affiliate document\nquestion on February 4, 2026. ST declined to engage, responding on February 11 that it \u201cdisagrees\nthat now is the appropriate time to discuss hypothetical discovery disputes regarding document\nproductions that have yet to occur.\u201d ST repeated the position in the Joint Rule 26(f) Report,\ncharacterizing CPT\u2019s concerns as \u201cspeculative\u201d and \u201chypothetical\u201d and proposing that any dispute\nover \u201cST\u2019s possession, custody, or control of any documents sought by Plaintiff\u201d be addressed\nthrough a \u201cmeet and confer in good-faith . . . before involving the Court.\u201d Dkt. 31 at 5\u20136.\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 7 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nMay 27, 2026\nPage 3\n\nAccordingly, by June 3, 2026, please supplement the technical production with the documents\nidentified above and answer the question above. Please also provide your availability to meet and\nconfer during the week of June 3.\n\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n /s/ Natalie Lieber\n ______________________________________\n Natalie Lieber\n Blue Peak Law Group LLP\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 8 of 28\n\n\n\n\nJune 16, 2026\n\n[Via Email]\n\nJeffery S. Becker\nBaker Botts L.L.P.\n2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\nDallas, TX 75201\n\nRE: Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n(W.D. Tex.)\u2014ST\u2019s Core Technical Production Deficiencies and Ongoing Refusal to State a Position\non Control of Core Technical Documents\n\nDear Jeff:\n\nThis responds to your June 4, 2026, letter. ST\u2019s core technical production was due May 18, 2026, under the\nCourt\u2019s Order Governing Proceedings in Patent Cases (the \u201cOGP\u201d) and the Amended Scheduling Order (the\n\u201cScheduling Order,\u201d Dkt. 38). As explained below, ST\u2019s production remains materially deficient because it\nincludes no internal construction documents for the package interiors\u2014the core technical documents that the\nScheduling Order requires. And to date, ST has refused to take a position on what documents it is withholding\nor why, including whether any core technical documents are held by foreign affiliates.1 To facilitate the parties\u2019\nRule 26(f) obligations (Dkt. 31 at 6), please answer the questions set forth below in Section II by June 22, 2026,\nand provide your availability for a meet and confer with lead and local counsel on June 23 or 24, 2026; otherwise,\nwe will be at an impasse.\n\nI. ST Failed to Produce the Internal Construction Documents the Scheduling Order Requires\n\nST\u2019s May 18 production comprises more than 140,000 pages of public, customer-facing material. CPT\u2019s review\nhas identified no document showing the internal construction of any accused product, including the five\nproducts CPT charted element by element: STL220N6F7, SPC582B60E1, STM32G071CB, SR5E1E7, and\nLPS28DFW (\u2019299 App\u2019x A, \u2019646 App\u2019x B, \u2019189 App\u2019x C, \u2019351 App\u2019x D, \u2019658 App\u2019x E). CPT could not identify\na single document in ST\u2019s technical production addressing lead frames at all\u2014the only documents in which the\nword \u201clead frame\u201d even appears are alleged prior-art references cited in ST\u2019s invalidity contentions. Your June\n4 letter does not contend otherwise.\n\nThat production does not satisfy the Court\u2019s Scheduling Order, which required ST to produce \u201ctechnical\ndocuments, including software where applicable, sufficient to show the operation of the accused product(s).\u201d\nDkt. 38. Your suggestion that CPT is importing \u201cCalifornia rules of discovery\u201d is misplaced. The asserted\npatents claim the internal construction of semiconductor packages, and the \u201coperation\u201d of the accused products\ncannot meaningfully be shown without it. Public, exterior-facing material does not suffice, and adequacy is\nmeasured by substance, not page count. If you contend that public, exterior-facing materials can satisfy that\nobligation in a package-construction case, identify the authority that supports the view. We are aware of none,\nand your June 4 letter cites none.\n\nThe Western District decisions you cite do not support your position. All three are software cases in which the\nkey internal technical material\u2014source code\u2014was produced, agreed to be produced, or ordered produced;\n\n1 CPT has now raised the issue five times over the past four months. See infra Section II.\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 9 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nJune 16, 2026\nPage 2\n\nnone involved patents on package construction, and none suggests that public material alone can satisfy a\nparty\u2019s production obligations. Kajeet denied relief only because the defendant represented that, after searching,\nit \u201cpossessed no additional responsive documents.\u201d Kajeet, Inc. v. Trend Micro, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00389-ADA\n(W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2021), ECF No. 34. ST has made no similar representation; to the contrary, your letter\nstates that \u201cST expects that it will produce additional technical materials on the timeline set by the Court.\u201d\nPlease clarify whether those materials include the internal construction documents identified in the table in\nSection II below\u2014i.e., documents sufficient to show the design and assembly of each accused package\u2014and,\nif so, explain the reason why they were omitted from ST\u2019s May 18 production.\n\nIf the absence of a final protective order is the basis for withholding any documents, please state whether ST\nwill agree to produce them now under \u201cOutside Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only\u201d treatment pending entry of a final order\n(i.e., the interim mechanism provided in standing orders used for patent cases in this District, which the parties\ncan adopt by agreement pending entry of a protective order here), so that production can proceed now.\n\nII. For the Parties to Meet and Confer Productively, ST Should State What It Is Withholding and\nWhy\n\nThe internal construction documents exist, they were due May 18, and they have not been produced. Your June\n4 letter recites four potential justifications\u2014the supposed adequacy of ST\u2019s production, the accused-product\nlist, CPT\u2019s contentions, and the absence of a final protective order\u2014without committing to any of them. As an\ninitial matter, none of the four would excuse nonproduction. The product-list complaints are moot: CPT agreed\nat the parties\u2019 May 15 conference to remove the unreleased part numbers ST identified, the amendments served\ntoday do so, and CPT never sought documents for those parts. As to the contentions, ST has never explained\nhow any claimed defect prevented it from producing a single document, and a merits disagreement is no basis\nto withhold discovery. TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc., No. 21-1126-GBW-SRF, 2022 WL\n20402683, at *1 (D. Del. Oct. 18, 2022).\n\nIn any event, CPT cannot confer about objections that have not been stated, and the burden is ST\u2019s, as the\nproducing party, to show that its production satisfies the OGP. See Edward D. Ioli Tr. v. Avigilon Corp., No. 2:10-\ncv-605-JRG, 2012 WL 5830711, at *3\u20134 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2012). A productive conference requires ST\u2019s\nposition on what it is withholding, on what basis, and whether the missing documents are within its control.\n\nUnder the Federal Rules, documents within ST\u2019s \u201ccontrol\u201d include those it has the legal right or practical ability\nto obtain from a related entity. See Mir v. L-3 Commc\u2019ns Integrated Sys., L.P., 319 F.R.D. 220, 229 (N.D. Tex. 2016);\nShell Global Solutions (US) Inc. v. RMS Eng\u2019g, Inc., No. 4:09-cv-3778, 2011 WL 3418396, at *2 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 3,\n2011). CPT has been asking since February 4 whether ST\u2019s affiliates hold the technical documents for the\naccused products. ST called the question premature in February and called it \u201cspeculative\u201d and \u201chypothetical\u201d\nin the Rule 26(f) Report, while committing to \u201cmeet and confer in good faith . . . before involving the Court\u201d\nover any dispute concerning \u201cST\u2019s possession, custody, or control of any documents sought by Plaintiff.\u201d Dkt.\n31 at 5\u20136. CPT asked again on May 27 and again at the parties\u2019 June 4 conference; ST declined to state a\nposition. The production deadline has passed, and the question is no longer hypothetical. If ST does not control\nthese documents, CPT must seek them from the entities that do, through mechanisms that take substantial\ntime\u2014and every week of silence compresses the schedule at CPT\u2019s expense. That prejudice is the direct result\nof ST\u2019s refusal to state a position it committed, months ago, to discuss in good faith.\n\nAccordingly, by June 22, please complete the table below for each accused package and document category. ST\n\u201ccontrols\u201d a document if it is within ST\u2019s possession, custody, or control \u2014 including any document ST has\nthe legal right or practical ability to obtain from a lead-frame or substrate supplier or assembly subcontractor.\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 10 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nJune 16, 2026\nPage 3\n\n Accused package Documents sufficient to show: In ST\u2019s control? If If ST has them but\n (patent) not, who has them? is withholding, the\n basis\n PowerFLAT/PQFN Design \u2014 the lead-frame design (e.g., the die\n (\u2019299) pad and the lead-frame portions connected\n to the die's bond pads)\n PowerFLAT/PQFN Assembly \u2014 how the package is assembled\n (\u2019299) (e.g., die mounting, lead-frame/clip attach,\n and encapsulation)\n eTQFP (\u2019646, \u2019351) Design \u2014 the lead-frame design (e.g., the\n power and ground bars between the signal\n leads and the die; the lead-frame flag and its\n mold-lock structures)\n eTQFP (\u2019646, \u2019351) Assembly \u2014 how the package is assembled\n (e.g., wire bonding of the die to the bars and\n leads; mold-compound interlock with the\n flag)\n eLQFP (\u2019646, \u2019351) Design \u2014 the lead-frame design (e.g., the\n power and ground bars between the signal\n leads and the die; the lead-frame flag and its\n mold-lock structures)\n eLQFP (\u2019646, \u2019351) Assembly \u2014 how the package is assembled\n (e.g., wire bonding of the die to the bars and\n leads; mold-compound interlock with the\n flag)\n LQFP (\u2019351, \u2019189) Design \u2014 the lead-frame design (e.g., the\n lead-frame flag and mold-lock structures; the\n larger-area power-rail pad)\n LQFP (\u2019351, \u2019189) Assembly \u2014 how the package is assembled\n (e.g., wire bonding of the die to the leads,\n power-rail pad, and external connectors;\n mold-compound interlock with the flag)\n UFQFPN (\u2019189) Design \u2014 the lead-frame design (e.g., the\n larger-area power-rail pad and die connection\n pads)\n UFQFPN (\u2019189) Assembly \u2014 how the package is assembled\n (e.g., wire bonding of the power-rail pad to\n the die pads and an external connector)\n CCLGA sensors / Design \u2014 the sensor design (e.g., the\n LPS-series (\u2019658) pressure-sensing die, the flexible gel over its\n sensing region, the diaphragm, and the lid\n with its aperture)\n\n CCLGA sensors / Assembly \u2014 how the package is assembled\n LPS-series (\u2019658) (e.g., assembly of the lid, gel, diaphragm, and\n port)\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 11 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nJune 16, 2026\nPage 4\n\nThe specific documents requested are illustrative examples only and do not limit ST\u2019s production. These\ncategories are provided to focus the meet and confer that Rule 26(f) Report contemplates; they do not limit\nST\u2019s obligation to produce other documents showing how the accused packages are built.\n\nWe look forward to your response. CPT reserves all rights, including the right to seek relief from the Court on\nthe deficiencies addressed above.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n /s/ Natalie Lieber\n Natalie Lieber\n Blue Peak Law Group LLP\n (646) 238-0951\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 12 of 28\n\n\n\n\nJune 16, 2026\n\n[Via Email]\n\nJeffery S. Becker\nBaker Botts L.L.P.\n2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\nDallas, TX 75201\n\nRE: Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n(W.D. Tex.)\u2014Service of CPT\u2019s Second Supplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions;\nResponse to ST\u2019s June 1, 2026 Letter\n\nDear Jeff:\n\nThis responds to your June 1, 2026 letter. Served with this letter are CPT\u2019s Second Supplemental Preliminary\nInfringement Contentions. As the parties discussed on May 15, the amendments expressly state CPT\u2019s\nrepresentativeness analysis, and they resolve the product-list issues your letter raises\u2014certain products are\nremoved without prejudice, certain package designations are corrected, and twelve entries are conformed to\nthe part numbers of the lead-frame-package products the March 27 list identified, as noted in the contentions\nthemselves. The claim charts are unchanged, and no new infringement theories have been added.\n\nST has known CPT\u2019s infringement theories since February 12, when CPT served its Preliminary Infringement\nContentions charting an exemplary product for each asserted patent, element by element, based on CPT\u2019s\nphysical teardowns. Those contentions accused both the exemplary products and the STM device series sharing\nthe charted package structures. At ST\u2019s request for \u201ca complete list of specifically identified ST products (by\nproduct name),\u201d CPT served such a list on March 27, identifying each accused product by part number, product\nfamily, and package type drawn from ST\u2019s own published datasheets. Because ST publishes no comprehensive\nlist of its products, CPT built the requested list using ST\u2019s own part-numbering conventions, capturing every\ndevice in the accused package families. A list built that way can sweep in part numbers ST never released; CPT\nagreed to remove any such entries ST identified, and has done so. Having demanded an exhaustive list from a\nparty limited to public information, ST cannot fairly treat the margins of that list as evidence of an inadequate\ninvestigation, much less as a discovery burden, when ST need only check the part numbers against its own\nrecords.\n\nThe amendments served today state CPT\u2019s representativeness analysis expressly, package family by package\nfamily. To the extent your letter demands more of CPT\u2019s preliminary contentions, that demand is premature.\nAt this stage, the uncharted products need only be \u201creasonably similar\u201d to the charted exemplary products. IGT\nv. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA, 2022 WL 606719, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022). Final contentions are\nnot due until November 5, 2026, after fact discovery opens.\n\nSetting aside the removed products, none of the differences ST recites bears on representativeness. The asserted\nclaims are directed to the internal construction of the package\u2014the lead frame, ground and power bars, mold\nlocks, sensor gel, and lid\u2014not to pin counts, package outlines, or the die inside. That a package has 48 pins\nrather than 176 says nothing about whether it shares the claimed internal construction, and your letter identifies\nno internal difference in any accused product, only external ones. A representativeness challenge requires\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 13 of 28\nJeffery S. Becker\nJune 16, 2026\nPage 2\n\nevidence of differences in that internal construction, such as \u201ca declaration or technical document,\u201d not attorney\nargument. This Court rejected exactly such an unsupported challenge in IGT, ordering discovery on every\naccused product. 2022 WL 606719, at *2. If ST has internal documents supporting its position, please produce\nthem now. Such documents are overdue as detailed in CPT\u2019s letter today regarding ST\u2019s technical production:\nST has yet to produce a single internal construction document for any accused product.\n\nNor do the amendments prejudice ST. The asserted claims and claim charts are unchanged, and the parties\nhave already exchanged claim terms and proposed constructions. An amendment that only narrows and clarifies\nthe case affects no deadline, particularly where every supplement CPT has served answered an ST request. This\nCourt has declined to find unfair prejudice where a plaintiff supplements its preliminary contentions in response\nto a defendant\u2019s complaints. WSOU Invs. LLC v. OnePlus Tech. (Shenzhen) Co., No. 6:20-cv-00952-ADA, 2022\nWL 174517, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2022). To the extent ST contends that a specific claim term is genuinely\nnecessitated by the amendments, CPT is prepared to confer in good faith.\n\nPlease let us know if you\u2019d like to further discuss any of these issues. CPT reserves all rights.\n\n\n Sincerely,\n\n\n /s/ Natalie Lieber\n Natalie Lieber\n Blue Peak Law Group LLP\n (646) 238-0951\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n\n\n\n\n 3139 W. Holcombe Blvd. PMB 8160, Houston, TX 77025-1533\n www.bluepeak.law | 281.972.3036 | contact@bluepeak.law\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 14 of 28\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES,\n LLC,\n Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n Plaintiff,\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n v.\n\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT\n CONTENTIONS\n\n Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Standing Order Governing Patent Proceedings, Defendant\u2019s request\n\nby letter on March 19, 2026, and the parties\u2019 May 15, 2026 meet-and-confer, Plaintiff Chip\n\nPackaging Technologies, LLC (\u201cChip Packaging\u201d or \u201cPlaintiff\u201d) hereby provides the following\n\nsecond supplemental preliminary infringement contentions to Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.\n\n(\u201cSTM\u201d or \u201cDefendant\u201d).\n\n Attached hereto as Appendices A\u2013E are claim charts identifying, to the best of Plaintiff\u2019s\n\ncurrent knowledge, where the elements of each Asserted Claim are found in Defendant\u2019s products.\n\nThe charts are identical to the charts served with the March 27, 2026 contentions. The removal of\n\nany product from the tables below is without prejudice, and Plaintiff reserves the right to amend\n\nthese Preliminary Infringement Contentions based on material identified after the contentions are\n\nserved, including STM\u2019s document production and other discovery. Each representativeness\n\nstatement below is based on Plaintiff\u2019s reverse engineering of the charted exemplary products and\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 15 of 28\n\n\n\n\non STM\u2019s published package and datasheet documentation. STM has not produced its internal\n\npackaging documents.\n\n I. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,263,299\n\n Defendant infringes Claims 1, 3, and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299 (the \u201c\u2019299 Patent\u201d).\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s investigation to date indicates that STM PowerFLAT and PQFN devices include the\n\ndevices identified below. On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to sell,\n\nand/or imports into the United States (and induces customers and consumers to make, use, sell,\n\noffer to sell, or import into the United States) further STM products \u2014 including PowerFLAT and\n\nPQFN devices \u2014 whose packages share the construction described in the representativeness\n\nstatement below, in addition to those identified in the table.\n\n Product Family Part Number Package\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL7N6F7 PowerFLAT 2x2\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL20N6F7 PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL50N6F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL90N6F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL180N6F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL220N6F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL225N6F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (60V) STL260N4F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (60V Dual) STL36DN6F7 PowerFLAT 5x6 DI\nSTripFET F7 (60V Dual) STL50DN6F7 PowerFLAT 5x6 DI\nSTripFET F7 (40V) STL64N4F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (40V) STL110N4F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (40V) STL210N4F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (40V) STL260N4LF7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (40V Dual) STL64DN4F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6 DI\nSTripFET F7 (40V Dual) STL76DN4LF7AG PowerFLAT 5x6 DI\nSTripFET F7 (80V) STL105N8F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (80V) STL120N8F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (80V) STL130N8F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (80V) STL135N8F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL3N10F7 PowerFLAT 2x2\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 16 of 28\n\n\n\n\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL4N10F7 PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL7N10F7 PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL8N10F7 PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL12N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL20N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL30N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL40N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL45N10F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL60N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL80N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL100N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (100V) STL110N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F7 (DSC) STLD110N10F7 PowerFLAT 5x6 DSC\nSTripFET F7 (DSC) STLD257N4F7AG PowerFLAT 5x6 DSC\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL100N4LF8 PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL130N4LF8 PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL140N4LF8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL160N4F8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL300N4F8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL320N4LF8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL320N4F8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL325N4F8AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL325N4LF8AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL305N4LF8AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (40V) STL059N4S8AG PowerFLAT 5x6 WF\nSTripFET F8 (80V) STL110N8F8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (100V) STL120N10F8 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F8 (100V) STL125N10F8AG PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F6 (60V) STL8DN6LF6AG PowerFLAT 5x6 DI\nSTripFET F6 (40V) STL42P4LLF6 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F6 (40V) STL42P6LLF6 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F6 (40V) STL12P6F6 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F6 (40V) STL13DP10F6 PowerFLAT 5x6\nSTripFET F6 (40V DSC) STLD125N4F6AG PowerFLAT 5x6 DSC\nSTripFET F6 (40V DSC) STLD200N4F6AG PowerFLAT 5x6 DSC\nMDmesh M6 (600V) STL17N60M6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh M6 (600V) STL22N60M6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh M6 (600V) STL33N60M6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh M6 (600V) STL36N60M6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 17 of 28\n\n\n\n\nMDmesh M6 (600V) STO68N60M6AV PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh DM6 (600V) STL22N60DM6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh DM6 (600V) STL33N60DM6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh DM6 (600V) STL45N60DM6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh DM6 (600V) STL52N60DM6 PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL2N80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL3N80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL4N80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL4LN80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL5N80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL7N80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nMDmesh K5 (800V) STL8N80K5 PowerFLAT 5x6 VHV\nSiC Schottky (650V) STPSC4H065DLF PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nSiC Schottky (650V) STPSC10065DLF PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nSiC MOSFET (650V) SCTL90N65G2V PowerFLAT 8x8 HV\nSchottky Rectifier (100V) STPS30H100DJF PowerFLAT 5x6\nSchottky Rectifier (45V) STPS1045DEE PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\nSchottky Rectifier (30V) STPS8L30DEE PowerFLAT 3.3x3.3\n\n Representativeness. The chart attached as Appendix A analyzes the STL220N6F7. On\n\ninformation and belief, each product identified above is likewise assembled with its die\u2019s bond\n\npads connected to a lead frame by reflowed solder, on a temporary carrier.\n\n A preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s)\n\neach element of the asserted claim(s) are found is attached as Appendix A. The priority date of the\n\n\u2019299 Patent is July 2, 2014. A copy of the file history has been separately provided.\n\n II. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,299,646\n\n Defendant infringes Claims 1, 5-7, and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646 (the \u201c\u2019646 Patent\u201d).\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s investigation to date indicates that STM eTQFP and QFP devices include the devices\n\nidentified below. On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or\n\nimports into the United States (and induces customers and consumers to make, use, sell, offer to\n\nsell, or import into the United States) further STM products \u2014 including eTQFP and eLQFP\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 18 of 28\n\n\n\n\ndevices \u2014 whose packages share the construction described in the representativeness statement\n\nbelow, in addition to those identified in the table.\n\n Product Family Part Number Package\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B50E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B50E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B54E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B54E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B60E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B60E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B64E1NH00X eTQFP-64\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B64E3ND00X eTQFP-100\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B60E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B60E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B70E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B70E1NHC0X eTQFP-64\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B70E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B70E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C60E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C60E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C70E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C70E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C70E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C80E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C80E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 C-Line (Dual) SPC58EC80E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 C-Line (Dual) SPC58EC80E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 C-Line (Dual) SPC58EC80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 C-Line (Dual) SPC58EC80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 G-Line SPC584G80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 G-Line SPC584G80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 G-Line (Dual) SPC58EG80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 G-Line (Dual) SPC58EG80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 G-Line (Triple) SPC58NG80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 G-Line (Triple) SPC58NG80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 H-Line (Triple) SPC58NH92E5\u2020 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 H-Line (Triple) SPC58NH92E7\u2020 eLQFP-176\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 19 of 28\n\n\n\n\nSPC58 N-Line SPC58NN84E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 N-Line SPC58NH84E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 N-Line SPC58NH84E7 eTQFP-176\nStellar SR5 E1 SR5E1E3 eTQFP-100\nStellar SR5 E1 SR5E1E5 eTQFP-100\nStellar SR5 E1 SR5E1E7 eLQFP-176\n\n \u2020 The March 27, 2026 list identified this product by its lead-frame package type (see\n\nPackage column) but inadvertently bore the part-number suffix of the corresponding ball-grid-\n\narray variant, which Plaintiff does not accuse. The part number is corrected to identify the lead-\n\nframe-package product. No new product is accused: the corrected entry identifies the same lead-\n\nframe-package construction identified since March 27, which falls within the representativeness\n\nstatement below.\n\n Representativeness. The chart attached as Appendix B analyzes the SPC582B60E1. On\n\ninformation and belief, the lead frame of each product identified above likewise includes a power\n\nbar and a ground bar in the area between the signal leads and the die.\n\n A preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s)\n\neach element of the asserted claim(s) are found is attached as Appendix B. The priority date of the\n\n\u2019646 Patent is August 23, 2015. A copy of the file history has been separately provided.\n\n III. U.S. PATENT NO. 8,643,189\n\n Defendant infringes Claims 1, 13, 14, and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189 (the \u201c\u2019189\n\nPatent\u201d). Plaintiff\u2019s investigation to date indicates that STM UFQFPN and LQFP devices include\n\nthe devices identified below. On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to\n\nsell, and/or imports into the United States (and induces customers and consumers to make, use,\n\nsell, offer to sell, or import into the United States) further STM products \u2014 including UFQFPN\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 20 of 28\n\n\n\n\nand LQFP devices \u2014 whose packages share the construction described in the representativeness\n\nstatement below, in addition to those identified in the table.\n\n Product Family Part Number / Series Package(s)\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L051C6 UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L051K8 UFQFPN-32\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L052C8 UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L053C8* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L071CB* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L071V8* LQFP-100\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L072CB* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L073CZ* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L073RZ* LQFP-64\nSTM32L0 Series STM32L073VZ* LQFP-100\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F722RC LQFP-64\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F722ZC LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F746ZG* LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F756ZG* LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F765ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F767ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F769II\u2020 LQFP-176\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L431CB* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L432KC UFQFPN-32\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L433CC* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L451CE* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L476RG LQFP-64\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L476VG* LQFP-100\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L476ZG* LQFP-144\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L486RG LQFP-64\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L496ZG LQFP-144\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L4A6ZG LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H743VI* LQFP-100\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H743ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H745ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H747II\u2020 LQFP-176\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H750VB* LQFP-100\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H753ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H755ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H7B3VI* LQFP-100\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 21 of 28\n\n\n\n\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H735ZG LQFP-144\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G030F6 UFQFPN-20\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G030K8 UFQFPN-32\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G031K8 UFQFPN-32\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G070CB LQFP-48\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G070RB LQFP-64\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G071CB UFQFPN-48\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G071RB* LQFP-64\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G081CB UFQFPN-48\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G0B1CE* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G0B1RE* LQFP-64\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G431CB* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G431KB UFQFPN-32\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G431RB* LQFP-64\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G474CB LQFP-48\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G474RE LQFP-64\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G474VE* LQFP-100\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G491RE* LQFP-64\nSTM32L5 Series STM32L552CC UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L5 Series STM32L552CE UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L5 Series STM32L552RE LQFP-64\nSTM32L5 Series STM32L552ZE LQFP-144\nSTM32L5 Series STM32L562CE UFQFPN-48\nSTM32L5 Series STM32L562RE LQFP-64\nSTM32WB Series STM32WB55CC UFQFPN-48\nSTM32WB Series STM32WB55RG UFQFPN-64\nSTM32WB Series STM32WB50CG UFQFPN-48\nSTM32WB Series STM32WB15CC* UFQFPN-48\nSTM32WL Series STM32WL55CC\u2020 UFQFPN-48\nSTM32WL Series STM32WLE5CC\u2020 UFQFPN-48\nSTM32U5 Series STM32U575CI LQFP-100\nSTM32U5 Series STM32U575ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32U5 Series STM32U585CI LQFP-100\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H503RB LQFP-64\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H563RI LQFP-64\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H563VI LQFP-100\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H563ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H573VI LQFP-100\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H573ZI LQFP-144\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 22 of 28\n\n\n\n\nSTM32C0 Series STM32C011F4 UFQFPN-20\nSTM32C0 Series STM32C011F6 UFQFPN-20\nSTM32C0 Series STM32C031C6 UFQFPN-48\nSTM32C0 Series STM32C031K6 UFQFPN-32\n\n * This part number is sold both in a lead-frame package (LQFP or UFQFPN) and in a ball-\n\ngrid-array or wafer-level package under the same root part number. Plaintiff accuses only the lead-\n\nframe variant.\n\n \u2020 The March 27, 2026 list identified this product by its lead-frame package type (see\n\nPackage column) but inadvertently bore the part-number suffix of the corresponding ball-grid-\n\narray variant, which Plaintiff does not accuse. The part number is corrected to identify the lead-\n\nframe-package product. No new product is accused: the corrected entry identifies the same lead-\n\nframe-package construction identified since March 27, which falls within the representativeness\n\nstatement below.\n\n Representativeness. The chart attached as Appendix C analyzes the STM32G071CB. On\n\ninformation and belief, each product identified above likewise has, on the die\u2019s connection-pad\n\nsurface opposite the mounting surface, a power-rail pad of larger surface area than the die\n\nconnection pads, connected by wire bonds to two or more of those pads.\n\n A preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s)\n\neach element of the asserted claim(s) are found is attached as Appendix C. The priority date of\n\nthe \u2019189 Patent is July 17, 2012. A copy of the file history has been separately provided.\n\n IV. U.S. PATENT NO. 9,685,351\n\n Defendant infringes Claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351 (the \u201c\u2019351 Patent\u201d).\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s investigation to date indicates that STM 32-bit Microcontrollers (MCU),\n\nMicroprocessors (MPU) and similar large die devices in QFP format include the devices identified\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 23 of 28\n\n\n\n\nbelow. On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports into\n\nthe United States (and induces customers and consumers to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import\n\ninto the United States) further STM products \u2014 including 32-bit microcontrollers (MCU),\n\nmicroprocessors (MPU), and similar large-die devices in QFP format \u2014 whose packages share the\n\nconstruction described in the representativeness statement below, in addition to those identified in\n\nthe table.\n\n Product Family Part Number / Series Package(s)\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L476RG LQFP-64\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L476VG* LQFP-100\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L476ZG* LQFP-144\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L486RG LQFP-64\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L496ZG LQFP-144\nSTM32L4 Series STM32L4A6ZG LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F722ZC LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F746ZG* LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F756ZG* LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F765ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F767ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F769II\u2020 LQFP-176\nSTM32F7 Series STM32F769BI\u2020 LQFP-208\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H743VI* LQFP-100\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H743ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H745ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H747II\u2020 LQFP-176\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H750VB* LQFP-100\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H753ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H755ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H757II\u2020 LQFP-176\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H735ZG LQFP-144\nSTM32H7 Series STM32H7B3VI* LQFP-100\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B60E1 eTQFP-64\nSPC58 2B-Line SPC582B60E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B70E3 eTQFP-100\nSPC58 4B-Line SPC584B70E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C80E5 eTQFP-144\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 24 of 28\n\n\n\n\nSPC58 C-Line SPC584C80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 C-Line (Dual) SPC58EC80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 C-Line (Dual) SPC58EC80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 G-Line SPC584G80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 G-Line SPC584G80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 G-Line (Dual) SPC58EG80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 G-Line (Dual) SPC58EG80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 G-Line (Triple) SPC58NG80E5 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 G-Line (Triple) SPC58NG80E7 eTQFP-176\nSPC58 H-Line SPC58NH92E5\u2020 eTQFP-144\nSPC58 H-Line SPC58NH92E7\u2020 eLQFP-176\nSPC58 N-Line SPC58NN84E7 eTQFP-176\nStellar SR5 E1 SR5E1E3 eTQFP-100\nStellar SR5 E1 SR5E1E5 eTQFP-100\nStellar SR5 E1 SR5E1E7 eLQFP-176\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G474VE* LQFP-100\nSTM32G4 Series STM32G491RE* LQFP-64\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G070RB LQFP-64\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G071RB* LQFP-64\nSTM32G0 Series STM32G0B1RE* LQFP-64\nSTM32U5 Series STM32U575CI LQFP-100\nSTM32U5 Series STM32U575ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32U5 Series STM32U585CI LQFP-100\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H563VI LQFP-100\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H563ZI LQFP-144\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H573VI LQFP-100\nSTM32H5 Series STM32H573ZI LQFP-144\n\n * This part number is sold both in a lead-frame package (LQFP or UFQFPN) and in a ball-\n\ngrid-array or wafer-level package under the same root part number. Plaintiff accuses only the lead-\n\nframe variant.\n\n \u2020 The March 27, 2026 list identified this product by its lead-frame package type (see\n\nPackage column) but inadvertently bore the part-number suffix of the corresponding ball-grid-\n\narray variant, which Plaintiff does not accuse. The part number is corrected to identify the lead-\n\nframe-package product. No new product is accused: the corrected entry identifies the same lead-\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 25 of 28\n\n\n\n\nframe-package construction identified since March 27, which falls within the representativeness\n\nstatement below.\n\n Representativeness. The chart attached as Appendix D analyzes the SR5E1E7. On\n\ninformation and belief, the lead frame of each product identified above likewise has, on its top\n\nsurface, positive mold lock structures that laterally protrude above that surface.\n\n A preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s)\n\neach element of the asserted claim(s) are found is attached as Appendix D. The priority date of\n\nthe \u2019351 Patent is July 18, 2014. A copy of the file history has been separately provided.\n\n V. U.S. PATENT NO. 10,151,658\n\n Defendant infringes Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,151,658 (the \u201c\u2019658 Patent\u201d). Plaintiff\u2019s\n\ninvestigation to date indicates that STM pressure sensor devices include the devices identified\n\nbelow. On information and belief, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers to sell, and/or imports into\n\nthe United States (and induces customers and consumers to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or import\n\ninto the United States) further STM products \u2014 including pressure sensor devices \u2014 whose\n\npackages share the construction described in the representativeness statement below, in addition\n\nto those identified in the table.\n\n Product Family Part Number Package\nLPS27 Series LPS27HHW CCLGA-10L\nLPS27 Series LPS27HHTW CCLGA-10L\nLPS28 Series LPS28DFW CCLGA-6L\nLPS33 Series LPS33HW CCLGA (ceramic)\nLPS33 Series LPS33K CCLGA (ceramic, gel)\nILPS Series ILPS28QSW CCLGA-6L\n\n Representativeness. The chart attached as Appendix E analyzes the LPS28DFW. On\n\ninformation and belief, each product identified above likewise includes a pressure-sensing die with\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 26 of 28\n\n\n\n\na flexible gel over its sensing region, a flexible diaphragm covering the gel, and a lid located\n\nbetween the gel and the exterior, with an aperture.\n\n A preliminary infringement contentions chart setting forth where in the accused product(s)\n\neach element of the asserted claim(s) are found is attached as Appendix E. The priority date of the\n\n\u2019658 Patent is November 20, 2016. A copy of the file history has been separately provided.\n\n\n\n Dated: June 16, 2026 By: /s/ Robert Magee\n Garland Stephens (Texas Bar No. 24053910)\n garland@bluepeak.law\n Robert Magee (pro hac vice)\n robert@bluepeak.law\n Justin Constant (pro hac vice)\n justin@bluepeak.law\n Richard Koehl (Texas Bar No. 24115754)\n richard@bluepeak.law\n Kate Falkenstien (pro hac vice)\n kate@bluepeak.law\n Natalie Lieber (pro hac vice)\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n Ameet Modi (pro hac vice)\n modi@bluepeak.law\n BLUE PEAK LAW GROUP LLP\n 3139 West Holcombe Blvd.\n PMB 8160\n Houston, TX 77025\n Tel: (281) 972-3036\n\n Of Counsel:\n Mark D. Siegmund (Texas Bar No. 24117055)\n msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor\n Waco, TX 76710\n Tel: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n William D. Ellerman (Texas Bar No. 24007151)\n wellerman@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n One Glenn Lakes Tower\n\n\n\n 13\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 27 of 28\n\n\n\n\n 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105\n Dallas, TX 75231\n Tel: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n Attorneys for Plaintiff Chip Packaging\n Technologies, LLC\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 57-1 Filed 08/31/26 Page 28 of 28\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on June 16, 2026, I caused the foregoing document, Plaintiff\u2019s Second\n\nSupplemental Preliminary Infringement Contentions, and associated documents, to be served on\n\ncounsel of record by e-mail.\n\n\nDated: June 16, 2026 By: /s/ Robert Magee\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T11:45:27.133878-07:00","document_number":"57","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181037303132","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit A","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-31T11:45:21.607997-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T12:02:11.992069-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-31","time_filed":"13:43:52","entry_number":57,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":178,"description":"Miscellaneous Objection to [50] Order STMicroelectronics, Inc.'s Rule 72(a) Objections to the August 17, 2026 Order regarding Discovery Dispute Over Product Identification by STMicroelectronics, Inc.. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit A)(Becker, Jeffery)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/476372029/","id":476372029,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491932772/","id":491932772,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/56/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-31T09:42:45.831829-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T20:23:40.125432-07:00","sha1":"29ecc0275b7c3e01ee289bfab71418c24c127858","page_count":1,"file_size":95248,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.56.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.56.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 56 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7\nvs. \u00a7 NO: MO:25-CV-00505-DC-DTG\n \u00a7\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC. \u00a7\n\n ORDER SETTING MOTIONS HEARING VIA ZOOM\n\n IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for\n\nMOTIONS HEARING VIA ZOOM on Thursday, September 03, 2026 at 09:00 AM (1 hour time\n\nblock) before the Honorable Derek T. Gilliland. The Court will hear argument on the following:\n\nECF 39 - Defendant's Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination. The Zoom hearing link\n\nwill be provided to counsel of record via email.\n\n\n\n SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ______________________________\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-31T09:42:46.335124-07:00","document_number":"56","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037301863","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Setting Hearing on Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-31T09:42:45.791240-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-31T10:02:12.775700-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-31","time_filed":"11:41:40","entry_number":56,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-31.001","pacer_sequence_number":175,"description":"ORDER Setting Hearing on [39] MOTION to Stay Case Pending Ex Parte Reexamination : Motion Hearing set for 9/3/2026 09:00 AM VIA ZOOM before Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475918348/","id":475918348,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491465269/","id":491465269,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/55/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-26T14:23:57.337333-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:29:41.600751-07:00","sha1":"1d5405d9a6608762eb68d76374cd40e249bc9c68","page_count":1,"file_size":289535,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.55.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.55.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document55_ Filed 08/24/26 Pagei1of1\n\nFILED\n\nAUG 27 2026\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S, DISTRICY CLERK\n\nFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\nMIDLAND/ODESSA AND PECOS DIVISIONS Bee\nDEPUTY\n\n\u00a7\n\n\u00a7\n\n\u00a7\n\nSTANDING ORDER REGARDING FILING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL\nAND REDACTED PUBLIC VERSIONS\n\nThis Order applies to all patent cases pending before the undersigned. As a public forum,\nthe Court has a policy of providing to the public full access to documents filed with the Court.\nBecause parties in patent cases routinely file confidential information, this Order grants leave for\nany party in a patent case to file materials containing confidential information under seal. Parties\nneed not file a separate motion for leave.\n\nThe filing party shall file a publicly available, redacted version of any motion or pleading\nfiled under seal within seven days. The parties need not file redacted versions of exhibits to such\ndocuments. Exhibits that are nonconfidential in their entirety should not be filed under seal at all.\nThe parties shall coordinate to make sure that the publicly available version redacts information\nthat any party deems confidential. Redactions should be targeted to redact only that information.\nThe publicly available version shall not be deemed as agreeing that the redacted information is\nconfidential.\n\nThe Court will enter a sealed order to resolve a motion if either party filed its briefing\nunder seal. The movant shall email a redacted version of the Court\u2019s sealed order for publication\nwithin seven days after the Court enters the sealed Order. The movant shall email the redacted,\npublic version to the Court\u2019s law clerk (txwdml_nojudge_chambers_md_judgecounts@txwd.uscourts.gov).\n\nIt isso ORDERED.\n\nSIGNED thisZ\u2018T\" day of August, 2026.\n\n-\n\nDAVID COUNTS\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T14:23:58.047966-07:00","document_number":"55","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037278908","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T14:23:57.299247-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T15:07:11.661443-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":"16:22:29","entry_number":55,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":173,"description":"STANDING ORDER REGARDING FILING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND REDACTED PUBLIC VERSIONS. Signed by Judge David Counts. (r013)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475266474/","id":475266474,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490793538/","id":490793538,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/54/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-20T15:23:15.876073-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T09:38:17.504783-07:00","sha1":"855dccbe30abe7a2d55feb43e29fdee658963f6e","page_count":5,"file_size":140501,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.54.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.54.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 54 Filed 08/20/26 Page 1 of 5\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n LLC,\n JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n JOINT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STATEMENT\n\n Pursuant to the Court\u2019s Scheduling Order (Dkt. 38) and the Standing Order Governing\n\nProceedings (OGP)\u2014Patent Cases, Plaintiff Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC (\u201cChip\n\nPackaging\u201d) and Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (\u201cST\u201d) submit this Joint Claim Construction\n\nStatement with respect to U.S. Patent Nos. 9,685,351 (the \u201c\u2019351 Patent\u201d); 9,299,646 (the \u201c\u2019646\n\nPatent\u201d); 9,263,299 (the \u201c\u2019299 Patent\u201d); 8,643,189 (the \u201c\u2019189 Patent\u201d); and 10,151,658 (the \u201c\u2019658\n\nPatent\u201d). The parties have no disputed claim terms for the \u2019658 Patent.\n\nI. AGREED CLAIM TERMS\n\n The parties have agreed to the following constructions:\n\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Agreed Construction\n\n \u201cthe ground bar having a \u2019646 Patent, Plain and ordinary meaning which refers to\n first portion . . . and a claims 1, 5\u20137, two portions of the same ground bar\n second portion\u201d 11\n\n \u201cdiaphragm\u201d \u2019658 Patent, \u201ca separate element that is disposed over the\n claim 1 gel and between the gel and the lid\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 54 Filed 08/20/26 Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\nII. DISPUTED CLAIM TERMS\n\n Claim Term Proposed Plaintiff Chip Defendant ST\u2019s\n By Packaging\u2019s Construction\n Construction\n\n \u201cpositive mold lock ST \u201craised mechanical \u201craised (not etched,\n structure\u201d locking features\u201d stamped, or recessed)\n mechanical locking\n \u2019351 Patent, claims 1\u20133 features\u201d\n\n \u201claterally protrude above ST Plain and ordinary Plain and ordinary\n the top surface\u201d meaning, i.e., protrude to meaning which means\n the side of and above the \u201cprotrude along and\n \u2019351 Patent, claims 1\u20133 top surface above the top surface\u201d\n\n \u201csaid area\u201d ST No construction Plain and ordinary\n necessary meaning which refers to\n \u2019646 Patent, claims 1, 5\u2013 the same area referred to\n 7, 11 earlier in the claim (the\n area between the\n [embedded portions of\n the] plurality of signal\n leads and the\n semiconductor die)\n\n \u201cdisposed between [the ST No construction Plain and ordinary\n embedded portions of] the necessary meaning which refers to\n plurality of signal leads \u201cdisposed in an area\n and the first side of the between the ends [of the\n power bar\u201d embedded portions] of\n the signal leads and the\n \u2019646 Patent, claims 1, 5\u2013 first side of the power\n 7, 11 bar\u201d\n\n \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d ST Plain and ordinary \u201ctape\u201d\n meaning\n \u2019299 Patent, claims 1, 3,\n and 4\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 54 Filed 08/20/26 Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n Claim Term Proposed Plaintiff Chip Defendant ST\u2019s\n By Packaging\u2019s Construction\n Construction\n\n\u201ceach of said active ST No construction Plain meaning; this\ndevice die having a necessary describes the packaged\nsolderable conductive active device die\nsurface on its underside\u201d\n\n\u2019299 Patent, claims 1, 3,\nand 4\n\n\u201cmounting . . . ST No construction \u201c(1) mounting . . . (2)\ndispensing . . . necessary dispensing . . . (3)\nattaching . . . and attaching . . . and (4)\nreflowing . . .\u201d reflowing\u201d (The claimed\n method requires the\n\u2019299 Patent, claims 1, 3, recited steps to be\nand 4 performed in the order\n stated)\n\n\u201cpower rail pad\u201d ST \u201cA conductive pad on \u201cA conductive pad not\n the die connection pad integrated with the die\n\u2019189 Patent, claims 1, 13, surface\u201d circuitry that supplies\n14, and 19 power to circuit nodes of\n the die.\u201d\n\n\u201copposite die connection ST No construction \u201cthe top active surface of\npad surface\u201d necessary the die (opposite to the\n mounting surface)\u201d\n\u2019189 Patent, claims 1, 13,\n14, and 19\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 54 Filed 08/20/26 Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully Submitted,\n\n\n/s/ Ameet Modi /s/ Jeffery S. Becker , by permission\nGarland Stephens (Texas Bar No. 24053910) Jeffery S. Becker\n garland@bluepeak.law jeff.becker@bakerbotts.com\nRobert Magee (pro hac vice) Tel: (214) 953-6526\n robert@bluepeak.law Fax: (214) 661-4526\nJustin Constant (pro hac vice) Nolan Edward Sullivan McQueen\n justin@bluepeak.law nolan.mcqueen@bakerbotts.com\nRichard Koehl (Texas Bar No. 24115754) Tel: (469) 236-5024\n richard@bluepeak.law Spencer Nayar\nKate Falkenstien (pro hac vice) spencer.nayar@bakerbotts.com\n kate@bluepeak.law Tel: (214) 600-3719\nNatalie Lieber (pro hac vice) BAKER BOTTS LLP\n lieber@bluepeak.law 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\nAmeet Modi (pro hac vice) Dallas, TX 75201\n modi@bluepeak.law\nBLUE PEAK LAW GROUP LLP ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n3139 West Holcombe Blvd. STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\nPMB 8160\nHouston, TX 77025\nTelephone: (281) 972-3036\n\nOf Counsel:\n\nMark D. Siegmund (Texas Bar No. 24117055)\n msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\nCHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND\nJAMES, PC\n7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor\nWaco, TX 76710\nTelephone: (254) 732-2242\nFax: (866) 627-3509\n\nWilliam D. Ellerman (Texas Bar No.\n24007151)\n wellerman@cjsjlaw.com\nCHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND\nJAMES, PC\nOne Glen Lakes Tower\n8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105\nDallas, TX 75231\n\nATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHIP\nPACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 54 Filed 08/20/26 Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on August 20, 2026, the foregoing document was filed electronically\n\nwith the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to\n\nall counsel of record.\n\n\n /s/ Ameet Modi\n Ameet Modi\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-20T15:23:16.138108-07:00","document_number":"54","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037242998","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Claim Construction Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-20T15:23:15.850359-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-20T16:05:39.223049-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":"17:22:19","entry_number":54,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":171,"description":"Joint Claim Construction Brief or Statement by CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,. (Modi, Ameet)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475043213/","id":475043213,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490562442/","id":490562442,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/53/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-19T09:54:54.164664-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T02:43:06.261306-07:00","sha1":"b3377693e82f8284f7e1dfa24104c7c4278eeb2c","page_count":3,"file_size":365110,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.53.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.53.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/490562442.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53 Filed 08/19/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT\n OF DEFENDANT STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\u2019S\n MOTION TO STAY PENDING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION\n\n Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (\u201cST\u201d) hereby notifies the Court of supplemental\n\nauthority in support of ST\u2019s motion to stay this case pending the final resolution of the\n\nreexamination proceedings of all five of the asserted patents in this case. ECF No. 39. ST hereby\n\nprovides notice that, on August 18, 2026, the Patent Office issued a non-final office action in the\n\nex parte reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646 (the \u201c\u2019646 Patent\u201d), rejecting all claims\n\n(claims 1\u201311) (the \u201cOffice Action\u201d). The Office Action follows the June 8, 2026 office action\n\nrejecting all claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351, which was discussed in ST\u2019s reply brief in\n\nsupport of its motion to stay. See ECF No. 41 at 1\u20133. A copy of the Office Action is attached as\n\nExhibit A.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53 Filed 08/19/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 19, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n Texas State Bar No. 24069354\n Nolan McQueen\n Texas State Bar No. 24125322\n Spencer Nayar\n Texas State Bar No. 24149241\n BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.\n 2001 Ross Ave, Suite 900\n Dallas, Texas 75201\n Telephone: (214) 953-6500\n Facsimile: (214) 953-6503\n Email: Jeff.Becker@BakerBotts.com\n Email: Nolan.McQueen@BakerBotts.com\n Email: Spencer.Nayar@BakerBotts.com\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53 Filed 08/19/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 19, 2026.\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-19T09:54:54.587551-07:00","document_number":"53","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037223459","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490562443/","id":490562443,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/53/1/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-19T09:54:55.951478-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T08:25:42.306089-07:00","sha1":"37aa221b59b18b68571cdaab6f4c246b8d721cf0","page_count":14,"file_size":596051,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.53.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.53.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/490562443.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page1of14\n\nEXHIBIT A\n\fCa te oe AS Document Gat Filed 08/19/26 Page 2 of 14\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress) COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\n\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\n\nwww .uspto.gov\n\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/016,057 03/18/2026 9299646 068758.0662D 2580\n201116 7590 08/18/2026 | EXAMINER\nBunsow De Mory LLP\n701 El Camino Real ANDUJAR, LEONARDO\n\nRedwood City, CA 94063\n\n| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3991\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n08/18/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page 3of14\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nDO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER\n\n(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)\n\nBAKER BOTTS, LLP\n2001 ROSS AVENUE\nSUITE 900\n\nDALLAS, TX 75201\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/016,057 .\nPATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 9299646 .\n\nART UNIT 3997.\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice in the above identified ex parfe reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a\nreply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex yavfe reexamination requester will be\nacknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\nPTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)\n\fCase 7:25-cyv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page 4 of 14\n\nControl No. Patent Under Reexamination\n90/016,057 9299646\n\nOffice Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Examiner Art Unit | AIA (First Inventor to File) Status\nLEONARDO ANDUJAR 3991 No\n\n-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --\n\na.) Responsive to the communication(s) filed on\n\u00a9) Adeclaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on .\n\nb. 1) This action is made FINAL.\nC. A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.\n\nA shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date of this letter.\n\nFailure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parfe reexamination\ncertificate in accordance with this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).\n\nIf the period for response specified above is less than thirty (30) days, a response within the statutory minimum of thirty (30) days\n\nwill be considered timely.\n\nPartl THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:\n1. \u00a9) Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892. 3.0 Interview Summary, PTO-474.\n2. () Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08. 40\n\nPart II SUMMARY OF ACTION\n\nla. Claims 1-11 are subject to reexamination.\n1b. (J) Claims are not subject to reexamination.\n2. \u00a9 Claims ____ have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.\n3. ( Claims____ are patentable and/or confirmed.\n4 Claims 1-11 are rejected.\n5. O Claims are objected to.\n6. CL) The drawings, filedon___are acceptable.\n7. (The proposed drawing correction, filedon__ has been (7a) C) approved (7b) (J disapproved.\n8. (J) Acknowledgment is made of the priority claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or (f).\n\na) LJ All b) (\u00a9) Some* cc) (JNone of the certified copies have\n1) been received.\n2) not been received.\n30) been filed in Application No.\n4 (\u00a9) been filed in reexamination Control No.\n5 () been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.\n* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.\n\n9. ( Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal\nmatters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Fx pavte Quayle, 1935 C.D.\n11, 453 0.G. 213.\n\n10. () Other:\n\ncc: Requester (if third party requester)\n\nU.S. Patent and Trademark Office\nPTOL-466 (Rev. 08-13) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination PartofPaperNo. 20260806\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page5of14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 2\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nDETAILED ACTION\n\nREEXAMINATION\n1. Reexamination has been ordered for claims 1-11 of United States Patent number\n9,299,646 to Kumar et al. entitled: \u201cLEAD FRAME WITH POWER AND GROUND BARS\u2019\n\n(hereinafter \u201cthe \u2018646 patent\u201d).\n\nReferences.\n\na) U.S. Patent Application No. US 2009/0020859 (\u201cChen\")\n\nb) U.S. Patent No. 5,589,709 (\"Dobkin\")\n2. Listed prior art (a)\u2014-(b were not of record during the prosecution history of the \u2018646\npatent and are non-cumulative to the art of record.\n3. References (a)-(b) above were published or issued more than one year before the\neffective filing date of claimed subject matter in United States application\u2019135 (filed on\nAug. 23, 2015) that became the \u2018646 patent in Mar. 29, 2016. Accordingly, each of\n\nreferences (a)-(b) qualifies as prior art under 35 USC 102(a)(1).\n\nClaim Rejections - 35 USC \u00a7 102\n4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35\nU.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any\ncorrection of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will\nnot be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale\n\nsupporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.\n\n(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,\non sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed\ninvention.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page6of14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057\n\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nPage 3\n\n5. Claims 1, 4-7, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(2) as being\n\nanticipated by Chen (US 2009/0020859 ).\n\nA semiconductor device, comprising:\n\na semiconductor die having a pharality of first contact pads\n\nami at least one second contact pad disposed on or\nexposed through a surface thereof,\n\na package casing that covers the semiconductor die:\na plurality of signal leads spaced apart from the semicon-\n\nductor die and each having an embedded portion located\nwithin the package casing and an exposed portion\nlocated outside of the package casing, each of the signal\nleads being electrically connected to a respective one of\nthe first contact pads;\n\na power bar extending at least partially in an area between\n\nthe embedded portions of the plorality of signal leads\nand the semiconductor die and having a first side appos-\nmg the signal ieads and a second side opposing the\nsemiconductor die, the power bar being electrically con-\nnected to the at least one second contact pad; and\n\na grownd bar that is electrically grewnded and extends at\n\nleast partially in said area, the ground bar having a first\nportion disposed between the embedded portions of the\nplurality of signal leads and the first side of the power\nbar, and a second portion disposed between the second\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page 7of14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 4\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n7. A method of assembling a semiconductor device, the\nmethod comprising:\n\nproviding a semiconductor die having a plurality of first\ncontact pads and at least one second contact pad dis-\nposed on or exposed through a surface therenf,\n\nproviding a plurality of signal leads spaced apart from the\nsemiconductor die;\n\nprovidine a power bar that extends al least partially in an\narea between the plurality of stinal leads and the semi-\nconductor dre and having a first side opposing the signal\nleads and a second side opposing the semiconductor die;\n\nproviding a ground bar that extends at least partially in said\narea, the ground bar having a first portion disposed\nbetween the plurality of signal leads and the first side of\nthe power bar, and a second portion disposed hetween.\nthe second side of the power bar and the serniconductar\ndie;\n\nelectrically connecting each of the signal leads to a respec-\ntive one of the first contact pads:\n\nelectrically connecting the power bar to the at least one\nsecon contact pad; and\n\nencapsulating the semiconductor die, the power bar, the\nground bar, and a portion ofeach of the signal leads ima\nnacknaine material.\n\n6. Regarding claims 1 and 7, Chen (e.g. fig. 1) teaches a method of making a device\ncomprising the step of:\ne providing a semiconductor die 100 (0017) having a plurality of first contact\npads and at least one second contact pad disposed on or exposed through a\nsurface thereof;\ne providing a plurality of signal leads 205 spaced apart from the semiconductor\ndie;\n\ne providing a power bar 207 that extends at least partially in an area between the\n\nplurality of signal leads and the semiconductor die and having a first side\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page 8of14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 5\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nopposing the signal leads and a second side opposing the semiconductor die\n(e.g. the bar 207 disposed between two bars 207);\n\ne providing a ground bar 207 that extends at least partially in said area, the\nground bar having a first portion disposed between the plurality of signal leads\n205 and the first side of the power bar (i.e. lower bar 207), and a second ground\n207 disposed between the second side of the power bar and the semiconductor\ndie (i.e. top bar 207);\n\ne electrically connecting each of the signal leads to a respective one of the first\ncontact pads (e.g. bonding wires 105; 40018):\n\ne electrically connecting the power bar to the at least one second contact pad\n(e.g. bonding wires 103; 0019); and encapsulating the semiconductor die, the\npower bar, the ground bar, and a portion of each of the signal leads in a\n\npackaging material (300/400; [{J0023).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page9of14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 6\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nFIG.\n\n7. Regarding claim 4, Chen teaches that the power bar (i.e. lower/ upper bar 207) is\ncoupled at one end to a power bar lead having an embedded portion located within the\npackage casing and an exposed portion located outside of the package casing (see fig.\n1).\n\n8. Regarding claim 5, Chen teaches a plurality of second contact pads and a\nplurality of second bond wires, each of which electrically connects the power bar to a\n\nrespective one of the second contact pads (see fig. 1).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page 10of14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 7\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n9. Regarding claim 6, Chen teaches a plurality of first bond wires, each electrically\nconnecting an embedded portion of one of the signal leads to one of the first contact\npads; and at least one second bond wire electrically connecting the power bar to the at\nleast one second contact pad.\n\n10. Regarding claim 10, Chen teaches the step of coupling the power bar (i.e.\nlower/upper bar 207) at one end to a power bar lead; and encapsulating a portion of the\npower bar lead in the packaging material (see fig. 1).\n\n11. Regarding claim 11, Chen teaches the step of electrically connecting the signal\nleads to the first contact pads is performed by wire bonding, and the step of electrically\nconnecting the power bar to that at least one second contact pad is performed by wire\n\nbonding (see fig. 1).\n\nClaim Rejections - 35 USC \u00a7 103\n12. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35\nU.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any\ncorrection of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will\nnot be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale\nsupporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.\n13. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for\n\nall obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:\n\n(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described\nas set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented\nand the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the\ntime the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject\nmatter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was\nmade.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page11o0f14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 8\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n14. Claims 2, 3, 8 and 9 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being\nunpatentable over Chen (2009/0020859) in view of Dobkin (US 5,589,709).\n\n15. Regarding claims 2 and 8, Chen does not teach the step of providing the ground\nbar includes forming a third portion of the ground bar that extends perpendicularly with\nrespect to the first and second portions and is adjacent a free end of the power bar\n\n16. | However, Dobkin (e.g. figs. 1, 2A & 2B) abstract) teaches an isolator circuit. Dobkin\ndiscloses a \"capacitor formed from portions of the lead frame structure used in\nconventional integrated circuit packaging.\" Specifically, Dobkin illustrates its lead frame\ncapacitor as an interdigitated capacitor with a first electrode (\"electrode 14\") having\n\nfingers (\"14A,\" '\"14B\") on either side of a second electrode (\"electrode 12\"):\n\nsie be ods\n\n17. |The bar 14 include a third portion that extends perpendicularly with respect to the\n\nfirst and second portions and is adjacent a free end of the 12 bar. It would have been\n\nobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the ground bar of Chang shaped as the\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page 12 o0f14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 9\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nbar 14 and to make the power bar of Chang shaped as the bar 12 to provide an\ninterdigitated capacitor inside the semiconductor package to reduce noise as it is Known\n\nin the art.\n\n18. Regarding claims 3 and 9, Chen in view of Dobkin teaches the step of coupling\nthe third portion of the ground bar to a ground lead and encapsulating a portion of the\n\nground lead in the packaging material (see fig. 1).\n\nConclusion\n\n19. The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility under 37 CFR\n1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or concurrent\nproceeding, involving Patent No. 9,299,646 throughout the course of this reexamination\nproceeding. The requester is also reminded of the ability to similarly appraise the Office\nof any such activity or proceeding throughout the course of this reexamination\nproceeding. See MPEP \u00a7\u00a7 2207, 2282 and 2286.\n\n20. After the filing of a request for reexamination by a third party requester, any\ndocument filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on\nthe other party (or parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are\nmerged) in the reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. See\n37 CFR 1.550(f).\n\n21. ~~ Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the\nexaminer should be directed to Leonardo Andujar whose telephone number is 571 -272-\n\n1912. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 6:30am-4:30 pm. If\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1 Filed 08/19/26 Page13 of 14\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057 Page 10\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nattempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's\nsupervisors, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6660\n22. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be\nobtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is\navailable to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,\nvisit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-\ncenter for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx\nfor information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the\nElectronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance\nfrom a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR\nCANADA) or 571-272-1000.\n23. | Telephone Numbers for reexamination inquiries:\n\ne Central Reexam Unit (CRU) (571) 272-7705 Reexamination\n\ne Facsimile Transmission No. (571) 273-9900\n24. All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding may be\nsubmitted via:\n\nElectronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center\nhttps://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.\n\nBy Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam\nCentral Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\nUnited States Patent & Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nBy FAX to: (571) 273-9900\nCentral Reexamination Unit\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 53-1\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,057\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nBy hand: Customer Service Window\nKnox Building\n501 Dulany Street\nAlexandria, VA 22314\n\nSigned:\n\n/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/\nPrimary Examiner\n\nCentral Reexamination Unit 3991\n\nConferees:\n\n/Patricia L Engle/\nSPRS, Art Unit 3991\n\nFiled 08/19/26\n\nPage 14 of 14\n\nPage 11\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-19T09:55:01.930455-07:00","document_number":"53","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181037223460","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. A - 646 Patent - Non-Final Office Action","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-19T09:54:54.128326-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-19T10:03:54.274725-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-19","time_filed":"11:53:39","entry_number":53,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-19.001","pacer_sequence_number":168,"description":"NOTICE of Supplemental Authority In Support of Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination by STMicroelectronics, Inc. re [39] MOTION to Stay Case Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (Attachments: (1) Exhibit Ex. A - 646 Patent - Non-Final Office Action)(Becker, Jeffery)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474952476/","id":474952476,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490469087/","id":490469087,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/52/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-18T15:26:55.233687-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T23:06:08.301528-07:00","sha1":"968b7a83498c9ba9cc8a7bea2175abf30d453786","page_count":20,"file_size":191214,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.52.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.52.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 1 of 20\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES,\nLLC, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\nDefendant.\n\n\n\n PLAINTIFF CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\u2019S\n SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 2 of 20\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nI. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1\nII. ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................1\n A. U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351 ............................................................................................1\n 1. \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d ............................................................................1\n 2. \u201claterally protrude above the top surface\u201d ..........................................................4\n B. U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646 ............................................................................................5\n 1. \u201csaid area\u201d ...........................................................................................................5\n 2. \u201cdisposed between . . . the plurality of signal leads and the first side of the\n power bar\u201d ...........................................................................................................5\n C. U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299 ............................................................................................7\n 1. \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d .............................................................................................7\n 2. \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface on its\n underside\u201d .........................................................................................................10\n 3. \u201cmounting . . . dispensing . . . attaching . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d .......................11\n D. U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189 ..........................................................................................13\n 1. \u201cpower rail pad\u201d ................................................................................................13\n 2. \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d ..............................................................14\nIII. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................15\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 3 of 20\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,\n 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)............................................................................3, 9, 14, 15\nAltiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,\n 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)....................................................................................11, 12\nAventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,\n 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)............................................................................................3\nBell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc\u2019ns Grp.,\n 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)............................................................................................2\nEnergizer Holdings, Inc. v. ITC,\n 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................................................6\nFenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P\u2019ship,\n 778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)......................................................................................8, 14\nGE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,\n 750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................8\nHologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc.,\n 639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011)............................................................................................5\nMyPAQ Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n No. 2023-2024, 2025 WL 1189920 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2025) ............................................9\nTandon Corp. v. ITC,\n 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)................................................................................7, 11, 14\nThorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,\n 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................3, 6, 9, 14\nU.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,\n 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)......................................................................................5, 12\nVerizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,\n 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..........................................................................................10\nVitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,\n 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..............................................................................................5\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 4 of 20\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cST\u201d) Reply (Dkt. 48) (\u201cReply\u201d) confirms that ST\n\ncannot carry the exacting burden the Federal Circuit imposes on a party seeking to depart from\n\nordinary meaning. ST asks the Court to accept \u201ccontext clues,\u201d a \u201cpattern\u201d of usage, and \u201cdefinition\n\nby implication.\u201d But none of those is the standard. Departing from ordinary meaning requires a\n\nclear expression of intent, which ST does not demonstrate for any of its proposed constructions.\n\n Chip Packaging respectfully submits that its proposed constructions should be adopted,\n\nand ST\u2019s rejected, for the reasons set forth below and in Chip Packaging\u2019s Responsive Brief (Dkt.\n45) (\u201cResp. Br.\u201d).\n\n\nII. ARGUMENT\n\n\n A. U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351\n\n\n 1. \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d\n\n Chip Packaging\u2019s construction\u2014\u201craised mechanical locking features\u201d\u2014is correct because\n\nit is the phrase the specification itself uses, repeatedly and without qualification, to describe the\n\nclaimed structures. U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351 (\u201c\u2019351 Pat.) at 2:29\u201335, 4:26\u201329, 4:30\u201331, 5:61\u201363,\n\n6:59\u201361, 7:25\u201329, 7:29\u201333. Chip Packaging\u2019s construction is also correct because it is consistent\n\nwith the meaning the applicant gave the Examiner: \u201c[b]y the very nature of the term,\u201d the claims\n\nrequire \u201cforming a structure on the lead frame top surface which positively protrudes above the\n\nlead frame top surface and which locks with mold.\u201d Dkt. 42, Ex. E at 121\u201322.\n\n ST\u2019s Reply Brief simply ignores the passages cited above. Instead, ST\u2019s argument hinges\n\non three other isolated statements in the specification. See Reply at 2 (citing 3:37\u201347, 5:61\u20136:4,\n\nand 6:25\u201332). But even those few passages do not support ST\u2019s position. The specification at 5:61\u2013\n\n64 says nothing about etching, stamping, or recessing. At 3:37\u201347, the specification describes only\n\nthe Figure 2 embodiment\u2014not any sort of broad-based, clear disavowal of claim scope. And at\n\n6:25\u201332, the specification explains how \u201cselected embodiments\u201d may be fabricated (see \u2019351\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 5 of 20\n\n\n\n\nPat.\u201d) at 6:7\u20138), including that some may be \u201chalf-etched\u201d (a different phrase than ST\u2019s\n\nconstruction), but without any reference to the other negative limitations that ST seeks to import\n\n(i.e., \u201cstamped\u201d and \u201crecessed\u201d). See \u2019351 Pat. at 6:22\u201325.\n\n ST now asserts that \u201c[h]alf-etched\u201d is \u201ca specific subtype of \u2018etched,\u2019\u201d and that the \u201cnot\n\nhalf-etched\u201d parenthetical \u201cis a further exclusion over and above \u2018not etched, stamped, or\n\nrecessed.\u2019\u201d Reply at 3. But what ST\u2019s shifting explanation shows is that there is no single clear,\n\nconsistent definition or exclusion of the negative limitations ST attempts to attach to this claim\n\nterm. The different parentheticals do different work in different passages, describing different\nembodiments\u2014which is exactly why they are not definitional. Definition by implication requires\n\nthat the patentee use a term \u201cin a manner consistent with only a single meaning.\u201d Bell Atl. Network\n\nServs., Inc. v. Covad Commc\u2019ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001). And the\n\nspecification\u2019s many unqualified references to \u201craised\u201d structures\u2014which ST\u2019s Reply does not\n\naddress\u2014defeat consistency outright.\n\n ST\u2019s explanation of the prosecution history (Reply at 3) likewise supports Chip\n\nPackaging\u2019s construction. ST says the applicant \u201chad no reason to re-raise the not etched, stamped,\n\nor recessed distinction at that time.\u201d Reply at 3. Precisely so: when the applicant told the Examiner\n\nwhat \u201c[b]y the very nature of the term\u201d the claims require, it described a structure that \u201cpositively\n\nprotrudes\u201d and \u201clocks with mold\u201d\u2014and said nothing about subtractive processes. Dkt. 42, Ex. E\n\nat 121\u201322. A limitation the applicant saw no reason to mention when explaining the term for the\n\nExaminer is not one the applicant clearly and unmistakably surrendered.\n\n ST\u2019s Reply also repeatedly insists that the term \u201cpositive mold lock structures\u201d is \u201ccoined.\u201d\n\nWhether or not the term is \u201ccoined\u201d is ultimately irrelevant\u2014the construction of the term should\n\nreflect the meaning of the term to a person of skill in the art in view of the intrinsic evidence. Here,\n\nas explained in Chip Packaging\u2019s Responsive Brief (Dkt. 45), the specification repeatedly\n\ndescribes the \u201cpositive mold lock structures\u201d as \u201craised\u201d structures without further qualification.\n\n\u2019351 Pat. at 2:29\u201335, 4:26\u201329, 4:30\u201331, 5:61\u201363, 6:59\u201361, 7:25\u201329, 7:29\u201333.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 6 of 20\n\n\n\n\n ST\u2019s reliance on Thorner and Aventis (Reply at 2\u20133) is misplaced. The Thorner language\n\nST quotes asks whether \u201cthe specification makes clear that the invention does not include a\n\nparticular feature.\u201d Reply at 2 (citing Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2012)). The \u2019351 Patent says no such thing. It says that two specific, numbered\n\nstructures\u2014wire wedge bond loops 114 and stud bumps 214\u2013215\u2014are, \u201c[a]s formed,\u201d \u201craised (not\n\netched, stamped, or recessed) mechanical locking features.\u201d \u2019351 Pat. at 3:35\u201339, 5:43\u201347. A\n\nsentence beginning \u201c[a]s formed\u201d and identifying an element by reference numeral narrates how a\n\ndepicted example is manufactured. It is not a statement that the invention excludes anything. That\nthe same parenthetical appears in the description of both structures, Reply at 2\u20133, shows only that\n\nthe patent describes two embodiments the same way; Thorner holds expressly that \u201c[i]t is not\n\nenough for a patentee to simply . . . use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the patentee\n\nmust \u2018clearly express an intent\u2019 to redefine the term.\u201d Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (quoting\n\nHelmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). And\n\nAventis\u2019s instruction that a clear expression \u201cneed not be in haec verba\u201d does not lower the bar;\n\nAventis still demands \u201cclear limiting descriptions of the invention.\u201d Aventis Pharma S.A. v.\n\nHospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Statements that are \u201camenable to multiple\n\nreasonable interpretations . . . cannot be deemed clear and unmistakable.\u201d 3M Innovative Props.\n\nCo. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013).\n\n ST next contends that \u201cpositive\u201d must exclude subtractive features or it \u201cadds nothing\n\nbeyond the already recited requirement \u2018laterally protrude above the top surface.\u2019\u201d Reply at 4\n\n(emphasis omitted). But \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d and \u201claterally protrude above the top\n\nsurface\u201d are different limitations: the former identifies the structure (a raised mechanical locking\n\nfeature); the latter describes how that structure extends relative to the lead frame\u2019s top surface. In\n\nany event, ST\u2019s own construction retains \u201craised mechanical locking features\u201d in full\u2014so\n\nwhatever redundancy ST perceives exists equally under ST\u2019s proposal.\n\n Finally, ST\u2019s dam bar 108 argument remains an infringement argument. ST\u2019s stated point\n\nis that Chip Packaging\u2019s construction \u201ccovers such previously well-known structures.\u201d Reply at 4.\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 7 of 20\n\n\n\n\nWhether dam bar 108\u2014or any accused structure\u2014satisfies claim 1 depends on all of the claim\u2019s\n\nrequirements, including that the structure be formed on the lead frame top surface and laterally\n\nprotrude above it. That is a question for the factfinder, not a reason to write a negative limitation\n\ninto the claim. The Court should adopt Chip Packaging\u2019s proposed construction: \u201craised\n\nmechanical locking features.\u201d\n\n\n 2. \u201claterally protrude above the top surface\u201d\n\n Both parties agree this term takes its plain and ordinary meaning, and ST\u2019s own dictionary\n\ndefines \u201clateral\u201d as \u201cof or relating to the side.\u201d Dkt. 42, Ex. K. That is the basis of Chip Packaging\u2019s\nconstruction. \u201cAlong\u201d appears nowhere in ST\u2019s dictionary, and nowhere in the specification\u2019s own\n\nuses of \u201cprotruding laterally\u201d and \u201claterally protruding.\u201d \u2019351 Pat. at 2:33, 2:38, 6:59\u201361, Fig. 10.\n\n ST\u2019s Reply attempts to recast the dispute as \u201cdirection\u201d versus \u201clocation,\u201d arguing that\n\nChip Packaging improperly \u201cuses the top surface as a reference for location.\u201d Reply at 5. The\n\ncharacterization does not survive ST\u2019s own construction. ST proposes that the structure protrude\n\n\u201calong . . . the top surface\u201d\u2014language that is itself expressly referenced to the top surface, and\n\nthat describes position relative to that surface. And more fundamentally, the claim itself recites\n\nthat the positive mold lock structures protrude \u201cabove the top surface.\u201d There is no reason to\n\nrewrite clear claim language.\n\n ST\u2019s remaining objection rests on a misreading. ST asserts that Chip Packaging\u2019s\n\nconstruction would \u201cplace the protrusion spatially offset to the side of [the top surface]\u2014a location\n\nbeyond the edge of the lead frame,\u201d excluding the wire loop and stud bump embodiments. Reply\n\nat 5 (emphasis omitted). It would not. Chip Packaging\u2019s construction is \u201cto the side of and above\n\nthe top surface.\u201d The word \u201cabove\u201d holds the structure over the surface; \u201cto the side of\u201d describes\n\nthe direction in which the structure protrudes from its base. As Chip Packaging has explained,\n\n\u201c[a]ny structure that protrudes to the side of and above the surface necessarily also extends along\n\nthe surface to some degree. The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive.\u201d Resp. Br. at 8\u20139.\n\nST\u2019s mold-flow argument confirms the point rather than defeating it: for mold compound to \u201cflow\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 8 of 20\n\n\n\n\nunder\u201d a feature, the feature must overhang\u2014that is, extend to the side\u2014while remaining above\n\nthe surface. \u2019351 Pat. at 4:26\u201329, 5:59\u201361. A feature that ran only parallel to the surface, with no\n\nlateral overhang, would leave nothing for the compound to flow beneath. Because Chip\n\nPackaging\u2019s construction reads on every disclosed embodiment, Vitronics is not implicated. See\n\nVitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Nor is Hologic: ST\u2019s\n\nReply states that the parties \u201cappear to agree that \u2018above the top surface\u2019 describes the location of\n\na protrusion relative to the top surface of the lead frame.\u201d Reply at 4. The claim thus supplies its\n\nown frame of reference, and no specification-derived gloss is needed. Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx,\nInc., 639 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011).\n\n\n B. U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646\n\n\n 1. \u201csaid area\u201d\n\n No construction is necessary because there is no dispute. The parties agree that \u201csaid area\u201d\n\ntakes its antecedent from the claims\u2019 earlier recitation of \u201can area,\u201d and they agree what that\n\nantecedent is. Courts need not construe language that is already clear. U.S. Surgical Corp. v.\n\nEthicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997).\n\n ST\u2019s Reply adds only an unpublished district court order from another district. Reply at 6\n\nn.3. That courts may sometimes make an antecedent explicit does not show it is warranted here,\n\nand ST still identifies nothing about \u201csaid area\u201d that a juror could misunderstand. The concrete\n\nrisk runs the other way. ST\u2019s proposed construction does not merely restate the antecedent; it\n\nimports the \u201cbetween the . . . plurality of signal leads\u201d phrase that the parties separately dispute.\n\nReading that disputed phrase to the jury twice\u2014once as an element and once as the construction\n\nof a different element\u2014invites the jury to believe there are two separate proof requirements where\n\nthe claim recites one.\n\n 2. \u201cdisposed between . . . the plurality of signal leads and the first side of\n the power bar\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 9 of 20\n\n\n\n\n The plain meaning governs. To be \u201cbetween\u201d two things is to exist, at least in part, in the\n\nspace or interval separating them\u2014the definition Chip Packaging advanced, Resp. Br. at 10\u201311,\n\nand the definition ST\u2019s own dictionaries supply, Dkt. 42, Ex. L. Neither dictionary contains the\n\nwords ST seeks to add: \u201cthe ends of.\u201d\n\n ST says Chip Packaging \u201cnever advances an alternative plain meaning showing ST\u2019s\n\nproposal to be incorrect.\u201d Reply at 6. Chip Packaging advances the plain meaning, and it shows\n\nexactly that: ST\u2019s construction replaces the claim\u2019s \u201cthe plurality of signal leads\u201d with \u201cthe ends\u201d\n\nof those leads. Nothing in the claim says \u201cends,\u201d and the specification passage that actually\ndescribes the ground bar tracks the claim without them: \u201ceach ground bar 132 includes a first\n\nportion 132a disposed between the adjacent embedded portions 122b of the signal leads 122 and\n\nthe first side 124a of the adjacent power bar 124.\u201d U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646 (\u201c\u2019646 Pat.\u201d) at 3:46\u2013\n\n49. A construction that adds words\u2014words that the claim and the corresponding specification\n\npassage both omit\u2014is incorrect for that reason alone.\n\n ST\u2019s remaining arguments do not fill that gap. That Figure 2 depicts one arrangement of\n\nground bar portion 132a does not narrow the claim; a single embodiment does not redefine a claim\n\nterm. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365\u201366. To be clear, Chip Packaging does not contend that \u201cbetween\u201d\n\nmeans \u201camongst.\u201d The ground bar\u2019s first portion must lie, at least in part, in the space or interval\n\nseparating the signal leads and the first side of the power bar. Whether an accused structure does\n\nso is a question of fact for the jury under the plain meaning, not a reason to add \u201cthe ends of\u201d to\n\nthe claim.\n\n ST\u2019s indefiniteness argument fares no better in its \u201calternative\u201d framing. Reply at 7. ST\n\nsays its concern is the inability to distinguish \u201ca power bar from a power lead and a ground bar\n\nfrom a ground lead.\u201d Id. But that difficulty, if it existed, would exist equally under ST\u2019s\n\nconstruction: adding \u201cthe ends\u201d of tells a skilled artisan nothing about how to tell a bar from a lead.\n\nIn any event, a term amenable to construction\u2014indeed, one that both parties contend has a plain\n\nmeaning\u2014is not indefinite. Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. ITC, 435 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006).\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 10 of 20\n\n\n\n\nIndefiniteness is an invalidity defense carrying a clear-and-convincing burden\u2014not a canon for\n\nnarrowing claims at Markman.\n\n\n C. U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299\n\n\n 1. \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d\n\n \u201cTemporary carrier\u201d should be given its plain and ordinary meaning\u2014a structure that\n\ncarries something temporarily. Contrary to ST\u2019s argument, \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d is not used\n\ninterchangeably with \u201ctape\u201d in U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299 (\u201c\u2019299 Pat.\u201d). The specification\nrepeatedly uses \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d with no reference to tape at all. \u2019299 Pat. at 1:59\u201361, 1:65\u2013\n\n2:4, 2:22\u201327. Dependent claim 5 describes the \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d in one of two ways: \u201ca carrier\n\ntape stretched in a carrier ring apparatus,\u201d and \u201ca carrier tape attached to a support plate.\u201d If the\n\nindependent claim\u2019s \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d already meant \u201ctape,\u201d claim 5 could have simply recited\n\n\u201csaid temporary carrier stretched in a carrier ring apparatus\u201d or \u201csaid temporary carrier [being]\n\nattached to a support plate.\u201d The fact that the dependent claim uses different language confirms\n\nthat the words have different meanings. See Tandon Corp. v. ITC, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir.\n\n1987).\n\n ST\u2019s answers to claim differentiation both fail. First, ST argues that claim 5 \u201crecites two\n\nspecific kinds of \u2018tape,\u2019\u201d and that therefore the claim raises no differentiation issue. Reply at 8.\n\nBut that argument misdescribes claim 5, which does not recite two kinds of tape, but rather two\n\ntemporary carrier assemblies that happen to use tape: the first type of \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d being \u201ca\n\ncarrier tape stretched in a carrier ring apparatus,\u201d and the second type of \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d being\n\n\u201ca carrier tape attached to a support plate.\u201d The claim language confirms that a \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d\n\nis not simply \u201ctape,\u201d but an apparatus that may or may not involve tape.\n\n ST\u2019s treatment of Figure 6 confirms the problem. ST maintains that \u201cplate-backed carrier\n\ntape 620\u201d is \u201cjust a specific kind of \u2018tape.\u2019\u201d Reply at 8. But again, the specification language\n\nconfirms that the temporary carrier is an apparatus, one that in the Figure 6 embodiment utilizes a\n\nsupport plate and tape. Indeed, ST\u2019s own opening brief (Dkt. 42) (\u201cDef. Br.\u201d) described that\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 11 of 20\n\n\n\n\nstructure as the \u201csupport plate-backed carrier tape 620\u201d\u2014an assembly of tape and a support plate.\n\nDef. Br. at 20; see also \u2019299 Pat. at 6:53\u201361. Under ST\u2019s construction, the claim term \u201ctemporary\n\ncarrier\u201d would reach only the tape, and the structure the patent (and ST) describes as a single\n\n\u201ctemporary carrier\u201d would be split in two. A construction that misdescribes the disclosed\n\nembodiments is incorrect.\n\n ST relies on Fenner to argue that the doctrine of claim differentiation should be set aside\n\nhere. Reply at 8 (citing Fenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P\u2019ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).\n\nBut Fenner holds only that claim differentiation cannot override \u201cclear statements of scope in the\nspecification and the prosecution history.\u201d Fenner, 778 F.3d at 1327 (quoting Toro Co. v. White\n\nConsol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). It presupposes the very showing ST\n\nhas failed to make. Absent lexicography or disavowal, there is nothing for claim differentiation to\n\noverride. And as explained in Chip Packaging\u2019s Responsive Brief, there is no lexicography or\n\ndisavowal here\u2014the specification discloses tape as an example of or a part of a temporary carrier,\n\nnot as a clear, unmistakable, exclusive definition of that term. See Resp. Br. at 13\u201314.\n\n ST\u2019s parenthetical arguments\u2014asking the Court to find lexicography based on \u201ccontext\n\nclues\u201d about the patentee\u2019s use of parentheses throughout the specification (Reply at 8\u20139)\u2014should\n\nlikewise be rejected. ST observes that the specification writes Chromium as (Cr) and Titanium as\n\n(Ti) at 3:38\u201341. Reply at 8. Those parentheticals supply the standard chemical symbol for an\n\nelement\u2014a notational convention, not the redefinition of a claim term to a single species. If\n\nanything, the example confirms Chip Packaging\u2019s point: this patentee uses parentheticals for\n\nseveral different purposes, including examples, \u201c(NiAu, Cu, NiAg, etc.)\u201d (\u2019299 Pat. at 3:33\u201334),\n\nand definitions marked by \u201ci.e.,\u201d (id. at 3:17\u201319). ST\u2019s \u201c(e.g., a matrix)\u201d argument (Reply at 9)\n\nlikewise fails: the paragraph at issue introduces \u201canother example process,\u201d and a description\n\nwhose express framing is exemplary is a poor candidate for binding definition. See \u2019299 Pat. at\n\n3:45\u201352. Chip Packaging has never contended that the absence of \u201ci.e.\u201d is dispositive\u2014only that\n\nits absence, in a sentence describing an example, falls far short of the \u201cexacting\u201d standard for\n\nlexicography. GE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014).\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 12 of 20\n\n\n\n\nST\u2019s newly cited MyPAQ decision is nonprecedential and, by its own terms, holds only that\n\nparenthetical formulations \u201cmay be indicative\u201d of lexicography\u2014permissive language fully\n\nconsistent with Thorner\u2019s requirement of a clear expression of intent to redefine. MyPAQ Holdings\n\nLtd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2023-2024, 2025 WL 1189920, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2025).\n\n The prosecution history does not help ST either. ST emphasizes that the originally filed\n\nclaim used both \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d and \u201ccarrier tape.\u201d Reply at 8. The applicant corrected it in\n\nthe direction that defeats ST\u2019s reading: it amended the claims to recite \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d\n\nthroughout, replacing rather than adopting the narrower \u201ccarrier tape.\u201d Dkt. 42, Ex. F at 85. Had\nthe applicant understood the two as synonyms, no correction would have been needed; and had the\n\napplicant meant \u201ctape,\u201d it would have amended the other way. That the Examiner later \u201cechoed\n\nthe parenthetical\u201d (Reply at 9) adds nothing, because an examiner\u2019s characterization is not\n\napplicant lexicography or disavowal of claim scope. See 3M, 725 F.3d at 1332.\n\n As such, ST has not met the exacting standard to establish lexicography of this term. Nor\n\nhas it established what it calls a \u201cbroader pattern of consistent interchangeable usage\u201d or\n\n\u201cdefinition by implication.\u201d Reply at 9. There is no clear expression of the patentee\u2019s intent to\n\ndefine \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d as \u201ctape.\u201d The specification\u2019s use of \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d standing alone\n\nat 1:59\u201361, 1:65\u20132:4, and 2:22\u201327 defeats consistency, and ST\u2019s Reply does not address those\n\npassages. ST\u2019s rejoinder\u2014that Chip Packaging identifies no non-tape embodiment\u2014asks the\n\nwrong question. Thorner forecloses it directly: \u201c[i]t is likewise not enough that the only\n\nembodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation.\u201d Thorner, 669 F.3d at\n\n1366.\n\n Finally, ST\u2019s Reply confirms that ST\u2019s own construction is wrong. ST argues that the\n\ntemporary carrier \u201cmust, at a minimum, have a releasable adhesive quality,\u201d citing an article about\n\na commercial tape product. Reply at 10 (citing Ex. I). That is a functional requirement, and it is\n\nnot \u201ctape.\u201d ST thus asks the Court to adopt a one-word construction that ST simultaneously\n\ndescribes as incomplete, propped up by an article that contradicts the claims and specification. The\n\nplain and ordinary meaning should govern.\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 13 of 20\n\n\n\n\n 2. \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface\n on its underside\u201d\n The disputed language is part of a method claim \u201cfor packaging an integrated circuit (IC)\n\ndevice.\u201d \u2019299 Pat. at cl. 1. It sits inside the first step of the claimed method, and it describes the\n\nactive device die as they are mounted: \u201cmounting a plurality of active device die, into\n\npredetermined positions, onto a temporary carrier, each said active device die having bond pads,\n\neach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface on its underside.\u201d \u2019299 Pat.\n\nat cl. 1. Grammatically, the \u201chaving\u201d clauses describe an input characteristic at the front end of the\n\nclaimed process. Claims 1 and 3 end at the reflow step; it is dependent claim 4 that adds\nencapsulating, removing the temporary carrier, and singulating the device die into individual\n\ndevices. ST\u2019s construction imports a finished-package requirement into a claim 1 limitation that\n\ndescribes the starting material.\n\n ST\u2019s Reply tries to reframe the dispute as whether the claim \u201ccan be satisfied by a method\n\nthat destroys that characteristic during packaging.\u201d Reply at 10. That reframing concedes the\n\ngrammar\u2014ST agrees the die must have a solderable underside when mounted\u2014and then asks the\n\nCourt to add a negative limitation that appears nowhere in the claim: that the process must not\n\nconsume or cover the surface. Claim construction does not supply prohibitions the patentee did\n\nnot write.\n\n ST also repeats the main argument made in its opening brief\u2014that the Court should\n\nnevertheless construe the claim 1 language as \u201cdescrib[ing] the packaged active device die\u201d\n\nbecause that is allegedly consistent with the specification\u2019s descriptions of the invention as a\n\nwhole. Reply at 10\u201312; Def. Br. at 20\u201321. ST relies heavily on Verizon v. Vonage, but the Federal\n\nCircuit there limited \u201clocalized wireless gateway system\u201d because the specification\u2019s description\n\nof the \u201cpresent invention\u201d spoke directly to that claim term, stating what the gateway does. Verizon\n\nServs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The passages ST\ninvokes here are different in kind. The Title, and the statements at 1:5\u201310 and 1:46\u201350, describe\n\nthe goal of the disclosure more broadly\u2014reducing RDson by exposing the die backside. None of\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 14 of 20\n\n\n\n\nthem purports to describe or limit the claim term \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable\n\nconductive surface on its underside,\u201d which is the term actually at issue. A statement of the\n\ndisclosure\u2019s purpose is not a redefinition of a die\u2019s input characteristic.\n\n As explained in Chip Packaging\u2019s Responsive Brief, the passage at 3:34\u201338 is a materials-\n\nselection criterion, and its opening words are permissive: \u201c[a]ny solderable finish can be used, as\n\nlong as the solderability is not deteriorated by the processing conditions and allows storage for a\n\nsufficient period between package assembly and customer use.\u201d That sentence tells the skilled\n\nartisan which finishes are acceptable inputs\u2014those that survive assembly and remain solderable\nthrough storage. It says nothing about whether the underside must be externally exposed in a\n\nfinished package rather than consumed in an internal solder joint. Permissive, optional language\n\nof this kind is the opposite of a clear limiting description of the invention. ST\u2019s remaining citations\n\n(2:10\u201325, 5:28\u201334, 5:61\u201367) each describe what the illustrated exposed-die process accomplishes;\n\nnone defines the disputed \u201chaving\u201d clause.\n\n ST\u2019s reliance on claim 4 is self-defeating. ST argues that claim 4\u2019s \u201cremoving the\n\ntemporary carrier\u201d step \u201cconfirm[s] the temporary carrier is removed to expose the die\u2019s solderable\n\nunderside in the finished package.\u201d Reply at 12. Claim 4 is a dependent claim, and a limitation\n\nappearing there is presumed absent from the claim it depends on. Tandon, 831 F.2d at 1023. That\n\nclaim 4 is asserted does not change the analysis; it makes the point sharper. If claim 4 must add\n\nthe encapsulation, removal, and singulation steps to reach a finished package, then claims 1 and\n\n3\u2014which recite none of them\u2014do not require one. ST\u2019s construction would import claim 4\u2019s\n\nresult into the mounting step of every claim. The Court should reject it and decline construction.\n\n\n 3. \u201cmounting . . . dispensing . . . attaching . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d\n\n Under Altiris, a strict sequential order applies only if the claim language requires it as a\n\nmatter of logic or grammar, or the specification or prosecution history make clear that order is\n\nrequired. Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369\u201370 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Chip Packaging\n\nhas always acknowledged the dependencies the claim itself supplies: the die must occupy their\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 15 of 20\n\n\n\n\npredetermined positions before the lead frame is attached, and solder paste must be present on the\n\nbond pads before the lead frame is attached. What the claim does not require is that each step run\n\nto completion before the next begins.\n\n ST\u2019s fallback proposal does not bridge the gap. ST asks the Court \u201cat a minimum\u201d to\n\nconstrue the term to require that \u201cthe mounting and dispensing steps must occur before the\n\nattaching and reflowing steps.\u201d Reply at 12. ST\u2019s willingness to accept less confirms that its\n\nprimary construction is not compelled by the claim. But the fallback is not what Chip Packaging\n\nconcedes, and ST should not be permitted to characterize it that way. Chip Packaging concedes\nthat the die must be mounted and the paste dispensed before the lead frame is attached. ST\u2019s\n\nfallback goes further, requiring that both steps be complete before reflowing begins as to\n\nanything\u2014the same non-overlap requirement, restated. Because the dependencies the claim\n\nactually supplies are undisputed, no construction is needed at all. U.S. Surgical, 103 F.3d at 1568.\n\nEntering ST\u2019s fallback would not resolve a dispute; it would signal to the jury a strict sequence the\n\nclaim does not impose.\n\n On the two genuine disputes, ST identifies no claim language that carries its burden. For\n\nmounting before dispensing, ST relies on the phrase \u201conto the bond pads on the plurality of active\n\ndevice die,\u201d contending it \u201cpresupposes the die (and their bond pads) are already in their\n\npredetermined positions on the carrier.\u201d Reply at 12\u201313. The phrase identifies where the paste\n\ngoes\u2014the bond pads of the die\u2014not when those die arrived at their positions. Paste may be\n\ndispensed onto a die\u2019s bond pads before, during, or after that die is placed on the carrier, and the\n\nclaim reads on each. For attaching before reflowing, ST argues reflow \u201ccannot logically begin\u201d\n\nuntil the lead frame contacts the paste. Reply at 13. That is true of any single connection, but it\n\nsays nothing about the steps as a whole: nothing forecloses reflow beginning as to some\n\nconnections while attaching continues as to others. Altiris asks whether logic or grammar compels\n\nthe order, not whether a preferred implementation follows it.\n\n ST\u2019s repositioning of the prosecution history does not rescue the argument. ST now says it\n\nrelies on the Examiner\u2019s statements not \u201cfor disclaimer\u201d but \u201cto show how one of skill in the art\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 16 of 20\n\n\n\n\nwould understand the claim.\u201d Reply at 13. But the substance of those statements concerned\n\nwhether Gong and Kelkar disclosed the claimed steps at all\u2014mounting onto a temporary carrier,\n\nand dispensing onto exposed bond pads before the lead frame is placed\u2014not whether the claimed\n\nsteps may overlap. Dkt. 42, Ex. F at 113\u201314. No construction is necessary.\n\n\n D. U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189\n\n\n 1. \u201cpower rail pad\u201d\n\n Chip Packaging\u2019s construction\u2014\u201ca conductive pad on the die connection pad surface\u201d\u2014\ntracks the intrinsic record. Claim 1 places the power rail pad \u201con the die connection pad surface.\u201d\n\nU.S. Patent No. 8,643,189 (\u201c\u2019189 Pat.\u201d) at 7:36\u201337. The specification describes the pads as\n\n\u201cmounted on the die connection pad surface 303 by an epoxy or other form of adhesive.\u201d Id. at\n\n4:13\u201316. And in prosecution the applicant distinguished Jassowski precisely on that structural\n\nground: Jassowski\u2019s power rails \u201care located inside the die and are formed during die fabrication,\u201d\n\nwhereas the claimed pads sit on the die\u2019s top surface and are \u201celectrically connected to the die\n\nconnection pads 304 with bond wires 501.\u201d Dkt. 42, Ex. G at 77.\n\n ST\u2019s Reply narrows the dispute considerably. ST states that \u201cno one intends to argue this\n\nterm means the power rail pad is not electrically connected\u201d to the die circuitry, and that the\n\n\u201cimport of \u2018not integrated\u2019 is reasonably clear\u201d\u2014namely, that the pads are \u201cmounted on the die\n\nconnection pad surface 303 by an epoxy or other form of adhesive\u201d rather than formed within the\n\ndie. Reply at 14. Chip Packaging agrees with that substance. The problem is that ST\u2019s proposed\n\nwords do not say it. \u201cNot integrated with the die circuitry\u201d states a relationship to the circuitry, not\n\na location on the die, and invites the juror to conclude that the pad stands apart from the die\n\ncircuitry electrically\u2014the very reading ST disclaims and the claim forecloses, since claim 1\n\nrequires \u201cdie wire bonds electrically coupling the power rail pad to at least two of the die\n\nconnection pads.\u201d The Court should adopt Chip Packaging\u2019s construction because it captures the\n\ndistinction the intrinsic record actually draws: one of location and formation, not electrical\n\nisolation. Dkt. 42, Ex. G at 77.\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 17 of 20\n\n\n\n\n ST has not shown lexicography. ST rests on a contrast between the specification\u2019s \u201care\u201d\n\nand \u201care not\u201d sentences and its permissive \u201cmay\u201d sentences. Reply at 14. But the sentences ST\n\nquotes describe \u201cthe power rail pads 309, 310\u201d\u2014the depicted embodiment, identified by reference\n\nnumeral. Present-tense description of a numbered embodiment is not redefinition of a claim term.\n\nSee Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365\u201366. That the applicant cited the same specification passage during\n\nprosecution, Dkt. 42, Ex. G at 76\u201377, does not convert embodiment description into a definition.\n\nThe applicant pointed to that passage to distinguish Jassowski, whose power rails were \u201clocated\n\ninside the die and . . . formed during die fabrication.\u201d Id. at 77. Citing a passage to explain where\nthe claimed pads sit is not a clear and unmistakable surrender of everything the passage does not\n\ndescribe. See 3M, 725 F.3d at 1326.\n\n ST\u2019s claim-differentiation answer again depends on Fenner. Reply at 15 (citing Fenner,\n\n778 F.3d at 1327). But Fenner bars using claim differentiation to override \u201cclear statements of\n\nscope\u201d; it does not excuse the absence of one. See id. (quoting Toro Co. v. White Consol. Indus.,\n\nInc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). Claim 11 expressly recites that \u201cthe power rail pad is\n\na non-circuit node of the semiconductor die,\u201d as does independent claim 15. Asserted claims 1 and\n\n19 do not. The patentee knew how to claim that characteristic and chose to do so in some claims\n\nbut not others; that choice is entitled to effect. Tandon, 831 F.2d at 1023. Nor does ST\u2019s\n\nredundancy objection to Chip Packaging\u2019s construction help ST. If \u201con the die connection pad\n\nsurface\u201d merely restates claim 1, then the appropriate remedy is to decline to construe the term\u2014\n\nnot to adopt ST\u2019s negative limitation.\n\n\n 2. \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d\n\n No construction is necessary. The claims themselves state the operative relationship: the\n\n\u201cdie connection pad surface\u201d is opposite the \u201cdie support mounting surface.\u201d \u2019189 Pat. at cls. 1,\n\n15, 19. ST\u2019s proposal adds two words the claims do not contain\u2014\u201ctop\u201d and \u201cactive\u201d\u2014and both\n\ninvite needless dispute. Whether a surface is \u201ctop\u201d depends on the orientation in which a package\n\nis drawn, mounted, or handled; the claim\u2019s requirement is directional only in the relative sense of\n\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 18 of 20\n\n\n\n\n\u201copposite.\u201d And whether the surface is also the die\u2019s \u201cactive\u201d surface is a technical characterization\n\nthe claims never require.\n\n ST\u2019s argument is that the applicant used the words \u201cthe present invention is directed to a\n\nsemiconductor die package 300\u201d and then described an \u201copposite die connection pad surface 303\n\n(top, active surface)\u201d as part of that invention. Reply at 15 (emphasis omitted). But the sentence\n\nST quotes comes after the sentence with the \u201cpresent invention\u201d language, and it is a walkthrough\n\nof numbered structures in a numbered embodiment\u2014die 301, surface 303\u2014offered to orient the\n\nExaminer, not to define \u201copposite die connection pad surface.\u201d See Dkt. 42, Ex. G at 75. The\napplicant never said the surface must be the \u201ctop\u201d surface, never said it must be \u201cactive,\u201d and never\n\ndistinguished prior art on either ground. A parenthetical descriptor used in passing is not the \u201cclear\n\nand unmistakable\u201d statement required to narrow a claim through prosecution history. 3M, 725 F.3d\n\nat 1326. The plain meaning should govern.\n\n\nIII. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons and those set forth in its Responsive Brief, Plaintiff Chip\n\nPackaging Technologies, LLC respectfully requests that the Court adopt Chip Packaging\u2019s\n\nproposed constructions for each of the nine disputed terms and reject ST\u2019s proposals.\n\n\nDated: August 18, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n /s/ Ameet Modi\n Garland Stephens (Texas Bar No. 24053910)\n garland@bluepeak.law\n Robert Magee (pro hac vice)\n robert@bluepeak.law\n Justin Constant (pro hac vice)\n justin@bluepeak.law\n Richard Koehl (Texas Bar No. 24115754)\n richard@bluepeak.law\n Kate Falkenstien (pro hac vice)\n kate@bluepeak.law\n Heng Gong (New York Bar No. 4930509)\n heng@bluepeak.law\n Natalie Lieber (pro hac vice)\n\n\n 15\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 19 of 20\n\n\n\n\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n Ameet Modi (pro hac vice)\n modi@bluepeak.law\n BLUE PEAK LAW GROUP LLP\n 3139 West Holcombe Blvd.\n PMB 8160\n Houston, TX 77025\n Telephone: (281) 972-3036\n\n Of Counsel:\n Mark D. Siegmund (Texas Bar No. 24117055)\n msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor\n Waco, TX 76710\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n William D. Ellerman (Texas Bar No. 24007151)\n wellerman@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n One Glen Lakes Tower\n 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105\n Dallas, TX 75231\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHIP\n PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 52 Filed 08/18/26 Page 20 of 20\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\n A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC\u2019s Sur-Reply\n\nClaim Construction Brief was served via CM/ECF to all counsel of record on August 18, 2026.\n\n\n /s/ Ameet Modi\n Ameet Modi\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-18T15:26:55.467191-07:00","document_number":"52","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037219423","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Claim Construction Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-18T15:26:55.211196-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-18T16:08:03.373317-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-18","time_filed":"17:25:47","entry_number":52,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":165,"description":"Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding [42] Claim Construction Brief,, by CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,. (Modi, Ameet)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474799201/","id":474799201,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490310626/","id":490310626,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/51/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-17T15:53:24.470314-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T19:57:48.772677-07:00","sha1":"9c7163cec56db25ce3970157b46decb566139429","page_count":3,"file_size":373297,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.51.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.51.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 51 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n\n NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT\n OF DEFENDANT STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\u2019S\n MOTION TO STAY PENDING EX PARTE REEXAMINATION\n\n Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc. (\u201cST\u201d) hereby notifies the Court of supplemental\n\nauthority in support of ST\u2019s motion to stay this case pending the final resolution of the\n\nreexamination proceedings of all five of the asserted patents in this case. ECF No. 39. ST hereby\n\nprovides notice that, on August 17, 2026, the Patent Office ordered reexamination on U.S. Patent\n\nNo. 10,151,658 (\u201c\u2019658 Patent\u201d). A copy of the reexamination order is attached as Exhibit A.\n\n The \u2019658 Patent was the last of the five asserted patents for which a reexamination decision\n\nwas pending. The Patent Office has now ordered reexamination of all five asserted patents,\n\nsatisfying the all-claims/all-patents predicate ST discussed in its motion and reply. See ECF No.\n\n39 at 8; ECF No. 41 at 2; AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19-CV-00359-JRG, 2021\n\nWL 465424, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2021) (stating that where \u201cthe PTO has granted EPR\u2019s as to\n\nall claims of all asserted patents, this Court has likewise routinely stayed cases.\u201d).\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 51 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nDated: August 17, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n Texas State Bar No. 24069354\n Nolan McQueen\n Texas State Bar No. 24125322\n Spencer Nayar\n Texas State Bar No. 24149241\n BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.\n 2001 Ross Ave, Suite 900\n Dallas, Texas 75201\n Telephone: (214) 953-6500\n Facsimile: (214) 953-6503\n Email: Jeff.Becker@BakerBotts.com\n Email: Nolan.McQueen@BakerBotts.com\n Email: Spencer.Nayar@BakerBotts.com\n ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 51 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 17, 2026.\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-17T15:53:24.732643-07:00","document_number":"51","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037210956","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490310627/","id":490310627,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/51/1/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-17T15:53:25.631821-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T19:45:04.385055-07:00","sha1":"014a12080d1afd4a43cd2a82d9c877333e4c6035","page_count":29,"file_size":1227403,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.51.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.51.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page1of 29\n\nEXHIBIT A\n\fCa te oe AS Document Cat Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 29\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress) COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\n\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\n\nwww .uspto.gov\n\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/016,347 05/28/2026 10151658 093867.0104B 2833\n201116 7590 08/17/2026 | EXAMINER\nBunsow De Mory LLP\n701 El Camino Real ANDUJAR, LEONARDO\n\nRedwood City, CA 94063\n\n| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3991\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n08/17/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 29\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nwww.uspto.gov\n\nDO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER\n\n(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS)\n\nBAKER BOTTS, LLP\n2001 ROSS AVENUE\nSUITE 900\n\nDALLAS, TX 75201\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/016,347 .\nPATENT UNDER REEXAMINATION 10151658 .\n\nART UNIT 3997.\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice in the above identified ex parfe reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a\nreply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex yavfe reexamination requester will be\nacknowledged or considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\nPTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 4of 29\n\nControl No. Patent Under Reexamination\n. 90/016,347 10151658\nOrder Granting Request For\nEx Parte Reexamination Examiner Art Unit | AIA (FITF) Status\nLEONARDO ANDUJAR 3991 Yes\n\n--The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence adaress--\n\nThe request for ex parte reexamination filed 05/28/2026 has been considered and a determination has\nbeen made. An identification of the claims, the references relied upon, and the rationale supporting the\ndetermination are attached.\n\nAttachments: a)O PTO-892, b)\u00a5y PTO/SB/08, c)O Other:\n\n1. The request for ex parte reexamination is GRANTED.\nRESPONSE TIMES ARE SET AS FOLLOWS:\n\nFor Patent Owner's Statement (Optional): TWO MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication\n(37 CFR 1.530 (b)). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).\n\nFor Requester's Reply (optional): TWO MONTHS from the date of service of any timely filed\n\nPatent Owner's Statement (37 CFR 1.535). NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME PERIOD IS PERMITTED.\nIf Patent Owner does not file a timely statement under 37 CFR 1.530(b), then no reply by requester\n\nis permitted.\n\nLEONARDO ANDUJAR/\nPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3991\n\ncc:Requester ( if third party requester )\n\nU.S. Patent and Trademark Office\nPTOL-471 G(Rev. 01-13) Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination Part of Paper No. 20260727\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page5of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 2\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nREQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION\n1. Reexamination has been requested for claims 1-16 of United States Patent\nnumber 10,151,658 to Ching Jr. et al. entitled: \u201cPRESSURE-SENSING INTEGRATED\nCIRCUIT DEVICE WITH DIAPHRAGM\u2019 (hereinafter \u201cthe \u2018658 patent\u2019).\nDecision\n2. A substantial new question of patentability affecting claims 1-16 of the \u2018658 patent\nis raised by the request for ex parte reexamination.\n3. Extensions of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will not be permitted in these\nproceedings because the provisions of 37 CFR 1.136 apply only to \"an applicant\" and not\nto parties in a reexamination proceeding. Additionally, 35 U.S.C. 305 requires that ex\nparte reexamination proceedings \"will be conducted with special dispatch\" (37 CFR\n1.550(a)). Extensions of time in ex parte reexamination proceedings are provided for in\n37 CFR 1.550(c).\nProsecution History\n4. The following is a brief summary of the most relevant portions regarding the\nprosecution of application 18/516,958 (hereafter \u2018958) that matured into U.S. Patent No.\n\u2018658.\n5. On March 16, 2024, the Examiner sent a Non-Final Rejection. The Examiner\nrejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lewis U.S. Patent\n5,522,267, claims 2-16 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over\nLewis U.S. Patent 5,522,267 in view of Tiu et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication\n\n2015/0137279.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 6 of 29\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 3\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n6. On September 20, 2018, the Patent Owner amended the independent claim 1 and\n\ndependent claim as follows:\n\noilren.t\n\n1. ({CURRERTLY AMENDED? A:\n\n{ic} devices, comprising:\n\n& flexible gal severing at least & Dregsure-senaing region\n\n\u00a3\nfi\n\nflexible diaphragm and the flexible gel enable the presaure\n\ntible diaghragm covering the flexible gel, wherein the\n\n#\n\nSBERSOT Lo SGRSe AMRASNL PYSASRPe OULeigne of the af\n\nEm the lL\n\nof the devieos. amd the snerture\n\n& iid having an aperture, wher\n\nthe fiexwible gel and as:\n\n3 fey saya d wan ty ae k rh Hy i i.\nmite wrblienr air to move the di\n\n(CURRENTLY AMENDED) The devices of claim 2, further\n\nDe IQR SE TOE sete gee he eee eR\n\nES oe ce oy Eee CRE REESE SEN\n\na MRLtS upper when the Lid ie attached,\nkoe os Ss by ec be pe. 4 al we yesy 4a 5\n\nS203 & yeeeas As beneath the lid, wherein:\n\nthe die is partiaily cevered Gy the ancapents\n\nthe gel is Eocated within a first tier of the\n\n2b\nim\n2\na3\n&\nos\nne\n&\nmy\n\naragm La\nSe eyed\n\nant above\n\nthe Lid is focated within a third tier of the\n\n@illant above the second tier.\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 7 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 4\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n7.\n\nThe patent Owner did not amend claims 3-9 and 11-16 (i.e. including independent\n\nclaims 9 and 12). The Patent Owner argued the following:\n\n8.\n\nAlthough Lewiea terms element 102 an isolation dianhracm,\n\nment EG2 ig akin to the Lid of the present invention, in\n\nand hetweer the gel and the Lid. such ar\n\nAgeplicant thesed\n\nrespectfully requests that the \u00a72o2\n\n2-LS were req\n\net\n\ng\net\nB\noh\net\n4\nit\ney\n\ntenkabilea\n\na\n\nand momnes\n\nthe\n\nTin. Since meibher\n\ntay \u201cPau, ror a\n\nMB 1-16 are nonchbvious. Aceoordingly\n\nKy\n\nOn October 19, 2028, the Examiner issued a Notice of Allowance allowing pending\n\nclaims 1-16. As reasons for allowance, the Examiner wrote:\n\nWith regard to claim 1, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the current claimed\nsubject matter of a flexible gel covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-sensing\ndie; and a flexible diaphragm covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible diaphragm and the\nflexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient pressure outside of the IC device; and a\nlid having an aperture, wherein the lid is located between the flexible gel and an exterior of the\n\ndevice, and the aperture permits ambient air to move the diaphragm and consequently the\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 8 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 5\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n9.\n\nflexible gel so that the pressure-sensing die can measure the ambient air pressure. Therefore the\nclaim is found allowable over the current prior art as the current found prior art does not appear\nto disclose the above claimed subject matter and the claimed subject matter is not an obvious\n\nmodification in view of the current prior art.\n\nWith regard to claim 9, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the current claimed\nsubject matter of an encapsulant that covers the leads and the electrical connections between\nthe leads and the pressure-sensing die, wherein a bottom surface of the lead frame forms a\nbottom surface of the integrated circuit device and the encapsulant forms side walls of the device,\nwherein a cavity is formed between the side walls and over the pressure-sensing die; a gel\nmaterial covering a pressure-sensing region on a top surface of the pressure-sensing die; a lid that\nextends between the side walls and over the cavity, wherein the lid has a central opening that\nallows ambient air to enter the cavity so that the pressure-sensing die can measure the ambient\nair pressure; and a diaphragm located beneath the central opening and that covers the gel\nmaterial. Therefore the claim is found allowable over the current prior art as the current found\nprior art does not appear to disclose the above claimed subject matter and the claimed subject\n\nmatter is not an obvious modification in view of the current prior art.\n\nWith regard to claim 12, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the current claimed\nsubject matter of encapsulating a portion of the die and the lead frame with an encapsulant,\nwherein a recess is formed over the pressure sensor such that at least a pressure-sensing region\nof the die is not covered by the encapsulant; placing a gel into the recess and in contact with the\npressure-sensing region of the die; inserting a diaphragm into the recess and in contact with the\ngel; and placing a lid having an aperture over the recess and the diaphragm. Therefore the claim\nis found allowable over the current prior art as the current found prior art does not appear to\ndisclose the above claimed subject matter and the claimed subject matter is not an obvious\n\nmodification in view of the current prior art.\n\nReference Asserted as Raising a Substantial New Question (SNQ)\n\nIn the request for reexamination, the requester alleges that the following prior art\n\nreferences raise a substantial new question of patentability of the issued claims 1-18 of\n\nthe \u2018658 patent.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 PageQof 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 6\nArt Unit: 3991\n\na) U.S. Patent No. 6,049,12 (\u201cOtani\u201d); published on April 11, 2000 and having\na filing date of June 05, 1997.\nb) U.S. Patent No. 7,859,068 (\u201cHooper): published on December 28, 2010\nand having an effective filing date of May 16, 2006.\nc) FR 2 686-692 (\u201cFrancis\u201d); published on July 30, 1993 and filed on January\n28, 1992.\nd) U.S. Patent No. 8,371,176 (\u201cRozgo\u201d); published on February 12, 2013 and\nfiled on January 06, 2011.\n10. \u2014 Listed prior art (a) - (d) were not of record during the prosecution history of the \u2018658\npatent and are non-cumulative to the art of record.\n11. References (a)-(c) above were published or issued more than one year before the\neffective filing date of claimed subject matter in United States patent application\n(15/356,622): having an effective filing date of April 11, 2016 that became the \u2018658 patent,\ni.e. December 11, 2018. Accordingly, each of references (a)-(d) qualifies as prior art under\n35 USC 102(a)(1).\nSubstantial New Question Of Patentability\n12. The presence or absence of a \u201csubstantial new question of patentability\u201d\ndetermines whether or not reexamination is ordered. For a \u201csubstantial new question of\npatentability\u201d to be present, it is only necessary that:\na) the prior art patents and/or printed publications raise a substantial new question\nof patentability regarding at least one claim, /.e., the teaching of the (prior art)\n\npatents and printed publications is such that a reasonable examiner would\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 10 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 7\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n13.\n\nconsider the teaching to be important in deciding whether or not the claim is\npatentable; and\n\nb) the same question of patentability as to the claim has not been decided by the\nOffice in an earlier concluded examination or review of the patent, raised to or by\nthe Office in a pending reexamination or supplemental examination of the patent,\nor decided in a final holding of invalidity (after all appeals) by a federal court in a\ndecision on the merits involving the claim. If a reexamination proceeding was\nterminated/vacated without resolving the substantial question of patentability\nquestion, it can be re-presented in a new reexamination request. It is not necessary\nthat a \"prima facie\" case of unpatentability exist as to the claim in order for \"a\n\nsubstantial new question of patentability\" to be present as to the claim.\n\nA prior art reference or a combination of references teaching a pressure-sensing\n\nintegrated circuit (IC) device comprising at least one of:\n\n\u00ae apressure-sensing die;\n\ne a flexible gel covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-sensing\ndie;\n\ne a flexible diaphragm covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible diaphragm and\nthe flexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient pressure outside of\nthe IC device;\n\ne anda lid having an aperture, wherein the lid is located between the flexible gel\nand an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient air to move the\ndiaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-sensing die can\nmeasure the ambient air pressure\n\nwould have been considered important in determining the patentability of independent\n\nclaim 1 and its dependent claims 2-8, 15 and 16.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 11 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 8\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n14. A prior art reference or a combination of references teaching a pressure-sensing\nintegrated circuit device comprising at least one of:\n\ne a lead frame including a die paddle and a plurality of leads surrounding the die\npaddle;\n\n\u00ae a pressure-sensing die attached to the die paddle and electrically connected to\nthe leads;\n\n\u00ae anencapsulant that covers the leads and the electrical connections between the\nleads and the pressure-sensing die, wherein a bottom surface of the lead frame\nforms a bottom surface of the integrated circuit device and the encapsulant forms\nside walls of the device, wherein a cavity is formed between the side walls and\nover the pressure-sensing die;\n\n\u00a2 agel material covering a pressure-sensing region ona top surface of the pressure-\nsensing die; a lid that extends between the side walls and over the cavity, wherein\nthe lid has a central opening that allows ambient air to enter the cavity so that the\npressure-sensing die can measure the ambient air pressure;\n\ne anda diaphragm located beneath the central opening and that covers the gel\nmaterial\n\nwould have been considered important in determining the patentability of independent\nclaim 9 and its dependent claims 10 and 11.\n\n15. A prior art reference or a combination of references teaching a method for\nassembling an integrated circuit device comprising at least one of the steps of:\n\ne attaching a die to a paddle of a lead frame, wherein the die comprises a pressure\nsensor;\n\ne electrically connecting the die to leads of the lead frame;\n\n\u00ae encapsulating a portion of the die and the lead frame with an encapsulant,\nwherein a recess is formed over the pressure sensor such that at least a pressure-\nsensing region of the die is not covered by the encapsulant;\n\ne placing a gel into the recess and in contact with the pressure-sensing region of the\ndie;\n\ne inserting a diaphragm into the recess and in contact with the gel; and placing a lid\nhaving an aperture over the recess and the diaphragm\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 12 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 9\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nwould have been considered important in determining the patentability of independent\n\nclaim 12 and its dependent claims 13 and 14.\n\nISSUES 1/2: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Rozgo raises a substantial new question of patentability\nfor independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8, 15 and 16 of the \u2018658\npatent (See Request filed on 05/28/2024 Page(s) 46-74).\n\n16. Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8, 15 and 16, the teachings\nof Rozgo raise a substantial new question of patentability because the reference teaches\nthe following new, non-cumulative technical feature that raises a substantial new question\nof patentability as described here.\n\n17. Rozgo (e.g. fig. 1 col. 2/Il. 39-49; col. 3/Il. 9-40) teaches a pressure-sensing\n\nintegrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:\n\ne a pressure-sensing die 44:\n\ne a flexible gel 18 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\nsensing die;\n\ne a flexible diaphragm 22 covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible\n\ndiaphragm and the flexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient\npressure outside of the IC device;\n\ne and a lid 20 having an aperture 14, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\n\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 13 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 10\nArt Unit: 3991\nod\nOe , een\n%, \u201c16\n20\nesnnsnnanasennnsanaisnaniesenssisn 42\n1a-\u2014t-\n96 be ch 88y 38 M822 oS\n23 a re > ey, in is rey ees ne a me =\nge ; ; \u00a5 ES A em OE 4 fee +\nao? / \\ 4 \u201cSO 30 Nay\n\\ TNT gl St 4 pm\nI \u201c48 \u201c50 Nag\n52- \u201c82\n\n18. Accordingly, the teachings of Rozgo provide a new technical teaching that would\nbe considered important to a reasonable examiner in deciding whether independent claim\n1 of the \u2018658 patent is patentable. The teachings of Rozgo as discussed herein are not\ncumulative to any written discussion on the record of the teachings of the prior art, were\nnot previously considered nor addressed during a prior examination, and the same\nquestion was not subject of a final holding of invalidity in the Federal Courts.\n\n19. Regarding dependent claims 8, 15 and 16, Rozgo raises a substantial new\nquestion of patentability for them as well, for the reasons discussed above with respect\nto independent claim 1.\n\n20. \u2018Thus, Issues 1/2 raise a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n1, 8,15 and 16 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 14 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 11\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nISSUE 3: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Rozgo in view of Hooper raises a substantial new question\nof patentability for independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8, 15 and\n16 of the \u2018658 patent (See Request filed on 05/28/2024 Page(s) 74-78).\n\n21. Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 8, 15 and 16, the teachings\nof Rozgo in view of Hooper raise a substantial new question of patentability because the\nreference teaches the following new, non-cumulative technical feature that raises a\nsubstantial new question of patentability as described here.\n\n22. Rozgo(e.g. fig. 1 col. 2/Il. 39-49; col. 3/Il. 9-40; see issues 1/2) teaches a pressure-\n\nsensing integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:\n\ne a pressure-sensing die 44:\n\ne a flexible gel 18 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\nsensing die;\n\ne a flexible diaphragm 22 covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible\n\ndiaphragm and the flexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient\npressure outside of the IC device;\ne and a lid 20 having an aperture 14, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure.\n23. Hooper teaches (e.g. fig. 6) a pressure-sensing integrated circuit (IC) device,\ncomprising:\n\ne a pressure-sensing die 12 (abstract):\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 15 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 12\nArt Unit: 3991\n\ne a flexible gel 20 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\nsensing die wherein the flexible diaphragm and the flexible gel enable the pressure\nsensor to sense ambient pressure outside of the IC device (abstract; col. 2/Il. 24-\n25),\n\ne and a lid 28 having an aperture 26, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure (col. 3/Il. 37-39).\n\n\u00a5\n\n24. Accordingly, the teachings of Rozgo in view of Hooper provide a new technical\nteaching that would be considered important to a reasonable examiner in deciding\nwhether independent claim 1 of the \u2018658 patent is patentable. The teachings of Rozgo in\nview of Hooper1 as discussed herein are not cumulative to any written discussion on the\nrecord of the teachings of the prior art, were not previously considered nor addressed\nduring a prior examination, and the same question was not subject of a final holding of\n\ninvalidity in the Federal Courts.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 16 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 13\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n25. Regarding dependent claims 8, 15 and 16, Rozgo in view of Hooper raises a\nsubstantial new question of patentability for them as well, for the reasons discussed\nabove with respect to independent claim 1.\n\n26. \u2018Thus, Issue 3 raises a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n1, 8, 15 and 16 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\nISSUES 4/5: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Francis raises a substantial new question of patentability\nfor independent claim 1 and dependent claims 15 and 16 of the \u2018658\npatent (See Request filed on 05/28/2024 Page(s) 78-100).\n\n2/. Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 15 and 16, the teachings of\nFrancis raise a substantial new question of patentability because the reference teaches\nthe following new, non-cumulative technical feature that raises a substantial new question\nof patentability as described here.\n28. Francis (e.g. fig. 3 abstract ) teaches a pressure-sensing integrated circuit (IC)\ndevice, comprising:\ne a pressure-sensing die 130:\ne a flexible gel 170 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the\npressure-sensing die;\ne a flexible diaphragm 190 covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible\ndiaphragm and the flexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient\npressure outside of the IC device;\ne and a lid 160 having an aperture 161, wherein the lid is located between\n\nthe flexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 17 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 14\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nto move the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\n\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure.\n\nFIG.3 ap\n\n\u201cLL.\n\n29. Accordingly, the teachings of Francis provide a new technical teaching that would\nbe considered important to a reasonable examiner in deciding whether independent claim\n1 of the \u2018658 patent is patentable. The teachings of Francis as discussed herein are not\ncumulative to any written discussion on the record of the teachings of the prior art, were\nnot previously considered nor addressed during a prior examination, and the same\nquestion was not subject of a final holding of invalidity in the Federal Courts.\n\n30. Regarding dependent claims 15 and 16, Rozgo raises a substantial new question\nof patentability for them as well, for the reasons discussed above with respect to\nindependent claim 1.\n\n31. Thus, Issues 4/5 raises a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n1, 15 and 16 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\nISSUE 6: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo raises a substantial new\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 18 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 15\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nquestion of patentability for independent claim 1 and dependent claims\n2-4, 15 and 16 of the \u2018658 patent (See Request filed on 05/28/2024\nPage(s)100-142).\n\n32. Regarding independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-4, 15 and 16, the\nteachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo raise a substantial new question of patentability\nbecause the reference teaches the following new, non-cumulative technical feature that\nraises a substantial new question of patentability as described here.\n24. Hooper teaches (e.g. fig. 6; see issue 3) a pressure-sensing integrated circuit (IC)\ndevice, comprising:\ne a pressure-sensing die 12 (abstract):\ne a flexible gel 20 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\nsensing die wherein the flexible diaphragm and the flexible gel enable the\npressure sensor to sense ambient pressure outside of the IC device (abstract; col.\n2/|. 24-25);\ne and a lid 28 having an aperture 26, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure (col. 3/Il. 37-39).\n25. Moreover, Rozgo (e.g. fig. 1 col. 2/Il. 39-49; col. 3/Il. 9-40; see issues 1/2) teaches\na pressure-sensing integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:\ne a pressure-sensing die 44:\ne a flexible gel 18 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\n\nsensing die;\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 19 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 16\nArt Unit: 3991\n\ne a flexible diaphragm 22 covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible\ndiaphragm and the flexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient\npressure outside of the IC device;\ne and a lid 20 having an aperture 14, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure.\n33. Accordingly, the teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo provide a new technical\nteaching that would be considered important to a reasonable examiner in deciding\nwhether independent claim 1 of the \u2018658 patent is patentable. The teachings of Hooper in\nview of Rozgo as discussed herein are not cumulative to any written discussion on the\nrecord of the teachings of the prior art, were not previously considered nor addressed\nduring a prior examination, and the same question was not subject of a final holding of\ninvalidity in the Federal Courts.\n34. Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 15 and 16, Rozgo in view of Hooper raises a\nsubstantial new question of patentability for them as well, for the reasons discussed\nabove with respect to independent claim 1.\n35. Thus, Issue 6 raises a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n1-4, 15 and 16 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\nISSUE 7: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Otani raises\na substantial new question of patentability for independent claims 9\nand 12 and dependent claims 6-7 (depending on 1), 13 and 14\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 20 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 17\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n(depending on 12) of the \u2018658 patent (See Request filed on 05/28/2024\nPage(s) 142-172).\n\n36. Regarding independent claims 9 and 12 and dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14,\nthe teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Otani raise a substantial\nnew question of patentability because the reference teaches the following new, non-\ncumulative technical feature that raises a substantial new question of patentability as\ndescribed here.\n37. | Hooper teaches (e.g. fig. 6; see issue 3) a pressure-sensing integrated circuit (IC)\ndevice, comprising:\ne a pressure-sensing die 12 (abstract):\ne a flexible gel 20 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\nsensing die wherein the flexible diaphragm and the flexible gel enable the\npressure sensor to sense ambient pressure outside of the IC device (abstract; col.\n2/|. 24-25);\ne and a lid 28 having an aperture 26, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure (col. 3/Il. 37-39).\n38. Moreover, Rozgo (e.g. fig. 1 col. 2/Il. 39-49; col. 3/Il. 9-40; see issues 1/2) teaches\na pressure-sensing integrated circuit (IC) device, comprising:\ne a pressure-sensing die 44:\ne a flexible gel 18 covering at least a pressure-sensing region of the pressure-\n\nsensing die;\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 21 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 18\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n39.\n\ne a flexible diaphragm 22 covering the flexible gel, wherein the flexible\ndiaphragm and the flexible gel enable the pressure sensor to sense ambient\npressure outside of the IC device;\n\ne and a lid 20 having an aperture 14, wherein the lid is located between the\nflexible gel and an exterior of the device, and the aperture permits ambient gas to\nmove the diaphragm and consequently the flexible gel so that the pressure-\nsensing die can measure the ambient gas pressure.\n\nOtani (e.g. fig. 2; col. 5/Il. 30-54) teaches an integrated circuit device, comprising:\ne a lead frame including a die paddle 3 and a plurality of leads 4 surrounding\nthe die paddle;\n\ne a pressure-sensing die 1a attached to the die paddle and electrically\nconnected to the leads (i.e. boding wires);\n\ne and an encapsulant 5c that covers the leads and the electrical connections\nbetween the leads and the pressure-sensing die, wherein a bottom surface of the\nlead frame forms a bottom surface of the integrated circuit device and the\nencapsulant forms side walls of the device, wherein a cavity 7 is formed between\n\nthe side walls and over the pressure-sensing die;\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 22 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 19\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nBonet ag\ne SRA ad\n\n40. Accordingly, the teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Otani\nprovide a new technical teaching that would be considered important to a reasonable\nexaminer in deciding whether independent claims 9 and 12 of the \u2018658 patent is\npatentable. The teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Otani as\ndiscussed herein are not cumulative to any written discussion on the record of the\nteachings of the prior art, were not previously considered nor addressed during a prior\nexamination, and the same question was not subject of a final holding of invalidity in the\nFederal Courts.\n\n41. Regarding dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14, Rozgo in view of Hooper and further\nin view of Otani raises a substantial new question of patentability for them as well, for the\nreasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 (see issue 6) and 12.\n\n42. Thus, Issue 7 raises a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n6, 7, 9 and 12-14 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\nISSUE 8: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Wombacher\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 23 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 20\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nraises a substantial new question of patentability for dependent claims\n3-5 and 8 (depending on 1) of the \u2018658 patent (See Request filed on\n05/28/2024 Page(s) 173-191).\n\n43. Regarding dependent claims 3-5 and 8, the teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo\nand further in view of Wombacher raise a substantial new question of patentability\nbecause the reference teaches the following new, non-cumulative technical feature that\nraises a substantial new question of patentability as described here.\n\n44. Wombacher (e.g. fig. 1) teaches a sensor package including various components\nsuch as \"semiconductor chip 10,\" \"wire-bonds 20,\" and \"sidewalls 15\" that have their\nsurfaces covered by a \"barrier layer 20\" (also referred to as a \"protective layer\" Jf] 0015-\n0022). The barrier layer 20 \"has a high barrier effect against hydrogen ingress and/or the\nattack of other chemical media which might result in corrosion or degradation of sensitive\nsurface structures\" of a sensor device. It can be made of an \"inorganic material\" such as\n\"silicate\" and \"may coat all exposed surfaces in the interior of the open cavity structure\n\n11.\n\n2 te gr o en sk\nee OP go :\n\nitl tenths\npinion fe :\n?- = fe %:\n\nges SS\n\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 24 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 21\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n45. Accordingly, the teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and in further in view of\nWombacher provide a new technical teaching that would be considered important to a\nreasonable examiner in deciding whether dependent claims 3-5 and 8 of the \u2018658 patent\nis patentable. The teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Wombacher\nas discussed herein are not cumulative to any written discussion on the record of the\nteachings of the prior art, were not previously considered nor addressed during a prior\nexamination, and the same question was not subject of a final holding of invalidity in the\nFederal Courts.\n\n46. Regarding dependent claims 6, 7, 13 and 14, Rozgo in view of Hooper raises a\nsubstantial new question of patentability for them as well, for the reasons discussed\nabove with respect to independent claims 1 (see issue 6) and 12.\n\n47. \u2014 Thus, Issue 8 raises a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n3-5 and 8 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\nISSUE 9: The Request indicates that the Requester believes that the\nteachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Otani and\nWombacher raises a substantial new question of patentability for\ndependent claims 10 and 11 (depending on 1) of the \u2018658 patent (See\nRequest filed on 05/28/2024 Page(s) 191-193).\n\n48. Regarding dependent claims 10 and 11, the teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo\nand further in view of Otani and Wombacher raise a substantial new question of\npatentability because the reference teaches the following new, non-cumulative technical\nfeature that raises a substantial new question of patentability as described here.\n\n49. __ Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in view of Otani raised an SNQ with regard to\n\nindependent claim 7 as presented in issue 7 above.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 25 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 22\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n50. Moreover, Wombacher (e.g. fig. 1; see issue 8) teaches a sensor package\n\nincluding various components such as \"semiconductor chip 10,\" \"wire-bonds 20,\" and\n\"sidewalls 15\" that have their surfaces covered by a \"barrier layer 20\" (also referred to as\na \"protective layer\" Jf] 0015-0022). The barrier layer 20 \"has a high barrier effect against\nhydrogen ingress and/or the attack of other chemical media which might result in\ncorrosion or degradation of sensitive surface structures\" of a sensor device. It can be\nmade of an \"inorganic material\" such as \"silicate\" and \"may coat all exposed surfaces in\nthe interior of the open cavity structure 11.\n\n51. Accordingly, the teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and in further in view of\nOtani and Wombacher provide a new technical teaching that would be considered\nimportant to a reasonable examiner in deciding whether dependent claims 10 and 11 of\nthe \u2018658 patent is patentable. The teachings of Hooper in view of Rozgo and further in\nview of Otani and Wombacher as discussed herein are not cumulative to any written\ndiscussion on the record of the teachings of the prior art, were not previously considered\nnor addressed during a prior examination, and the same question was not subject of a\nfinal holding of invalidity in the Federal Courts.\n\n52. Regarding dependent claims 10 and 11, Rozgo in view of Hooper and in further\nview of Otani and Wombacher raises a substantial new question of patentability for them\nas well, for the reasons discussed above with respect to independent claims 1 (see issue\n6) and 12.\n\n53. Thus, Issue 9 raises a substantial new question of patentability regarding claims\n\n10 and 11 of the \u2018658 patent.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 26 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 23\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nResponse to Patent Owner\u2019s Pre-Order Paper\n54. | Patent Owner\u2019s pre-Order paper (hereinafter \u201cpre-order paper\u2019) was entered into\nthe file on June 25, 2026. The pre-order paper has been fully considered but is not\npersuasive.\n55. The Patent Owner\u2019s argument in the pre-order paper is directed towards\nanticipation and obviousness (pp. 2-6). Such arguments are not considered here since\nthey are directed to 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103, not SNQ. As noted in MPEP 2242 l(b),\nan SNQ can be present even if a prior art rejection could not necessarily be made:\n56. \u2018It is not necessary that a \"prima facie\" case of unpatentability exist as to the claim\nin order for \"a substantial new question of patentability\u201d to be present as to the\nclaim. Thus, \"a substantial new question of patentability\" as to a patent claim could be\npresent even if the examiner would not necessarily reject the claim as either fully\nanticipated by, or obvious in view of, the prior art patents or printed publications. As to\nthe importance of the difference between \"a substantial new question of patentability\" and\na \"prima facie\" case of unpatentability see generally In re Effer, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.5,\n225 USPQ 1, 4n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1985).\n57. Further, MPEP 2246 expressly states that no statement will be made in the Order\nas to whether claims are rejected over prior art (underline emphasis in original):\n58. In the decision on the request, the examiner will not decide, and no statement\nshould be made as to, whether the claims are rejected over the patents and printed\npublications. The examiner does not decide the question of patentability of the claims in\nthe decision on the request. The examiner only decides whether there is a substantial\n\nnew question of patentability to grant the request to order reexamination.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 27 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 24\nArt Unit: 3991\n\n59. Patent Owner may make arguments concerning anticipation and obviousness in a\nStatement in response to the Order or in remarks in response to any future rejection(s) of\nthe claims during reexamination.\n35 USC 325(d)\n60. After considering the record, and in view of all relevant considerations, it is\ndetermined that denial under 35 U.S.C. 325(d) of the request for reexamination is not\nappropriate under the specific facts of this case.\nConclusion\n61. The references set forth in the request have been considered both alone and in\ncombination. They raise a substantially new question of patentability for patented claims\n1-16. Accordingly, the request for reexamination is GRANTED.\nDuty of Disclosure\n62. Duty of Disclosure The patent owner is reminded of the continuing responsibility\nunder 37 CFR - 1.565(a) to apprise the Office of any litigation activity, or other prior or\nconcurrent proceeding, involving Patent No.10,151,658 throughout the course of this\nreexamination proceeding.\nService of Papers\n63. After the filing of a request for reexamination by a third party requester, any\ndocument filed by either the patent owner or the third party requester must be served on\nthe other party (or parties where two or more third party requester proceedings are\nmerged) in the reexamination proceeding in the manner provided in 37 CFR 1.248. See\n\n37 CFR 1.550(f).\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26 Page 28 of 29\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347 Page 25\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nCorrespondence\n\n64. ~\u2014_ Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the\nexaminer should be directed to Leonardo Andujar whose telephone number is 571 -272-\n1912. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 6:30am-4:30pm. _ If\nattempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's\nsupervisors, Patricia Engle 571-272-6660.\n65. \u2014 Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be\nobtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is\navailable to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center,\nvisit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https:/Avww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-\ncenter for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/docx\nfor information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the\nElectronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance\nfrom a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR\nCANADA) or 571-272-1000.\n66. Telephone Numbers for reexamination inquiries:\n\nCentral Reexam Unit (CRU) (5/71) 272-7705 Reexamination\n\nFacsimile Transmission No. (571) 273-9900\n67. All correspondence relating to this ex parte reexamination proceeding may be\nsubmitted via:\n\nElectronically: Registered users may submit via Patent Center\nhttps://patentcenter.uspto.gov/.\n\nBy Mail to: Mail Stop Ex Parte Reexam\nCentral Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document51-1 Filed 08/17/26\n\nApplication/Control Number: 90/016,347\nArt Unit: 3991\n\nUnited States Patent & Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nBy FAX to: (571) 273-9900\nCentral Reexamination Unit\nBy hand: Customer Service Window\nKnox Building\n\n501 Dulany Street\nAlexandria, VA 22314\n\nSigned:\n\n/LEONARDO ANDUJAR/\nPrimary Examiner, Art Unit 3991\n\nConferees:\n\n/LEE E SANDERSON/\nReexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991\n\n/Patricia L Engle/\nSPRS, Art Unit 3991\n\nPage 29 of 29\n\nPage 26\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-17T15:53:29.969230-07:00","document_number":"51","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181037210957","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. A - 658 Patent - Reexamination Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T15:53:24.443207-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T16:03:21.925990-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"17:51:56","entry_number":51,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":162,"description":"NOTICE of Supplemental Authority In Support of Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.'s Motion to Stay Pending Ex Parte Reexamination by STMicroelectronics, Inc. re [39] MOTION to Stay Case Pending Ex Parte Reexamination (Attachments: (1) Exhibit Ex. A - 658 Patent - Reexamination Order)(Becker, Jeffery)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474716496/","id":474716496,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490226333/","id":490226333,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/50/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-17T09:09:50.978825-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T17:36:03.769326-07:00","sha1":"3221285e0dddfa5edb6c5df8bdfbb157b6b9608c","page_count":4,"file_size":176648,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.50.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.50.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n Plaintiff\n\nv.\n Civil Action No.: 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n Defendant\n\n\n ORDER REGARDING JULY 16, 2026\n DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION\n\n On July 16, 2026, the parties submitted a discovery dispute chart outlining a\n\ndisagreement over the plaintiff\u2019s identification of allegedly infringing products. After reviewing\n\nthe parties\u2019 positions, the Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The defendant\u2019s request to strike the\n\nplaintiff\u2019s accused-products that are not specifically charted in Appendices A\u2013E to the plaintiff\u2019s\n\npreliminary contentions is DENIED; and the defendant\u2019s request for fees and costs is also\n\nDENIED.\n\n\n\n SIGNED this 17th day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\n\nIssue ST\u2019s Position CPT\u2019s Position\nWhether CPT has a CPT should not proceed on its uncharted product list CPT charted five products the only way ST\u2019s packages\nsufficient basis to because CPT\u2019s admissions show that it has no legitimate permit: by physically tearing down and X-raying them. The\ncontinue accusing basis to accuse those products. CPT\u2019s list was constructed asserted claims cover structures inside the package\u2014lead\nuncharted through guesswork without verifying the uncharted products frames, power and ground bars, mold locks, and the sensor\nproducts. 1) actually exist, and 2) were allegedly infringing. CPT\u2019s gel, diaphragm, and lid\u2014that no public document reveals.\n lack of diligence has multiplied ST\u2019s discovery costs, and Having proven infringement in the charted parts, CPT\n CPT should not be permitted to continue multiplying those identified the broader families sharing those structures by\n costs. Relief is needed to avoid further prejudice. package type and product line. That is all the preliminary\n stage requires: uncharted products \u201cneed only be \u2018reasonably\n CPT\u2019s original February 12 contentions charted five similar\u2019 to those specifically charted.\u201d IGT v. Zynga, Inc.,\n products, relying on product teardown photos and X-ray No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA, Dkt. 61, at 4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1,\n imaging. Those contentions vaguely referred to additional, 2022) (Albright, J.).\n uncharted products. Left unable to address its production\n deadline, ST pressed CPT for a specific list of accused ST\u2019s motion inverts that standard into something no plaintiff\n products. On March 27, CPT served \u201csupplemental\u201d could meet. ST faults CPT for not confirming, before\n contentions adding 320 products, again with no discovery, that every family member shares the accused\n infringement explanation. ST took the list at face value, internal structure. But there are only two ways to see inside\n producing on May 18 over 1,500 documents. an ST package: destroy a physical unit, or read ST\u2019s internal\n design and assembly documents. ST would have CPT buy\n ST\u2019s subsequent investigation revealed a severe lack of and tear down hundreds of parts to answer a question ST can\n diligence. To construct its list, CPT claims that it used \u201cST's answer from its own files\u2014files ST holds and refuses to\n own part-numbering conventions\u201d to generate names produce. ST demands the impossible, then faults CPT for\n including \u201call variants within [a] family\u201d that the falling short of it.\n convention would predict. Ex-A, 1,11. Missing was any\n verification that the products existed (even a simple internet The list ST attacks is the list ST demanded. When ST\n search) or that CPT had any basis to accuse them. Review insisted on part numbers, CPT built them from ST\u2019s own\n reveals the result: over 50 products do not exist, and among datasheets and ST\u2019s own part-numbering conventions\u2014an\n the products that do exist are multiple package types with over-inclusive, good-faith effort to map a sprawling catalog\n different pin counts and configurations lumped together as ST alone controls. The \u201cerrors\u201d ST touts prove the point:\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\nthough interchangeable. Id.,12-25. Despite the plausible whether a predicted part number exists, or carries a different\ninference, CPT denies that it used AI to construct the list. pin count, is something ST could confirm from its catalog\u2014\nPressed on how it could rely on \u201crepresentativeness\u201d for and ST took weeks to do so. CPT dropped each part\nhundreds of different products, CPT promised a remedy promptly once ST identified it.\nwhile conceding the list included non-existent and\nunaccused products. Its June 16 \u201csecond\u201d supplement To defeat representativeness, ST needs a \u201cdeclaration or\nremoved over 70 products. For every remaining product, technical document\u201d showing an internal difference. IGT v.\nCPT added a single sentence per patent asserting without Zynga, Dkt. 61, at 5. It has none\u2014only attorney argument\nexplanation the charted product is \u201crepresentative.\u201d Id. and pin counts, which say nothing about what is inside the\n package. The statement ST quotes was CPT's complaint\nThat assertion is not merely unsupported; it is about ST\u2019s deficient production, not an admission. And ST\u2019s\nunsupportable. CPT\u2019s infringement theory rests on interior lone authority struck nothing. SVV Tech. Innovations, Inc. v.\npackage structures, yet CPT contends the information it Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:20-cv-00139-ADA, Dkt. 35\nused to compile its list \u201cdescribe[s] only exterior (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020). Where the dispositive evidence\nfeatures\u2026and do[es] not show the internal package sits with ST, the remedy is the production CPT is already\nstructures at all,\u201d and \u201csays nothing about whether [a pursuing, not a strike.\nproduct] shares the claimed internal construction.\u201d Id., 4-\n5,11. A representativeness theory may not \u201cbe used as ST\u2019s fee request cites no rule, no authority, and no amount\u2014\nremedy for incomplete PICs,\u201d particularly here where the and would shift to CPT the cost of ST producing its own\ntheory is no more than a bare assertion. SVV Tech. public datasheets. It should be denied.\nInnovations, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:20-cv-139-\nADA, ECF No. 35 at 2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 9, 2020). CPT has CPT\u2019s Requested Relief: It is ORDERED that ST\u2019s requested\nthus admitted, in substance, that it had no basis to compile relief is DENIED. ST\u2019s request to strike CPT\u2019s accused-\nthe list in the first place\u2014yet CPT continues to rely on that product list as to products not specifically charted in\nlist for additional production requests. Appendices A\u2013E to CPT\u2019s contentions is DENIED; and ST\u2019s\n request that CPT reimburse ST\u2019s fees and costs incurred\nST has been patient. It has sent five letters since February investigating and responding to CPT\u2019s uncharted-product list\nand permitted CPT to serve two rounds of amended is DENIED.\ncontentions\u2014amendments CPT could not have certified\nunder the OGP. CPT should not be allowed to continue into\ndiscovery on its unexamined and unverified list, which has\nalready cost ST significant time investigating over 50 non-\nexistent products and producing documents for over 20\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 50 Filed 08/17/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\nunaccused products.\n\nRelief: ST requests that the Court order any or all of the\nfollowing relief:\n\nOrder that \u201cCPT\u2019s accused-product list is stricken as to all\nproducts not specifically charted in Appendices A\u2013E to\nCPT\u2019s contentions, without prejudice to CPT seeking leave\nto add any specific product identified through subsequent\ndiscovery for which it can articulate a good-faith basis for\nalleging infringement;\u201d and order that \u201cCPT shall reimburse\nST's reasonable fees and costs incurred investigating and\nresponding to CPT\u2019s uncharted product list, including for\neach of the following:\n\n(a) the non-existent products CPT included in its March 27,\n2026 accused-product list through its lack of diligence;\n\n(b) the unaccused products CPT included in its March 27,\n2026 accused-product list through its lack of diligence; and\n\n(c) the remaining uncharted products in CPT's June 16,\n2026 list, for which CPT has failed to present any viable\nrepresentative-products theory.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-17T09:09:51.281440-07:00","document_number":"50","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037206374","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T09:09:50.939743-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T09:19:40.514368-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"11:08:12","entry_number":50,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":160,"description":"ORDER REGARDING JULY 16, 2026 DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474716475/","id":474716475,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490226312/","id":490226312,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/49/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-17T09:08:16.453937-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-21T19:18:33.098535-07:00","sha1":"ed438fc4c026387c32e9eb6c648ecb9dedd50875","page_count":4,"file_size":214188,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.49.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.49.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/490226312.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 49 Filed 08/17/26 Page 1 of 4\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n Plaintiff\n\nv.\n Civil Action No.: 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n Defendant\n\n\n ORDER REGARDING JULY 16, 2026\n DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS\n\n\n On July 16, 2026, the parties submitted a discovery dispute chart outlining a\n\ndisagreement over the production of technical documents during the pre-claim construction\n\nphase of the case. A copy of that chart is attached as Exhibit A. After reviewing the parties\u2019\n\npositions, the Court finds a hearing unnecessary. The plaintiff\u2019s requested relief of early\n\nproduction of detailed technical documents is DENIED without prejudice to seeking the\n\ninformation once fact discovery opens.\n\n SIGNED this 17th day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 49 Filed 08/17/26 Page 2 of 4\n\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT A\nIssue Requesting Party\u2019s (CPT) Position Responding Party\u2019s (ST) Position\nIssue 1: ST\u2019s The Amended Scheduling Order Fact discovery opens in less than 7\ncourt-ordered required ST to produce, by May 18, weeks. Unsatisfied with the Court\u2019s\ntechnical 2026, \u201ctechnical documents, scheduling order, and during the\nproduction including software where applicable, middle of claim construction, CPT\n sufficient to show the operation of the demands early discovery and has\ncontains no\n accused product(s).\u201d Dkt. 38. ST has therefore manufactured a dispute under\ninternal design or failed to meet this basic requirement the Court\u2019s \u201csufficient to show\u201d\nassembly after nearly 3 months of requirement. CPT\u2019s flawed demand for\ndocuments correspondence. The parties conferred extensive pre-Markman discovery\n on July 9, as well through multiple should be denied at least because: (1)\n emails and letters, and are at an ST\u2019s May 18 production\u2014more than\n impasse. 1,500 documents totaling over 140,000\n pages\u2014satisfies the OGP\u2019s\n Every asserted claim covers requirement of \u201ctechnical\n structures inside the accused documents\u2026sufficient to show the\n semiconductor packages, such as operation of the accused product(s);\u201d\n (2) CPT fails to justify its request; (3)\n lead frames, power and ground\n CPT ignores the highly confidential\n bars, mold locks, and the sensor nature of the documents it seeks, and\n gel, diaphragm, and lid. These simultaneously denies ST\u2019s request to\n structures cannot be seen in public enter an agreed PO; and (4) as\n documents, which only show the explained in ST\u2019s concurrently\n outside of the package. ST\u2019s submitted chart, CPT had no basis to\n production contains no document accuse the hundreds of products listed\n showing the internal construction in its contentions.\n of any accused product. CPT\n reviewed each and every page: all First, ST\u2019s production contains\n roughly 140,000 pages are public, thousands of pages of data sheets,\n customer-facing materials application notes, and technical notes\n providing great detail on the operation\n (datasheets, pinouts, package of the accused products. While not\n outlines), and none shows how the required, it is not true that \u201cST\u2019s\n packages are built inside. There production contains no document\n are no lead frame drawings, no showing the internal construction of\n package assembly drawings, and any accused product\u201d\u2014CPT overlooks\n no mold or encapsulation various documents showing \u201cinternal\n specifications for even a single structure\u201d:\n product.\n\n ST maintains that its production is\n sufficient but, when asked, would\n not identify any internal document\n showing the construction of any\n accused package\u2014including for\n the five products CPT charted\n element by element. ST also\n\n\n\n 1\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 49 Filed 08/17/26 Page 3 of 4\n\n\n\n\n refused to provide any alternative\n proposal.\n\n The pre-Markman technical\n production exists to provide the\n non-public evidence a plaintiff\n needs for its final infringement\n contentions, due November 5. IGT ST_CPT_00063191 (LPS28DFW), at\n v. Zynga Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00331- 10; ST_CPT_00143170 (AN5046), at\n ADA, Dkt. 61 at 4\u20135 (W.D. Tex. 5-16 (PowerFLAT diagrams). ST is not\n Mar. 1, 2022) (compelling required to produce all technical\n production of technical documents documents at the pre-Markman stage.\n \u201csufficient to show the operation After Markman, CPT can serve RFPs\n of the accused product(s)\u201d where for documents that are relevant and\n the withheld evidence \u201csits at [the] proportional to the needs of the case.\n heart of the discovery\u201d plaintiffs At bottom, CPT\u2019s request is about\n need \u201cto provide more detailed timing rather than production.\n final infringement contentions\u201d; a\n Second, this Court requires exceptional\n defendant \u201ccannot refuse to circumstances to lift the pre-Markman\n comply with discovery just stay, but CPT fails to present any\n because [it] believes it does not because none exist. CPT\u2019s\n infringe\u201d). correspondence originally sought to\n justify its request by relying on\n There are no confidentiality inapplicable California and EDTX\n concerns here. CPT offered on rules. CPT now relies solely on IGT v.\n June 16 to receive these Zynga\u2014a WDTX case that CPT\n documents under Outside mischaracterizes. That Plaintiff sought\n Attorneys\u2019 Eyes Only treatment additional discovery after fact\n discovery opened. CPT concedes its\n pending entry of a protective\n final contentions are not due until\n order, the interim mechanism the November\u2014months away and well\n standing orders used for patent after discovery opens.\n cases in this District provide. See\n OGP 4.4 \u00a7 VIII. ST has not Third, it is not true that \u201cthere are no\n accepted. confidentiality concerns here.\u201d The\n types of internal documents that CPT\n Given ST\u2019s written representation, seeks are highly confidential in nature,\n made after the conference, that ST and ST has repeatedly voiced those\n \u201cdoes not anticipate Hague-related concerns to CPT. To address those\n issues for typical technical concerns, ST proposed a PO on May\n 12. Over two months have passed and\n documents held by ST-related\n CPT has refused to respond to ST\u2019s\n affiliates,\u201d there is no question that proposal. CPT\u2019s request seeks to\n ST possesses, has custody of, or prejudice ST\u2019s ability to adequately\n controls the internal design and protect its confidential information and\n assembly documents for the limit its use for this case only. No\n accused products and can produce production should be ordered until an\n them. appropriate PO is entered.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 49 Filed 08/17/26 Page 4 of 4\n\n\n\n\n Fourth, CPT\u2019s relief is not narrowly\n tailored to its five charted products and\n CPT\u2019s Requested Relief: The seeks to cover \u201ceach accused package\n Court orders ST to produce, within family\u201d in CPT\u2019s contentions. To the\n 14 days, internal design and extent CPT\u2019s requested relief extends\n to its uncharted products list, it should\n assembly documents\u2014including, be denied. CPT compiled an improper\n as applicable: (1) lead frame list accusing hundreds of uncharted\n design drawings, (2) package products, without verifying that the\n assembly and outline drawings, (3) products existed let alone verifying\n mold and encapsulation infringement. This Court should not\n specifications, and (4) for the grant a pre-discovery order under these\n accused sensor products, gel, circumstances.\n diaphragm, and lid assembly\n documentation\u2014sufficient to show Finally, ST\u2019s statement as to the\n the internal construction of the five parties\u2019 Hague discussions is on\n charted products (STL220N6F7 record, and ST does not agree with the\n characterization as CPT has presented\n (PowerFLAT 5x6), SPC582B60E1 to the Court.\n (eTQFP-64), STM32G071CB\n (UFQFPN-48), SR5E1E7 (eLQFP- ST\u2019s Requested Relief: ST requests\n 176), and LPS28DFW (CCLGA- that the Court order that \u201cCPT\u2019s\n 6L)) and each accused package request is denied,\u201d and that \u201cthe parties\n family identified in CPT\u2019s June 16, shall meet and confer regarding ST's\n 2026 Second Supplemental proposed protective order and submit\n Preliminary Infringement to the Court, within 14 days, an agreed\n Contentions. protective order or a joint report\n identifying any remaining disputes.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-17T09:08:17.074346-07:00","document_number":"49","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037206354","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-17T09:08:16.380211-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-17T09:19:41.770605-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-17","time_filed":"11:06:28","entry_number":49,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":158,"description":"ORDER REGARDING JULY 16, 2026 DISCOVERY DISPUTE OVER TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473259669/","id":473259669,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488720809/","id":488720809,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/48/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-04T15:10:09.149410-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T13:44:58.605547-07:00","sha1":"799cd04393dade48788610f9bf249f0b90af3333","page_count":21,"file_size":478200,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.48.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.48.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 1 of 21\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\n\n Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n\n\n v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\n Defendant.\n\n\n DEFENDANT STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\u2019S REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 2 of 21\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1\nII. DISPUTED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 1\n A. U.S. PATENT 9,685,351 ........................................................................................... 1\n 1. \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d (Claims 1-3) .................................................. 1\n 2. \u201claterally protrude above the top surface\u201d (Claims 1-3) ................................ 4\n B. U.S. PATENT 9,299,646 ........................................................................................... 6\n 1. \u201csaid area\u201d (Claims 1, 5-7, 11)....................................................................... 6\n 2. \u201cdisposed between [the embedded portions of] the plurality of signal leads\n and the first side of the power bar\u201d (Claims 1, 5-7, 11)................................. 6\n C. U.S. PATENT 9,263,299 ........................................................................................... 7\n 1. \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d (Claims 1, 3, and 4) ....................................................... 7\n 2. \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface on its\n underside\u201d (Claims 1, 3, and 4) ................................................................... 10\n 3. \u201cmounting . . . dispensing . . . attaching . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d (Claims 1, 3,\n and 4) ........................................................................................................... 12\n D. U.S. PATENT 8,643,189 ......................................................................................... 13\n 1. \u201cpower rail pad\u201d (Claims 1, 13, 14, and 19) ................................................ 13\n 2. \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d (Claims 1, 13, 14, and 19) .............. 15\nIII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 3 of 21\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n\n Page(s)\n\nCASES\n\nAstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co.,\n 384 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2004)................................................................................................14\n\nAventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc.,\n 675 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..............................................................................................2, 9\n\nBell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc.,\n 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................9\n\nBicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co.,\n 441 F.3d 945 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................4\n\nEdwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc.,\n 582 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................9, 10\n\nFenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P\u2019ship,\n 778 F.3d 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2015)............................................................................................8, 15\n\nHoneywell Int\u2019l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc.,\n 452 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2006)..........................................................................................10, 11\n\nIntellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,\n No. 2:17-cv-577-JRG, ECF No. 197 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2018) ................................................6\n\nLuminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown Elecs. Co. Ltd.,\n 814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016)................................................................................................15\n\nMyPAQ Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n No. 2023-2024, 2025 WL 1189920 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2025) ..................................................9\n\nSalazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,\n 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)............................................................................................8, 13\n\nSciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc.,\n 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..............................................................................................2, 3\n\nSinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int\u2019l Trade Comm\u2019n,\n 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................14\n\nSkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc.,\n 727 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................9\n\n\n\n517887713.4 iii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 4 of 21\n\n\n\n\nThorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,\n 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................2\n\nVerizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,\n 503 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................11\n\nVitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,\n 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)....................................................................................................5\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 iv\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 5 of 21\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n CPT describes ST\u2019s proposed constructions as having a \u201cconsistent\u201d \u201cpattern\u201d that\n\n\u201csystematically seek to narrow or rewrite clear claim language,\u201d but the facts tell a different story.\n\nST\u2019s approach is measured and consistent with Federal Circuit precedent. For four of nine disputed\n\nterms, ST proposes the plain and ordinary meaning, while CPT defends a meaning inconsistent with\n\nthat meaning (two terms) or all but concedes ST\u2019s meaning is correct while seeking to shield that\n\nmeaning from the jury (the other two terms). For the remaining five, ST proposes the constructions\n\ndemanded by limiting statements and definitions in the intrinsic record. That is not the overreach\n\nCPT portrays. It is the correct application of the law to the facts. ST does not ask the Court to import\n\nlimitations. ST asks the Court to hold the patentees to the definitions, disclaimers, and disavowals\n\nthe intrinsic record demands. The Court should adopt ST\u2019s proposals.\n\nII. DISPUTED TERMS\n\n A. U.S. PATENT 9,685,351\n\n 1. \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d (Claims 1-3)\n The parties agree that \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d refers, at least partially, to \u201craised\n\nmechanical locking features.\u201d The sole dispute is whether the construction must include the\n\npatentee\u2019s own repeated disclaimer of conventional etched, stamped, and recessed features. ST\n\nsubmits that it must. CPT\u2019s partial adoption of the specification\u2019s language while disowning the\n\nspecification\u2019s disclaimers would allow the patentee to claw back scope that was repeatedly\n\ndistinguished from being within the meaning of a \u201cpositive mold lock structure.\u201d 1\n\n\n\n1\n On July 23, 2026, CPT sought a one-month extension\u2014from August 8 to September 8, 2026\u2014of\nits deadline to respond to the June 8, 2026 non-final Office Action rejecting all reexamined claims\nof the \u2019351 Patent, stating that it is \u201cevaluating the Office Action in view of the district court\nlitigation\u201d and \u201cweighing the option of submitting supplemental evidence, such as a declaration from\nan expert in the relevant technology, to fully respond to the Office Action.\u201d Ex. N at 1. The Patent\nOffice granted CPT\u2019s extension on July 27, 2026. Ex. O. CPT\u2019s response is thus now due after the\n\n\n517887713.4 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 6 of 21\n\n\n\n\n CPT\u2019s brief relies on Thorner to suggest that ST\u2019s construction is \u201cread[ing] limitations from\n\nthe specification into claims,\u201d but CPT does not dispute that \u201cpositive mold lock\u201d is a coined term\n\nwhose meaning derives from the specification. Resp. Br. at 4-6 (citing Thorner four times and\n\narguing that ST\u2019s \u201cobservation that the term is \u2018coined\u2019 changes nothing\u201d). ST\u2019s construction does\n\nnot read in limitations. It recognizes the repeated disclaimers that the patentee used to attribute\n\nmeaning to the term. Op. Br. at 2-5. Thorner states that \u201c[w]here the specification makes clear that\n\nthe invention does not include a particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of\n\nthe claims of the patent.\u201d Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2012) (quoting SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2001)).\n\n The same principle applies here. The specification repeatedly and expressly contrasts the\n\ndisclosed embodiments with conventional approaches using the parenthetical exclusion\u2014\u201craised\n\n(not etched, stamped, or recessed)\u201d mechanical locking features. Ex. A at 3:37\u201347; 5:61\u20136:4; 6:25\u2013\n\n32. These passages are not mere examples; they are definitional and controlling. See Aventis Pharma\n\nS.A. v. Hospira, Inc., 675 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (\u201cThis clear expression need not be in\n\nhaec verba but may be inferred from clear limiting descriptions of the invention in the specification\n\nor prosecution history.\u201d). That the patentee distinguished its allegedly novel embodiments from\n\n\u201cconventional approaches which use etched, stamped, or recessed features\u201d only provides further\n\nreason to find disavowal of structures having these features. Ex. A at 5:7\u201314. CPT contends that this\n\npassage concerns only a \u201csingle embodiment,\u201d but the same parenthetical (not etched, stamped, or\n\nrecessed) describes both wedge bond loops 114 and stud bumps 214-215\u2014making the conventional\n\n\n\n\nSeptember 1, 2026 Markman hearing and may add intrinsic evidence bearing on the terms construed\nhere, reinforcing the grounds for ST\u2019s pending motion to stay. ECF Nos. 39, 41.\n\n\n517887713.4 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 7 of 21\n\n\n\n\napproach distinction equally applicable to both. Op. Br. at 5. These patentee statements \u201cdistinguish\n\nthe prior art\u201d and \u201cpoint out the advantages\u201d of the allegedly inventive positive mold lock structures,\n\nand thus \u201cthe claims should not be read so broadly as to encompass the distinguished prior art\n\nstructure.\u201d SciMed, 242 F.3d at 1343; see Resp. Br. at 6 (conceding the patent\u2019s \u201ccontrast[] with\n\nconventional prior-art approaches\u201d is \u201can explanation of the invention\u2019s advantages\u201d). CPT\u2019s silence\n\non the controlling caselaw is telling.\n\n CPT\u2019s remaining arguments are unpersuasive. CPT argues that the three specification\n\nparentheticals\u2014\u201c(not etched, stamped, or recessed)\u201d (twice) and \u201c(not half-etched)\u201d (once)\u2014are\n\ninconsistent. Resp. Br. at 6. That argument misreads the evidence. \u201cHalf-etched\u201d is a specific\n\nsubtype of \u201cetched.\u201d These exclusionary parentheticals are not inconsistent\u2014they consistently\n\nexclude subtractive processes. If anything, the \u201cnot half-etched\u201d limitation is a further exclusion over\n\nand above \u201cnot etched, stamped, or recessed\u201d\u2014it is certainly no indicator that the patentee intended\n\nto reclaim the carefully distinguished prior art approaches described earlier with respect to wedge\n\nbond loops 114 and stud bumps 214-215. These passages, read together, establish a single, consistent\n\nmeaning: \u201cpositive\u201d mold lock structures was coined to refer to raised structures and not to etched,\n\nstamped, or recessed, or even half-etched structures.\n\n CPT argues the prosecution history supports CPT because applicant only mentioned\n\nprotruding and locking with mold\u2014and did not repeat that the structures are not etched, stamped, or\n\nrecessed. Resp. Br. at 5. ST\u2019s opening brief cited that statement as evidence that the term is coined,\n\na point which CPT all but concedes. Id. The mere fact that this passage did not double-down on the\n\nspecification disavowals does not undermine those statements. Patentee\u2019s argument was focused on\n\ndistinguishing raised structures the patentee argued served no mold lock function; the patentee had\n\nno reason to re-raise the not etched, stamped, or recessed distinction at that time.\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 8 of 21\n\n\n\n\n CPT\u2019s proposed construction that \u201cpositive\u201d just means \u201craised\u201d adds nothing beyond the\n\nalready recited requirement \u201claterally protrude above the top surface.\u201d To give the term independent\n\nmeaning, \u201cpositive\u201d must do more work\u2014it must distinguish raised features from subtractive ones.\n\nBicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (\u201cclaims are interpreted with an\n\neye toward giving effect to all terms in the claim.\u201d).\n\n Finally, CPT casts ST\u2019s discussion of dam bar 108 as manufacturing a \u201cnon-infringement\u201d\n\nargument and as one about an element not found within the intrinsic record. That position is,\n\nhowever, puzzling because dam bar 108 is described by the \u2019351 Patent (i.e., it is part of the intrinsic\n\nrecord) but not as a positive mold lock structure. ST\u2019s point is that CPT\u2019s proposed construction\n\ncovers such previously well-known structures\u2014a point CPT\u2019s response appears to concede. The\n\nCourt should adopt ST\u2019s construction.\n\n 2. \u201claterally protrude above the top surface\u201d (Claims 1-3)\n The parties agree this term has its plain and ordinary meaning but dispute what meaning the\n\nterm \u201claterally\u201d imparts to the claim. Resp. Br. at 7. The parties appear to agree that \u201cabove the top\n\nsurface\u201d describes the location of a protrusion relative to the top surface of the lead frame. Although\n\nCPT casts the dispute as a dispute over the parties\u2019 choice of words (\u201calong\u201d versus \u201cto the side of\u201d),\n\nthe real dispute is whether the term \u201claterally protrudes\u201d describes the direction of the protrusion\n\n(ST\u2019s construction) or concerns a second, undisclosed location requirement (CPT\u2019s construction).\n\n ST\u2019s proposal correctly addresses that laterally protrude describes a direction and elegantly\n\nprovides an easy-to-comprehend reference frame for that direction: the positive mold lock structure\n\nmust protrude \u201calong . . . the top surface\u201d (that is, in a direction horizontal to the surface). CPT\n\nconcedes that the term refers to a \u201cstructure that extends laterally\u2014to the side\u2014from its base while\n\nelevated above that surface. . .\u201d Resp. Br. at 8. This confirms the unstated reference in the claim\u2014\n\nthe mold lock structure must protrude laterally from its base, that is sideways with respect to the\n\n\n517887713.4 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 9 of 21\n\n\n\n\nmold lock structure or horizontally along the top surface. The real issue is not whether the term \u201cto\n\nthe side\u201d or \u201calong\u201d is used in the construction, it is which construction correctly identifies and\n\ncaptures a proper frame of directional reference for the term \u201claterally protrude.\u201d ST captures this\n\nmeaning precisely and consistently with all embodiments. Op. Br. at 8 (collecting cites).\n\n CPT\u2019s proposal does not clarify direction at all. It adds a second,\n\nunsupported location requirement: \u201cto the side of and above the top surface.\u201d Resp. Br. at 7. That\n\nconstruction improperly uses the top surface as a reference for location and would place the\n\nprotrusion spatially offset to the side of it\u2014a location beyond the edge of the lead frame. CPT\n\nconverts the directional concept of the claim and specification into a locational one, placing the\n\nprotrusion in a location that no disclosed embodiment shows. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,\n\n90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Wire loops (Figs. 4-7) and stud bumps (Figs. 8-9) all protrude\n\nabove and along the top surface (consistent with ST\u2019s construction), not to its side (inconsistent with\n\nCPT\u2019s construction). CPT\u2019s proposal also conflicts with the specification\u2019s description that mold\n\ncompound \u201cflow[s] under\u201d the laterally protruding features for \u201csecure locking\u201d\u2014for this to work,\n\nthe protrusion must be along and above the surface, not offset to its side. Ex. A at 4:26\u201329; 5:59\u201361.\n\n CPT\u2019s criticisms of ST\u2019s proposal are without merit. CPT argues Hologic is inapplicable\n\nbecause the claim provides its own reference (\u201cthe top surface\u201d). But resolving the ambiguity in the\n\nframe of reference is the point of ST\u2019s construction and the key distinction in the parties\u2019 competing\n\nconstructions. ST properly recognizes that the protrusion is in the sideways direction with respect to\n\nthe structure itself (equivalently stated as along the surface), while CPT contends the reference is the\n\nlead frame (incorrectly suggesting a protrusion located to its side). CPT\u2019s proposal would mislead\n\nthe jury into believing the protrusion must be located to the side of the lead frame rather than\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 10 of 21\n\n\n\n\nextending horizontally above it.2 The Court should adopt ST\u2019s construction.\n\n B. U.S. PATENT 9,299,646\n\n 1. \u201csaid area\u201d (Claims 1, 5-7, 11)\n\n The parties agree on the antecedent basis and plain meaning for this term. ST\u2019s construction\n\nsimply makes this meaning explicit for the jury (which courts routinely do 3), while CPT wants to\n\nhide the meaning from the jury. ST submits that the jury would benefit from the clarified antecedent\n\nbasis. See Op. Br. at 13-14. The Court should adopt ST\u2019s construction.\n\n 2. \u201cdisposed between [the embedded portions of] the plurality of signal\n leads and the first side of the power bar\u201d (Claims 1, 5-7, 11)\n\n ST\u2019s construction clarifies the term based on the plain and ordinary meaning of \u201cbetween\u201d\n\nthat CPT concedes: \u201cbetween\u201d refers to \u201cin the space or interval separating.\u201d Resp. Br. at 10. Being\n\ndisposed in \u201cspace or interval separating\u201d the signal leads and the first side of the power bar requires\n\nthat the first portion of the ground bar be disposed between the ends of the signal leads and the first\n\nside of the power bar. This is precisely the space or interval defining the separation between those\n\ntwo things. CPT attacks ST\u2019s construction as \u201crewriting\u201d the claim but never advances an alternative\n\nplain meaning showing ST\u2019s proposal to be incorrect\u2014CPT instead tries to hide its non-plain\n\nmeaning under the guise of an \u201cinfringement\u201d dispute. Resp. Br. at 10-12. CPT\u2019s brief sidesteps the\n\nreal dispute\u2014CPT\u2019s interpretation would extend the meaning of \u201cbetween\u201d to include the area\n\namongst the signal leads. See Op. Br. at 14-15. Under any reasonable interpretation, the area\n\n\u201camongst\u201d the signal leads is not between the signal leads and first side of the power bar.\n\n CPT\u2019s criticisms of ST\u2019s proposed construction fail. First, CPT attempts to obscure the\n\n\n2\n CPT\u2019s proposed construction (and location requirement) also covers the dam bar 108\u2014which the\nintrinsic record never refers to as a mold lock structure but is instead an entirely separate and well-\nknown feature.\n3\n See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-577-JRG, ECF No. 197\nat 40-41 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 6, 2018).\n\n\n517887713.4 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 11 of 21\n\n\n\n\nspecification, suggesting that the location of the ends 122a of signal leads 122 and power bar 124 is\n\nsomehow not relevant to the question. Resp. Br. at 11. But Figure 2 clearly shows that ground bar\n\nportion 132a is located in area 127, between the ends 122a of signal leads 122 and the first side 124a\n\nof power bar 124.4 Figure 2 is the only embodiment, and it only supports ST\u2019s construction.\n\n Second, CPT argues ST\u2019s Nautilus concern \u201cis not a proper claim construction argument; it\n\nis an invalidity defense.\u201d Resp. Br. at 12. ST is not arguing the claim is indefinite under its plain\n\nmeaning. Instead, ST argues that the claim is indefinite under CPT\u2019s improper, non-plain meaning.\n\nCPT tries to defend the claim\u2019s validity by suggesting that bars and leads are \u201cdistinguishable by\n\ntheir function: signal leads carry signal connections to external pins, while the power bar supplies\n\npower.\u201d Resp. Br. at 12. This argument misses the point. ST\u2019s alternative indefiniteness argument is\n\nnot about distinguishing a signal lead from a power bar\u2014it is concerned with the inability to\n\ndistinguish a power bar from a power lead and a ground bar from a ground lead under CPT\u2019s\n\ninterpretation. CPT does not deny that the specification provides no material, geometric, or\n\ncompositional standard for distinguishing a bar from a lead of the same type. Ex. B at 3:16-18; 3:43-\n\n45. Far from disproving ST\u2019s indefiniteness concern, CPT confirms it. The Court should adopt ST\u2019s\n\nconstruction and expressly reject CPT\u2019s implied reading that \u201cbetween\u201d may encompass \u201camong.\u201d\n\n C. U.S. PATENT 9,263,299\n\n 1. \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d (Claims 1, 3, and 4)\n The parties dispute whether \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d should be given its plain and ordinary\n\nmeaning, or whether the patentee\u2019s lexicography governs. ST submits that the intrinsic record makes\n\n\n\n4\n CPT\u2019s brief argues in a footnote that the specification\u2019s typographical error sometimes referring to\nembedded ends 122a as embedded ends 122b is \u201cinternally consistent\u201d and cannot support ST\u2019s\nconstruction. ST submits that the references to embedded ends 122b in the specification are readily\nunderstood typographical errors. To the extent CPT is correct, however, it only adds to the\nindefiniteness issues that persist if the claim is interpreted as CPT suggests.\n\n\n517887713.4 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 12 of 21\n\n\n\n\nclear that the term means \u201ctape,\u201d and is not just anything that carries something temporarily. CPT\u2019s\n\narguments to the contrary ring hollow. CPT first argues that claim differentiation demands the\n\nclaimed \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d be something more than just tape, pointing to Claim 5. But Claim 5\n\nrecites two specific kinds of \u201ctape\u201d\u2014carrier tape stretched in a carrier ring apparatus and carrier tape\n\nattached to a support plate. There is no claim differentiation issue here. Even if there were, claim\n\ndifferentiation cannot broaden the claim term beyond its meaning in light of the specification.\n\nFenner Invs., Ltd. v. Cellco P\u2019ship, 778 F.3d 1320, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2015). CPT also points at an\n\nalleged inconsistency with Figure 6, but that argument is also easily dispatched\u2014\u201cplate-backed\n\ncarrier tape 620\u201d is just a specific kind of \u201ctape\u201d and is embraced by ST\u2019s proposal.\n\n CPT tries to explain away the prosecution history by suggesting that the applicant could have\n\namended the claim \u201cto replace \u2018temporary carrier\u2019 with \u2018tape\u2019 throughout.\u201d Resp. Br. at 14. But ST\u2019s\n\npoint is that the original claim as submitted with the originally filed application treated the two terms\n\ninterchangeably\u2014code switching from \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d to \u201ctape\u201d half-way through the claim.\n\nThis is strong evidence that the patentee viewed the two terms as interchangeable, further supported\n\nby the Examiner\u2019s similar treatment of the terms. Ex. F at 113; Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,\n\n414 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The prosecution history supports ST\u2019s construction.\n\n CPT spends considerable attention arguing that the specification statement that \u201cthe dies are\n\nplaced on a temporarily [sic] carrier (tape) in an array (e.g., a matrix) format\u201d is not definitional.\n\nEx. C at 3:49\u201352. CPT argues that other passages use \u201ci.e.\u201d parenthetically to define a term\u2014\u201c(i.e.,\n\nRDSon)\u201d\u2014and use parentheticals without \u201ce.g.\u201d to describe examples\u2014\u201c(NiAu, Cu, NiAg, etc.).\u201d\n\nResp. Br. at 13 (citing 3:17-19; 3:33-34). But CPT ignores that the specification also uses\n\nparentheticals without an \u201ci.e.\u201d to define terms\u2014Chromium is defined as (Cr), Titanium is defined\n\nas (Ti). 3:38-41. And these definitions are provided in the paragraph immediately preceding the one\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 13 of 21\n\n\n\n\nat issue. 3:45-52. That the specification uses parentheticals in multiple ways counsels in favor of\n\nexamining the context of the specific usage in question. See MyPAQ Holdings Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs.\n\nCo., No. 2023-2024, 2025 WL 1189920, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2025) (\u201cplacing a quoted word or\n\nterm inside parentheses is a conventional manner by which one may define another term used in a\n\ndocument . . . and we have found such formulations may be indicative of lexicography in a patent\u201d).\n\nHere, there is no \u201cetc.\u201d indicating examples and there is only one term provided\u2014tape\u2014indicative\n\nof a definition. More telling, (tape) appears in the same sentence as a parenthetical (e.g. a matrix)\n\nused to identify an example. All the context clues support that the parenthetical (tape) is definitional.\n\nAventis, 675 F.3d at 1330 (\u201cThis clear expression need not be in haec verba but may be inferred\n\nfrom clear limiting descriptions of the invention. . .\u201d).\n\n CPT argues that the absence of \u201ci.e.\u201d is dispositive, but the Federal Circuit has never required\n\na magic word or phrase to find that the applicant redefined a term. See id. Whether the Court views\n\n\u2018(tape)\u2019 as definitional or as one piece of a broader pattern of consistent interchangeable usage, the\n\nresult is the same. See SkinMedica, Inc. v. Histogen Inc., 727 F.3d 1187, 1195\u201396, 1200 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2013). What matters is whether the intrinsic record as a whole reveals a \u201cclear expression\u201d of the\n\npatentee\u2019s intent to define the term. Here, the pattern is consistent: (a) the original claims used\n\n\u201ctemporary carrier\u201d and \u201ccarrier tape\u201d interchangeably; (b) every embodiment is tape; (c) the\n\nExaminer echoed the parenthetical; (d) no non-tape carrier is disclosed. Ex. C at 4:7\u201318; 6:1\u20135;\n\n6:53\u201361. Even if \u201c(tape)\u201d is not a formal \u201ci.e.,\u201d the intrinsic record establishes definition by\n\nimplication. Edwards Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Bell Atl.\n\nNetwork Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc'ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001).\n\n CPT\u2019s proposed plain meaning \u2014 \u201ca structure that carries something temporarily\u201d \u2014 should\n\nbe rejected. The patent is directed to manufacturing an exposed die package and the \u201ctemporary\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 14 of 21\n\n\n\n\ncarrier\u201d must, at a minimum, have a releasable adhesive quality to make the exposed die package.\n\nEx. C at 1:49\u201354; 3:34\u201344. The claims themselves suggest this temporary adhesive quality\u2014\n\nrequiring \u201cmounting\u201d the active device die and \u201cattaching\u201d a lead frame to it (Claim 1), and after\n\nencapsulation \u201cremoving\u201d it (Claim 4). The adhesive quality of the temporary carrier is what\n\npreserves the conductive surface of the die in encapsulation and whose removal exposes that surface.\n\nEx. C at 4:7\u201318; 6:20\u201329; Fig. 5 (step 545); 5:20-35; see Ex. I (REVALPHA article).\n\n At bottom, CPT can point to no example of any embodiment in the claims or specification\n\nwhere the claimed \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d is anything other than \u201ctape.\u201d Where the specification uses a\n\nterm consistently in only one way and discloses no broader alternative, that usage supplies the term\u2019s\n\nmeaning. Edwards, 582 F.3d at 1329; Honeywell Int\u2019l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2006). CPT\u2019s \u201cplain meaning\u201d should be rejected, and ST\u2019s proposal should be adopted.\n\n 2. \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface on\n its underside\u201d (Claims 1, 3, and 4)\n The parties appear to agree that the plain meaning of this phrase requires each of the active\n\ndevice die to have a solderable conductive surface on its underside. The parties\u2019 dispute centers on\n\nwhether that characteristic must be preserved through the packaging process (ST\u2019s position), or\n\nwhether the underside conductive surface may be consumed or buried during packaging such that\n\nthe die\u2019s underside conductive surface is no longer exposed once packaged (CPT\u2019s position).\n\n CPT argues that the underside conductive surface is a mere characteristic of the active device\n\ndie that must exist at mounting and no more. The question is not whether the die must have a\n\nsolderable underside at the time the mounting step is performed\u2014both parties agree it must. The\n\nquestion is whether the claim can be satisfied by a method that destroys that characteristic during\n\npackaging, such that the packaged device no longer has a solderable conductive underside. ST\n\nsubmits that it cannot. Under Verizon, \u201c[w]hen a patent thus describes the features of the \u2018present\n\n\n\n517887713.4 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 15 of 21\n\n\n\n\ninvention\u2019 as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.\u201d Verizon Servs. Corp. v.\n\nVonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Honeywell Int\u2019l, 452 F.3d\n\nat 1318. Here, the entire point of the claimed invention is a process for manufacturing an exposed\n\ndie package. The title of the patent is \u201cExposed Die Clip Bond Power Package,\u201d and the \u201cpresent\n\ndisclosure addresses the challenge of making a semiconductor power package with minimal R DSon,\u201d\n\nwhich \u201cis obtained by having the backside of the die exposed in the package.\u201d Ex. C, Title, 1:46-50;\n\nsee 1:5-10 (disclosure directed to \u201can exposed underside surface providing enhanced thermal\n\nperformance\u201d). The specification repeatedly confirms that the disclosed process preserves the\n\nunderside conductive die surface so that it is exposed in the packaged device. Id. at 2:10-25; 3:33-\n\n38; 5:28-34; 5:61-67. CPT ignores the controlling Verizon caselaw cited in ST\u2019s opening brief.\n\n Yet Verizon is directly analogous. The asserted method claims there recited registering a\n\nwireless telephone terminal in a \u201clocalized wireless gateway system\u201d\u2014saying nothing about\n\ncompression or packetization. Verizon, 503 F.3d at 1299-1300. The Federal Circuit nevertheless\n\nlimited the claimed \u201clocalized wireless gateway system\u201d to a gateway that compresses and\n\npacketizes, because the specification\u2019s description of the \u201cpresent invention\u201d stated that \u201c[t]he\n\ngateway compresses and decompresses voice frequency communication signals and sends and\n\nreceives the compressed signals in packet form via the network.\u201d Id. at 1308. The court rejected the\n\npatentee\u2019s argument that this was merely \u201cone aspect\u201d of the invention, precisely because that aspect\n\nwas \u201cthe very claim term that is at issue.\u201d Id. at 1308 n.8. So too here.\n\n CPT does not seriously contest that these passages describe the invention as a whole (Resp.\n\nBr. at 15-16) but instead argues that the specification description at 3:34-38 does not require \u201cthe\n\nsolderable surface to remain present and exposed in the finished package\u201d (Id.). But that is precisely\n\nthe point of the passage\u2014any \u201csolderable finish can be used, as long as the solderability is not\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 16 of 21\n\n\n\n\ndeteriorated by the processing conditions and allows storage for a sufficient period between package\n\nassembly and customer use.\u201d 3:34-38. CPT recognizes that this passage discusses material selection,\n\nbut the passage goes on to describe that the selection must allow the solderability to be preserved\n\nbetween package assembly and customer use. This clearly supports that the underside conductive\n\nsurface must remain solderable through the packaging process and exposed to the customer for use.\n\nCPT also argues that claims 1 and 3 \u201cstop short of any completed package.\u201d Resp. Br. at 16. But the\n\npoint is not whether the solderable conductive surface must remain exposed at all times during the\n\npackaging process\u2014the point is whether the claimed process is directed to producing an exposed\n\ndie clip package as required by the invention. Claim 4\u2014an asserted claim\u2014 confirms that it does,\n\nadding \u201cremoving the temporary carrier\u201d after encapsulation, confirming the temporary carrier is\n\nremoved to expose the die\u2019s solderable underside in the finished package. CPT\u2019s reading violates\n\nthe purpose of the invention. Ex. C at 1:49-54. The Court should adopt ST\u2019s construction.\n\n 3. \u201cmounting . . . dispensing . . . attaching . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d (Claims 1,\n 3, and 4)\n Although CPT contends no construction is necessary, CPT concedes at least two of the four\n\nsteps must be performed in order. Resp. Br. at 17. CPT admits that the mounting and dispensing\n\nsteps must occur before the attaching step, while disputing that mounting must occur before\n\ndispensing and attaching must occur before reflowing. As there is no dispute as to at least the\n\nordering that CPT concedes, the Court should at a minimum construe this term to require \u201c(1)\n\nmounting . . . dispensing . . . (2) attaching . . . and reflowing, where the mounting and dispensing\n\nsteps must occur before the attaching and reflowing steps.\u201d\n\n As to the remaining disputes as to ordering, CPT argues the claim does not require mounting\n\nbefore dispensing. But the dispensing step recites dispensing solder paste \u201conto the bond pads on\n\nthe plurality of active device die\u201d\u2014language that presupposes the die (and their bond pads) are\n\n\n\n517887713.4 12\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 17 of 21\n\n\n\n\nalready in their predetermined positions on the carrier. CPT next argues there is no requirement\n\n\u201cattaching must be fully complete before any reflowing can begin.\u201d But the attaching step requires\n\n\u201csolder paste\u201d to be present on the bond pads, while reflowing the solder involves converting the\n\npaste into a solid so that \u201ca connection is made.\u201d Reflowing cannot logically begin before the\n\nattaching step positions the lead frame portions in contact with the solder paste on the bond pads.\n\nContrary to CPT\u2019s suggestion, ST does not rely solely on the specification\u2019s process flow to\n\ncommand a sequence of steps. ST relies on the sequence of those steps as a manufacturing process\n\nthat logically requires the step before it to be completed before the next step can begin. In addition,\n\nwhile CPT criticizes the Examiner\u2019s reasons for distinguishing the art, CPT\u2019s brief acknowledges\n\nthat the examiner relied at least in part on the sequence of steps to allow the claims. Resp. Br. at 18-\n\n19. ST does not rely on the examiner\u2019s findings for disclaimer; ST relies on them to show how one\n\nof skill in the art would understand the claim. Salazar, 414 F.3d at 1347. The Court should enter\n\nST\u2019s proposed construction for this term.\n\n D. U.S. PATENT 8,643,189\n\n 1. \u201cpower rail pad\u201d (Claims 1, 13, 14, and 19)\n The parties agree that a \u201cpower rail pad\u201d refers at least in part to a \u201cconductive pad,\u201d and\n\nCPT does not dispute that it \u201csupplies power to circuit nodes of the die.\u201d Resp. Br. at 19-22. And\n\nwhile the parties agree that the power rail pad must be \u201con the die connection pad surface,\u201d ST\n\nsubmits that it is already an express requirement of the claim. CPT\u2019s construction is therefore\n\nredundant. The parties\u2019 main dispute is whether the power rail pad must be \u201cnot integrated with the\n\ndie circuitry\u201d as required by ST\u2019s proposal. The intrinsic record dictates that it must, and CPT offers\n\nno persuasive reasoning to the contrary.\n\n CPT offers various reasons opposing ST\u2019s proposed construction but each fails. As to\n\nlexicography, ST\u2019s opening brief showed that while the specification uses permissive \u201cmay\u201d\n\n\n517887713.4 13\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 18 of 21\n\n\n\n\nlanguage to describe various optional features of the claimed \u201cpower rail pad,\u201d the specification uses\n\nmandatory language to define what the power rail pads are: power rail pads \u201care non-circuit nodes\u201d\n\nand \u201care not integrated nodes of the circuitry within the semiconductor die 301.\u201d Ex. D, 4:26-31.\n\nCPT attempts to distinguish Sinorgchem on the basis that the specification does not use quotation\n\nmarks to define \u201cpower rail pads,\u201d but Sinorgchem did not establish a litmus test for lexicography.\n\nSinorgchem Co., Shandong v. Int\u2019l Trade Comm\u2019n, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Rather,\n\nSinorgchem treated quotation marks as one indicator and then relied separately on the definitional\n\nverb \u201cis\u201d as a signal of lexicography. Id. Contrary to CPT\u2019s position, \u201csuch rigid formalism is not\n\nrequired\u201d and a \u201cterm may be clearly redefined without an explicit statement of redefinition.\u201d\n\nAstraZeneca AB v. Mut. Pharm. Co., 384 F.3d 1333, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, the use of\n\nmandatory \u201care\u201d and \u201care not\u201d language in the presence of other optional language \u201cmay\u201d to\n\ndescribe optional features is a strong indicator that the not integrated language is definitional,\n\nparticularly where the patentee itself pointed the Examiner to that exact definitional language to\n\nobtain allowance. Ex. G at 76. CPT has no answer for the specification\u2019s mandatory/permissive\n\ncontrast nor for the patentee\u2019s reliance on this mandatory language during prosecution. Ex. G at 76.\n\n CPT\u2019s criticism of the \u201cnot integrated\u201d language is similarly unpersuasive. CPT criticizes\n\nST\u2019s proposal as not matching the specification\u2019s language exactly, but points to no difference in\n\nmeaning. CPT\u2019s concerns about juror confusion are similarly unfounded. The term \u201cintegrated\u201d is a\n\nwell-known term of art, and no one intends to argue this term means the power rail pad is not\n\nelectrically connected\u2014the claim clearly requires \u201cdie wire bonds electrically coupling the power\n\nrail pad to at least two of the die connection pads.\u201d The import of \u201cnot integrated\u201d is reasonably\n\nclear\u2014the specification describes that power rail pads are not integrated within the die circuitry but\n\nare instead \u201cmounted on the die connection pad surface 303 by an epoxy or other form of adhesive.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 14\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 19 of 21\n\n\n\n\nEx. D at 4:10-16. Regardless, the mere invocation of potential juror confusion (there is none) is\n\ninsufficient to override the clear definitions recited above and relied on in prosecution.\n\n Finally, CPT\u2019s argument that claim differentiation dictates a different result is unfounded.\n\nResp. Br. at 20. CPT fails to acknowledge controlling authority. Claim differentiation \u201cdoes not\n\nserve to broaden claims beyond their meaning in light of the specification, and does not override\n\nclear statements of scope in the specification and the prosecution history.\u201d Op. Br. at n.6 (quoting\n\nFenner, 778 F.3d at 1327). Claim differentiation cannot override the intrinsic record\u2019s mandatory\n\nstatements that power rail pads are not integrated nodes of the die circuitry. For these reasons, the\n\nCourt should adopt ST\u2019s construction.\n\n 2. \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d (Claims 1, 13, 14, and 19)\n\n The parties agree that this term refers to the surface of the die \u201copposite to\u2014i.e., on the other\n\nside of\u2014the \u2018mounting surface.\u2019\u201d Resp. Br. at 22. ST\u2019s proposed construction is the plain meaning\n\nand will aid the juror\u2019s understanding. This is also the exact phrase patentee used to explain the\n\nmeaning of this term in prosecution. Ex. G at 74 (describing that \u201cdie 301 has . . . an opposite die\n\nconnection pad surface 303 (top, active surface)\u201d). While CPT contends the patentee was merely\n\ndescribing \u201ca particular embodiment,\u201d CPT overlooks that these words were used to describe the\n\n\u201cpresent invention\u201d during prosecution. Id. There, the patentee said, \u201cthe present invention is\n\ndirected to a semiconductor die package 300 . . .\u201d and described \u201copposite die connection pad\n\nsurface (top, active surface)\u201d as part of that invention. See Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Liown\n\nElecs. Co. Ltd., 814 F.3d 1343, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the patentee\u2019s use of \u201cthe present invention\n\nis\u201d to describe invention is limiting). The Court should adopt ST\u2019s proposal.\n\nIII. CONCLUSION\n\n ST respectfully requests the Court adopt ST\u2019s proposed constructions and expressly reject\n\nCPT\u2019s proposals.\n\n\n517887713.4 15\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 20 of 21\n\n\n\n\n Dated: August 4, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jeffery S. Becker\n Jeffery S. Becker\n jeff.becker@bakerbotts.com\n Tel: (214) 953-6526\n Fax: (214) 661-4526\n Nolan Edward Sullivan McQueen\n nolan.mcqueen@bakerbotts.com\n Tel: (469) 236-5024\n Spencer Nayar\n spencer.nayar@bakerbotts.com\n Tel: (214) 600-3719\n BAKER BOTTS LLP\n 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\n Dallas, TX 75201\n\n Attorneys for STMicroelectronics, Inc.\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 16\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48 Filed 08/04/26 Page 21 of 21\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that all counsel of record are being served with a copy of the foregoing\n\ndocument via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on August 4, 2026.\n\n By: /s/ Jeffery S. Becker_____________________\n Jeffery S. Becker\n\n\n\n\n517887713.4 17\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-04T15:10:10.694138-07:00","document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037128069","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Claim Construction Brief","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488720810/","id":488720810,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/48/1/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-04T15:10:11.856654-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T13:44:56.551878-07:00","sha1":"7ead4dfe8bb57499693cc862837571911c349f5d","page_count":7,"file_size":226831,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.48.1.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.48.1.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Pagelof7\n\nEXHIBIT N\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Page2of7\n\nIN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nIn re Reexamination of: U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351 to Higgins, III\n\nReexamination Control Nos:.: 90/015,860 & 90/015,902\n\nFiled: January 5, 2026 (and January 23, 2026)\n\nConfirmation No.: 3808\n\nExaminer: Choi, Woo H\n\nArt Unit: 3992\n\nFor: WIRE BOND MOLD LOCK METHOD AND\nSTRUCTURE\n\nVIA PATENT CENTER\n\nMail Stop Ex Parte Reexamination\nCentral Reexamination Unit\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patent & Trademark Office\nP.O. Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\n\nREQUEST FOR ONE-MONTH EXTENSION OF TIME\nPURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.550(C)(2)\n\nDear Commissioner:\n\nPursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.550(c)(2), Patent Owner respectfully requests an extension of\ntime of one (1) month to respond to the first Non-Final Office Action mailed June 8, 2026 (the\n\u201cOffice Action\u201d), in connection with this reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351\n(hereinafter, the \u201c\u2019351 patent\u201d). The period for response to the Office Action runs through\nAugust 8, 2026. Therefore, this request is timely filed on July 23, 2026, which is before the day\non which action by the patent owner is due.\n\nThe current deadline for Patent Owner\u2019s response is August 8, 2026.\n\nA one-month extension would extend the deadline to September 8, 2026.\n\nCurrently, Patent Owner is working diligently in reviewing the Office Action, and\n\nevaluating the Office Action in view of the district court litigation. Patent Owner is also\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Page 3of7\n\nweighing the option of submitting supplemental evidence, such as a declaration from an expert in\nthe relevant technology, to fully respond to the Office Action. Additionally, Patent Owner\nanticipates requesting an Examiner interview regarding the Office Action, to facilitate advancing\nthis proceeding toward favorable conclusion.\n\nAlthough Patent Owner and reexamination counsel have been diligent in their efforts,\nPatent Owner respectfully submits that there is \u201csufficient cause\u201d to grant this extension request\n\nso that briefing that fully responds to the Office Action may be prepared.\n\nNOTICE OF CONCURRENT PROCEEDINGS\n\nPursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.565(a), Patent Owner hereby informs the Office of any prior or\nconcurrent proceedings in which U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351 is or was involved:\n\ne US. Patent No. 9,685,351 has been asserted by Patent Owner against Infineon\nTechnologies AG in the civil action styled Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC v. Infineon\nTechnologies AG, Case No. 3:25-cv-00147, initiated on February 6, 2025, in the US.\nDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Texas. This civil action is pending as of the date\nof this paper.\n\ne US. Patent No. 9,685,351 has been asserted by Patent Owner against\nSTMicroelectronics, Inc. in the civil action styled Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC v.\nS7TMicroelectronics, Inc., Case No. 7:25-cv-00505, initiated on October 30, 2025, in the\nU.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. This civil action is pending as of the\n\ndate of this paper.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Page4of7\n\nAPPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS\n\nThe timing of Patent Owner\u2019s response to the Office Action is governed by 37 C.F R. \u00a7\n1.550(c)(2): \u201cAny request for an extension in a third party requested ex parte reexamination must\nbe filed on or before the day on which action by the patent owner is due, and the mere filing of\nsuch a request for extension will not effect the extension. A request for an extension in a third\nparty requested ex parte reexamination will not be granted in the absence of sufficient cause or\nfor more than a reasonable time.\u201d\n\nFurther discussion of \u201csufficient cause\u201d is provided in MPEP \u00a7 2265:\n\nRequests for any extension of time in third party requested\nreexaminations ... must include a showing of sufficient cause, and\nthe extension must be for a reasonable time.\n\nAny evaluation of whether sufficient cause has been shown for an\nextension must balance the need to provide the patent owner with a\nfair opportunity to present an argument against any attack on the\npatent, and the requirement of the statute (35 U.S.C. 305) that the\nproceeding be conducted with special dispatch.\n\nAny request for an extension of time ... must fully state the reasons\ntherefor. The reasons must include a statement of what action the\npatent owner has taken to provide a response as of the date the\nrequest for extension is submitted, and why, in spite of the action\ntaken thus far, the requested additional time is needed. The statement\nmust include a factual accounting of reasonably diligent behavior by\nall those responsible for preparing a response to the outstanding\n\nOffice action within the statutory time period.\n[I]n third party requested ex parte reexaminations, a first request for\nan extension of time will generally be granted if a sufficient cause is\n\nshown, and for a reasonable time specified \u2014 usually one month.\n\n-3-\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Page5of7\n\nThe reasons stated in the request will be evaluated by the CRU SPRS\nor TC Director, and the requests will be favorably considered where\nthere is a factual accounting of reasonably diligent behavior by all\nthose responsible for preparing a response within the statutory time\n\nperiod.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Page6\u00e9of7\n\nPATENT OWNER RESPECTFULLY SUBMITS THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO\nEXTEND THE RESPOND DEADLINE BY ONE MONTH\n\nFor the reasons presented below, Patent Owner respectfully requests a one-month\nextension of time to complete the required reasonable investigation into the pending first Office\nAction and to prepare a full and complete response thereto. Patent Owner respectfully submits\n\nthat sufficient cause exists to grant this request.\n\nDiligent Investigation\n\nUpon receiving the Office Action by mail, Patent Owner\u2019s counsel immediately started\nthe process of reviewing the Office Action, the basis for the Examiner\u2019s rejections, and the\nrelied-upon prior art, and evaluating whether supplemental evidence would be necessary or\nhelpful to respond to the Examiner\u2019s rejections in the Office Action. That process has been\nongoing through June and into July. The contemplated supplemental evidence may include a\ndeclaration from an expert in the relevant field.\n\nCounsel anticipates contacting the Examiner by telephone to schedule an Examiner\u2019s\nInterview. Granting the one-month extension of time will also allow Patent Owner time to fully\nconsider the Interview\u2019s helpful discussion of the Office\u2019s positions and opinions before\nfinalizing and filing its Response.\n\nIn order to allow Patent Owner an opportunity to complete all aspects of its initial\ninvestigation, including requesting, scheduling, and conducting an Examiner\u2019s Interview, Patent\nOwner respectfully submits that there is sufficient cause to grant the requested one-month\nextension of time to respond to the Office Action and therefore move the responsive deadline to\n\nSeptember 8, 2026.\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-1 Filed 08/04/26 Page/7of7\n\nConclusion\n\nPatent Owner fully appreciates the statutory requirement and the need to proceed with\nspecial dispatch when conducting ex parte reexaminations. In this case, Patent Owner\nrespectfully submits that a one-month extension of time is reasonable and reasonably required to\nallow Patent Owner to complete the above-noted actions and prepare a full and complete\nresponse to the pending first Office Action.\n\nBased on the foregoing, Patent Owner respectfully submits that the current circumstances\nrepresent \u201csufficient cause\u201d under 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.550(c)(2) for the requested extension of time.\nFurther, this request is timely. Therefore, Patent Owner requests that this extension be granted.\n\nAlong with this Request, Patent Owner is submitting the required petition fee pursuant to\n\n37 C.FR. \u00a7 1.17(g). Please apply any charges or credits to Deposit Account No. 60-6715.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDate: July 23, 2026 /Wayne M. Helge/\nWayne M. Helge, Reg. No. 56,905\nJames T. Wilson, Reg. No. 41,439\nBUNSOW DE Mory LLP\n277 S. WASHINGTON ST., SUITE 210 #1088\nAlexandria, VA 22314\nT: (571) 208-0186\nEmail: whelge@bdiplaw.com\nEmail : jwilson@bdiplaw.com\n\nATTORNEYS FOR PATENT OWNER\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-04T15:10:17.445518-07:00","document_number":"48","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"181037128070","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. N","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488720811/","id":488720811,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/48/2/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-04T15:10:11.877635-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T14:13:42.888658-07:00","sha1":"2c1aa873beccb5e992eb2df9ca207048ce6f06af","page_count":5,"file_size":165841,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.48.2.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.48.2.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-2 Filed 08/04/26 Pagelof5\n\nEXHIBIT O\n\fCase fee Oy 002 GDC DIG Document 48-2\nNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK\n\nFiled 08/04/26 Page 2of5\n\nFFICE\nUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE\nUnited States Patent and Trademark Office\nAddress: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS\nP.O. Box 1450\nAlexandria, Virginia 22313-1450\nwww .uspto.gov\n| APPLICATION NO. | FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR | ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.\n90/015,902 & 90/015,860 01/23/2026 9685351 068758.0662B 3808\n201116 7590 07/27/2026 | EXAMINER\nBunsow De Mory LLP\n701 El Camino Real CHOI WOO H\n\nRedwood City, CA 94063\n\n| ART UNIT | PAPER NUMBER\n3992\n| MAIL DATE | DELIVERY MODE\n07/27/2026 PAPER\n\nPlease find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.\n\nThe time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.\n\nPTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)\n\nCopied from 90015902 on 07/27/2026\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-2 Filed 08/04/26 Page3of5\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patents and Trademark Office\nP.O.Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nwww.uspto.gov\n\n7/27/2026\n\nTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS\n\nBaker Botts L.L.P.\n2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 900\nDallas, TEXAS 75201\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90015902 & 90015860\nPATENT NO. : 9685351\nART UNIT : 3992\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\nin the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply\nhas passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged\nor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\nCopied from 90015902 on 07/27/2026\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-2 Filed 08/04/26 Page4of5\n\nUNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE\n\nCommissioner for Patents\n\nUnited States Patents and Trademark Office\nP.O.Box 1450\n\nAlexandria, VA 22313-1450\nwww.uspto.gov\n\n7/27/2026\n\nTHIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS\n\nK&L Gates LLP-Chicago\nP.O. Box 1135\nChicago, ILLINOIS 60690\n\nEX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM\n\nREEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. : 90015860 & 90015902\nPATENT NO. : 9685351\nART UNIT : 3992\n\nEnclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark Office\nin the above-identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).\n\nWhere this copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, or the time for filing a reply\nhas passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be acknowledged\nor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).\n\nCopied from 90015902 on 07/27/2026\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 48-2 Filed 08/04/26 Page5of5\n\nApplication No.: Applicant(s):\n.. eas . 90/015,902 9,685,351\nDecision on Petition for Extension 90/015.860\nof Time in Reexamination Examiner Art Unit\nCHOI, WOO 3992\n\n1. THIS IS A DECISION ON THE PETITION FILED: July 23, 2026.\n\n2. THIS DECISION IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO:\n\nA. | 37CFR 1.550(c) \u2014 The time for taking any action by a patent owner in a third party requested ex parte\nreexamination proceeding will be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified.\n\nB. [_] 37 CFR 1.550(c) \u2014 The time for taking action by a patent owner in a patent owner requested ex parte\nreexamination proceeding will only be extended for more than two months for sufficient cause and for a\nreasonable time specified.\n\nCc. [_] 37 CFR 1.956 \u2014 The time for taking any action by a patent owner in an inter partes reexamination proceeding\nwill be extended only for sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified.\n\nThe petition is before the Central Reexamination Unit for consideration.\n\n3. FORMAL MATTERS Patent Owner requests that the time period for filing a response to the non-final Office action\nmailed June 8, 2026, which set a two (2) month shortened statutory period for response, be extended by one (1) more\nadditional month.\n\nA. Petition fee per 37 CFR \u00a7 1.17(g)):\ni. [X] Petition includes authorization to debit a deposit account.\nii. [_] Petition includes authorization to charge a credit card account.\nii. [_] Other:\nB. Xx Proper certificate of service was provided. (Not required in reexamination where patent owner is requester).\nCc. KX] Petition was timely filed.\nD. X] Petition properly signed.\n\n4. DECISION (See MPEP 2265 and 2665)\n\nA. EX] Granted for: one (1) additional month or [_] Granted-in-part for: __. (See 37 CFR 1.550(c) and 37 CFR\n1.956).\ni. [| Other/comment:\n\nB. [_] Dismissed because:\ni. [_] Formal matters (See unchecked box(es) (A, B, C and/or D) in section 3 above).\n\nii. [_] Petitioner failed to provide a factual accounting of reasonably diligent behavior by all those\nresponsible for preparing a response to the outstanding Office action within the statutory time period.\nSee the following pages.\n\niii. [_] Petitioner failed to explain why, in spite of the action taken thus far, the requested additional time is\nneeded. See the following pages.\n\niv. [_] The statements provided fail to establish sufficient cause to warrant extension of the time for taking\naction (See attached).\n\nv. [_] The petition is moot.\nvi. [|] Other/comment:\n\n5. CONCLUSION:\n\nDirect telephone inquiries to either QAS Stephen J. Stein at | /Andrew J. Fischer/, Supervisory Patent Reexamination\n571-272-1544 or SPRS Andrew J. Fischer at 571-272- Specialist, Central Reexamination Unit\n6779.\nU.S. Patent and Trademark Office Part of Paper No. 20260727\nPTO-2293 (Rev. 11-2013) Decision on Petition for Extension of Time in Reexamination\n\nCopied from 90015902 on 07/27/2026\n\n","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-04T15:10:22.482295-07:00","document_number":"48","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"181037128071","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Ex. O","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-04T15:10:09.121513-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-04T15:20:44.791631-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-04","time_filed":"17:08:32","entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":155,"description":"Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding [42] Claim Construction Brief,, by STMicroelectronics, Inc.. (Attachments: (1) Exhibit Ex. N, (2) Exhibit Ex. O)(Becker, Jeffery)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/473073933/","id":473073933,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/488529648/","id":488529648,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/47/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-03T12:52:23.501920-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T08:28:16.758724-07:00","sha1":"1723ce4101de9e4b2a1005067f6a5a5b8b60d53f","page_count":1,"file_size":115883,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.47.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.47.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 47 Filed 08/03/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, \u00a7\nLLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7 NO: MO:25-CV-00505-DC-DTG\nvs. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\n Defendant\n\n\nORDER RESETTING MARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON\n IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is RESET for\n\nMARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON, in U.S. District Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third\n\nFloor, 800 Franklin Avenue, Waco, Texas, on Wednesday, September 09, 2026 at 02:00 PM (2\n\nhour time block).\n\n\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of August, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ______________________________\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-03T12:52:23.808811-07:00","document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037116117","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Setting/Resetting Markman Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-03T12:52:23.461713-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-03T13:02:43.265605-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-03","time_filed":"14:50:54","entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-03.001","pacer_sequence_number":153,"description":"ORDER Resetting Markman Hearing. Markman Hearing set for 9/9/2026 02:00 PM in Waco before Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/472092856/","id":472092856,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487514643/","id":487514643,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/46/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-24T14:28:13.397485-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-14T19:09:08.169002-07:00","sha1":"dbcabec67a15930c1c7d61434864aa20d15929e2","page_count":1,"file_size":114576,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.46.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.46.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 46 Filed 07/24/26 Page 1 of 1\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, \u00a7\nLLC, \u00a7\n \u00a7 NO: MO:25-CV-00505-DC-DTG\nvs. \u00a7\n \u00a7\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.\n Defendant\n\n\n ORDER SETTING MARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON\n IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is SET for\n\nMARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON, in U.S. District Court, Courtroom No. 2, Third Floor,\n\n800 Franklin Avenue, Waco, Texas, on Tuesday, September 01, 2026 at 02:00 PM (2 hour time\n\nblock).\n\n\n\n IT IS SO ORDERED this 24th day of July, 2026.\n\n\n\n\n ______________________________\n DEREK T. GILLILAND\n UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-24T14:28:13.809510-07:00","document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037062754","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Order Setting/Resetting Markman Hearing","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-24T14:28:13.372352-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-24T15:03:15.811468-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-24","time_filed":"16:26:24","entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":151,"description":"ORDER SETTINGMARKMAN HEARING HELD IN PERSON. Markman Hearing set for 9/1/2026 02:00 PM in Waco before Judge Derek T. Gilliland. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (llm)","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/471675108/","id":471675108,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/71824787/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/487085711/","id":487085711,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/71824787/45/chip-packaging-technologies-llc-v-stmicroelectronics-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-21T18:19:38.048105-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-13T19:19:57.710353-07:00","sha1":"5ba3c42cdfef6773f2fc3df389589952f1ccb274","page_count":29,"file_size":261817,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.45.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172872553.45.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 1 of 29\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS\n MIDLAND/ODESSA DIVISION\n\n\nCHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES,\nLLC, Civil Action No. 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG\n\nPlaintiff,\n\nv. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED\n\nSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.,\n\nDefendant.\n\n\n PLAINTIFF CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\u2019S\n RESPONSIVE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 2 of 29\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nI. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1\nII. LEGAL STANDARD............................................................................................................. 1\nIII. AGREED TERMS .................................................................................................................. 3\nIV. DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................................................... 3\n A. U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351................................................................................................... 3\n 1. \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d ........................................................................................ 3\n 2. \u201claterally protrude above the top surface\u201d ...................................................................... 7\n B. U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646................................................................................................... 9\n 1. \u201csaid area\u201d ....................................................................................................................... 9\n 2. \u201cdisposed between . . . the plurality of signal leads and the first side of the power\n bar\u201d ...................................................................................................................................... 10\n C. U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299................................................................................................. 12\n 1. \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d ....................................................................................................... 12\n 2. \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface on its\n underside\u201d............................................................................................................................ 15\n 3. \u201cmounting . . . dispensing . . . attaching . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d................................... 17\n D. U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189................................................................................................. 19\n 1. \u201cpower rail pad\u201d ............................................................................................................ 19\n 2. \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d .......................................................................... 22\nV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 23\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 3 of 29\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\n3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,\n 725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)......................................................................................3, 19, 23\n\nAltiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,\n 318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................17, 18\n\nBell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc\u2019ns Grp.,\n 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)..................................................................................................6\n\nEnergizer Holdings, Inc. v. ITC,\n 435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................12\n\nFocus Prods. Grp. Int\u2019l, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co.,\n 156 F.4th 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2025) ................................................................................................2\n\nGE Lighting Sols., LLC v. AgiLight, Inc.,\n 750 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..............................................................................................2, 5\n\nHologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc.,\n 639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................8\n\nMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,\n 517 U.S. 370 (1996) ...................................................................................................................1\n\nMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,\n 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995)......................................................................................................2\n\nNautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,\n 572 U.S. 898 (2014) .................................................................................................................12\n\nPhillips v. AWH Corp.,\n 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)..........................................................................1, 2, 3\n\nPolaris PowerLED Techs., LLC v. Dell Techs., Inc.,\n No. 1:22-CV-973-RP, 2025 WL 2525457 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2025) .....................................2\n\nProxense, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,\n No. W-23-CV-00319-ADA, 2024 WL 2703020 (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2024) ...........................2\n\nRembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n 853 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017)................................................................................................14\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 4 of 29\n\n\n\n\nSalazar v. Procter & Gamble Co.,\n 414 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................................19\n\nSinorgchem Co., Shandong v. ITC,\n 511 F.3d 1132 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................21\n\nTandon Corp. v. ITC,\n 831 F.2d 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1987)..........................................................................................13, 20\n\nThorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC,\n 669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)........................................................................................ passim\n\nThroughPuter, Inc. v. Amazon Web Servs., Inc.,\n No. 1:22-CV-1095-DAE, 2025 WL 2946606 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2025) .................................2\n\nU.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc.,\n 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................10\n\nVitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.,\n 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996)............................................................................................16, 17\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 5 of 29\n\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n Defendant STMicroelectronics, Inc.\u2019s (\u201cST\u201d) Opening Claim Construction Brief (\u201cDef.\n\nBr.,\u201d Dkt. 42) asks this Court to adopt constructions that systematically seek to narrow or rewrite\n\nclear claim language, import limitations from embodiments, and treat exemplary language and\n\nprosecution remarks as wholesale surrender of claim scope. Each of ST\u2019s proposals should be\n\nrejected. The pattern across the nine disputed terms is consistent: ST asks the Court to add negative\n\nand functional limitations that appear nowhere in the claims, to restate claim language back to the\n\njury as a \u201cconstruction,\u201d and to impose a step order the claims do not recite. That is not claim\n\nconstruction; it is non-infringement advocacy reverse-engineered into proposed constructions.\n\n For seven of the nine disputed terms, no construction is necessary; the plain and ordinary\n\nmeaning controls. For two terms\u2014\u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d and \u201cpower rail pad\u201d\u2014Plaintiff\n\nChip Packaging Technologies, LLC (\u201cChip Packaging\u201d) proposes a construction grounded in the\n\nstructural characteristic that consistently defines the element throughout the specification. In each\n\ninstance, the dispute reduces to whether ST has met the demanding standard for departing from\n\nordinary meaning. It has not.\n\n The Court should adopt Chip Packaging\u2019s proposed constructions for each disputed term\n\nand the parties\u2019 agreed constructions for the two agreed terms.\n\n\nII. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n Claim construction is a matter of law \u201cexclusively within the province of the court.\u201d\n\nMarkman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). The words of a claim \u201care\n\ngenerally given their ordinary and customary meaning\u201d as understood by \u201ca person of ordinary\n\nskill in the art in question at the time of the invention.\u201d Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,\n\n1312\u201313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In construing patent\n\nclaims, courts should start with the language of the claims themselves, giving terms \u201ctheir ordinary\n\nand customary meaning,\u201d which is \u201cthe meaning that the term[s] would have to a person of\n\nordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.\u201d Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312\u201313.\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 6 of 29\n\n\n\n\nClaims \u201cmust be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.\u201d Markman v. Westview\n\nInstruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Courts \u201cshould also consider the patent\u2019s\n\nprosecution history\u201d in construing claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (internal citation\n\nomitted). The claim language, specification, and prosecution history constitute the intrinsic\n\nevidence.\n\n The Federal Circuit applies a \u201cheavy presumption that claim terms carry their full ordinary\n\nand customary meaning.\u201d Focus Prods. Grp. Int\u2019l, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., 156 F.4th 1259, 1273\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2025) (internal quotations and citation omitted); accord Proxense, LLC v. Microsoft\n\nCorp., No. W-23-CV-00319-ADA, 2024 WL 2703020, at *1 (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2024). \u201cThere\n\nare only two exceptions to this general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his\n\nown lexicographer, or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of a claim term either in the\n\nspecification or during prosecution.\u201d Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2012); see also, e.g., ThroughPuter, Inc. v. Amazon Web Servs., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-\n\n1095-DAE, 2025 WL 2946606, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2025) (citing Thorner); Polaris\n\nPowerLED Techs., LLC v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 1:22-CV-973-RP, 2025 WL 2525457, at *2 (W.D.\n\nTex. Mar. 10, 2025) (citing Thorner); Proxense, 2024 WL 2703020, at *1 (citing Thorner).\n\n \u201cThe standards for finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting.\u201d GE Lighting Sols.,\n\nLLC v. AgiLight, Inc., 750 F.3d 1304, 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2014). To act as a lexicographer, \u201c[i]t is not\n\nenough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same manner\n\nin all embodiments\u201d; instead, a patentee \u201cmust clearly express an intent to redefine the term.\u201d\n\nThorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (internal quotation and citation omitted). To provide a clear disavowal\n\nof claim scope, a patentee \u201cmay demonstrate intent to deviate from the ordinary and accustomed\n\nmeaning of a claim term by including in the specification expressions of manifest exclusion or\n\nrestriction . . . .\u201d Id. at 1366 (citation omitted). \u201cMere criticism of a particular embodiment\n\nencompassed in the plain meaning of a claim term is not sufficient to rise to the level of clear\n\ndisavowal.\u201d Id. (citations omitted). \u201cIt is likewise not enough that the only embodiments, or all of\n\nthe embodiments, contain a particular limitation.\u201d Id. \u201cWe do not read limitations from the\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 7 of 29\n\n\n\n\nspecification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee can do that.\u201d Id. When \u201can\n\napplicant\u2019s statements are amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, they cannot be deemed\n\nclear and unmistakable.\u201d 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2013).\n\n Courts may also consider \u201cextrinsic evidence,\u201d including expert testimony, dictionaries,\n\nand learned treatises, to better understand the technical field and understand what a person of skill\n\nin the art would understand claim terms to mean. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. Extrinsic evidence\n\nis of less significance than the intrinsic record, see id. at 1317\u201324, and it may not be used \u201cto\n\ncontradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.\u201d Id. at 1324.\n\nIII. AGREED TERMS\n\n The parties have reached agreement on the construction of the following terms. Chip\n\nPackaging requests that the Court enter these agreed constructions.\n\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Agreed Construction\n \u201cthe ground bar having a first \u2019646 Patent, Plain and ordinary meaning which refers\n portion . . . and a second Claims 1, 5\u20137, to two portions of the same ground bar\n portion\u201d 11\n \u201cdiaphragm\u201d \u2019658 Patent, \u201ca separate element that is disposed over\n Claim 1 the gel and between the gel and the lid\u201d\n\nIV. DISPUTED TERMS\n\n For the Court\u2019s and the parties\u2019 convenience, Plaintiff Chip Packaging addresses the\n\nclaim terms in the order set forth in Defendant ST\u2019s opening brief rather than in the order set by\n\nthe Order Governing Proceedings (OGP).\n\n A. U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351\n\n 1. \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d\n\n U.S. Patent No. 9,685,351 (the \u201c\u2019351 Patent\u201d; Dkt. 42-1) generally relates to methods and\n\nstructures for the packaging of integrated circuits to protect interior components from\n\ndelamination. The \u2019351 Patent describes and claims various techniques to reduce delamination,\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 8 of 29\n\n\n\n\nincluding the formation of mechanical mold locking features on the lead frame of a semiconductor\n\ndie. See, e.g., claim 1. The parties dispute the construction of two claim phrases, both of which\n\nappear in independent claim 1: \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d and \u201claterally protrude above the\n\ntop surface.\u201d\n\n\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201cpositive mold lock \u2019351 Patent, \u201craised mechanical \u201craised (not etched,\n structure\u201d Claims 1\u20133 locking features\u201d stamped, or recessed)\n (Claims 1\u20133) mechanical locking\n features\u201d\n\n The parties largely agree on the substance of this term: a \u201cpositive mold lock structure\u201d\n\nmeans \u201craised mechanical locking features,\u201d and that is Plaintiff Chip Packaging\u2019s construction.\n\nDefendant ST\u2019s construction seeks to add the limitation \u201c(not etched, stamped, or recessed).\u201d As\n\ndescribed below, the claimed locking structures are consistently described as raised, mechanical\n\nlocking features. ST\u2019s additional limitations should be rejected because the specification does not\n\nunmistakably define the term that way, nor does it clearly surrender claim scope.\n\n The specification describes that \u201c[i]n selected embodiments, the mechanical mold locking\n\nfeature is formed with one or more raised structures extending above the lead frame assembly\n\nand/or die flag . . . to provide a mechanical engagement surface to securely lock the encapsulation\n\npackage to the lead frame or PCB substrate assembly.\u201d \u2019351 Pat., 2:29\u201335 (emphasis added).\n\nConsistent with that disclosure, the specification discloses various mechanical locking structures\n\nthat are raised, thereby allowing molding (or adhesive) compound to flow under for secure locking.\n\nSee, e.g., \u2019351 Pat. at 4:26\u201329 (\u201cFor example, formation of the wire wedge bond loops 114 as\n\naluminum wire loops provides a low loop height and allows the mold compound to flow under the\n\nloops for secure locking.\u201d); id. at 4:30\u201331 (emphasis added) (\u201cHowever, other raised structures\n\nmay be used to form the mechanical mold locking feature . . .\u201d); id. at 5:61\u201363 (emphasis added)\n\n(\u201cRaised above the surface of the lead frame 104, the surfaces of the stud bumps 214 provide mold\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 9 of 29\n\n\n\n\ncompound locking benefits . . .\u201d); id. at 6:23\u201325 (emphasis added) (\u201cAs formed, the mold lock\n\nstructures are raised (not half-etched) mechanical locking features . . .\u201d); id. at 6:59\u201361 (emphasis\n\nadded) (\u201cAs formed, the cross-section shape of the wire bond locks will provide a raised and\n\nlaterally protruding structural contour for secure mold compound locking.\u201d); id. at 7:25\u201329\n\n(emphasis added) (\u201cIn selected embodiments, the mold lock may be formed with one or more wire\n\nwedge bond loops or chains formed on the substrate structure as raised mechanical locking\n\nfeatures to prevent delamination . . .\u201d); id. at 7:29\u201332 (emphasis added) (\u201cIn other embodiments,\n\nthe mold lock may be formed with one or more stud bumps formed on the substrate as raised\n\nmechanical locking features to prevent delamination . . .\u201d).\n\n ST\u2019s proposed construction adds the parenthetical qualifier \u201c(not etched, stamped, or\n\nrecessed).\u201d ST argues that these limitations should be imported into the claims because (1) the\n\npatentee acted as his own lexicographer and explicitly defined the phrase this way and (2) the\n\npatentee clearly disavowed claim scope. Def. Br. at 3, 4. Both arguments should be rejected. ST\u2019s\n\nfurther observation that the term is \u201ccoined\u201d changes nothing: the parties agree on what the term\n\naffirmatively means\u2014\u201craised mechanical locking features\u201d\u2014and the applicant itself told the\n\nExaminer that \u201c[b]y the very nature of the term,\u201d the claims require \u201cforming a structure on the\n\nlead frame top surface which positively protrudes above the lead frame top surface and which\n\nlocks with mold.\u201d Dkt. 42, Ex. E at 121\u201322 (emphasis omitted). Chip Packaging\u2019s construction\n\ncaptures exactly that meaning. The only genuine dispute is ST\u2019s added negative limitation.\n\n First, the standard for lexicography is \u201cexacting,\u201d and it has not remotely been met here.\n\nGE Lighting Sols., 750 F.3d at 1309. As the Federal Circuit has explained, to act as a lexicographer,\n\n\u201c[i]t is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single embodiment or use a word in the same\n\nmanner in all embodiments,\u201d instead, a patentee \u201cmust clearly express an intent to redefine the\n\nterm.\u201d Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (internal quotation and citation omitted). Chip Packaging\n\nrecognizes that, in describing the two illustrated embodiments, the specification twice states that\n\nthe exemplary structures are \u201cformed on the die flag 104 as raised (not etched, stamped, or\n\nrecessed) mechanical locking features.\u201d \u2019351 Pat. at 3:37\u201339 (wire wedge bond loops 114); id. at\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 10 of 29\n\n\n\n\n5:43\u201347 (stud bumps 214-215). Both sentences begin with the phrase \u201c[a]s formed\u201d and describe\n\nspecific, numbered embodiment structures\u2014they narrate how the depicted examples are made,\n\nand describing embodiments does not redefine a claim term. Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366 (\u201cWe do\n\nnot read limitations from the specification into claims; we do not redefine words. Only the patentee\n\ncan do that.\u201d).\n\n Indeed, in many other passages, the specification describes the claimed structures simply\n\nas \u201craised\u201d\u2014without any reference to etching, stamping, or recessing. See \u2019351 Pat. at 2:29\u201335,\n\n4:26\u201329, 4:30\u201331, 5:61\u201363, 6:23\u201325, 6:59\u201361, 7:25\u201329, 7:29\u201332. ST\u2019s implied-lexicography\n\ntheory fails on its own terms: the third passage ST characterizes as using \u201cthe same words\u201d (Def.\n\nBr. at 5) in fact uses different words\u2014\u201craised (not half-etched) mechanical locking features\u201d\u2014yet\n\nanother parenthetical. \u2019351 Pat. at 6:23\u201330. Definition by implication requires that the patentee use\n\na term \u201cin a manner consistent with only a single meaning.\u201d Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad\n\nCommc\u2019ns Grp., 262 F.3d 1258, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Shifting parentheticals are the opposite of\n\na single consistent definition. As such, no clear, express intent to redefine the term exists. Thorner,\n\n669 F.3d at 1365.\n\n Second, no clear disavowal of claim scope exists that would justify ST\u2019s proposed\n\nconstruction. \u201cMere criticism of a particular embodiment encompassed in the plain meaning of a\n\nclaim term is not sufficient to rise to the level of clear disavowal.\u201d Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1366\n\n(citation omitted). ST relies heavily on a single passage of the specification at \u2019351 Pat. 5:7\u201314,\n\nwhich discusses \u201cconventional approaches which use etched, stamped, or recessed features in the\n\nlead frame/die flag.\u201d But that discussion goes on to describe that the claimed inventions include a\n\n\u201claterally protruding element,\u201d which is a different limitation than at issue here. See id. at 5:10\u2013\n\n11. More fundamentally, contrasting an embodiment with conventional prior-art approaches is not\n\na definitional statement or a disavowal of claim scope\u2014it is an explanation of the invention\u2019s\n\nadvantages. The passage\u2019s own words confirm its embodiment-specific scope: it describes what\n\n\u201cthe wire wedge bond loop structures described herein provide\u201d\u2014the illustrated wire-loop\n\nstructures, not the metes and bounds of the claim term. Def. Br. at 4 (quoting \u2019351 Pat. at 5:7\u201314).\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 11 of 29\n\n\n\n\nLikewise, ST\u2019s citation to the prosecution history (Def. Br. at 5) actually supports Chip\n\nPackaging\u2019s proposed construction: the applicant described the claimed \u201cpositive mold lock\n\nstructures\u201d as \u201cforming a structure on the lead frame top surface which positively protrudes above\n\nthe lead frame top surface and which locks with mold\u201d\u2014without any reference to or restriction\n\nregarding etching, stamping, or recessing. Dkt. 42, Ex. E at 121\u201322.\n\n Finally, ST argues that the patent\u2019s description of \u201cdam bar 108\u201d justifies its proposed\n\nconstruction. Def. Br. at 6\u20137. But claim construction focuses on the words of the claims and the\n\nintrinsic record, not a defendant\u2019s attempt to manufacture a non-infringement position. And as\n\ndescribed above, neither doctrine of lexicography nor disavowal applies here that would justify\n\nST\u2019s proposed additional limitations. The Court should adopt Plaintiff Chip Packaging\u2019s proposed\n\nconstruction: \u201craised mechanical locking features.\u201d\n\n 2. \u201claterally protrude above the top surface\u201d\n\n\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201claterally protrude above \u2019351 Patent, Plain and ordinary Plain and ordinary\n the top surface\u201d Claims 1\u20133 meaning, i.e., protrude meaning which means\n (Claims 1\u20133) to the side of and above \u201cprotrude along and\n the top surface above the top surface\u201d\n\n\n\n\n Both parties agree this term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. The dispute is\n\nover a single word: \u201claterally.\u201d ST relies on a dictionary definition of \u201clateral\u201d that defines it as\n\n\u201cof or relating to the side\u201d (Dkt. 42, Ex. K). That definition aligns precisely with Chip Packaging\u2019s\n\nproposed construction (\u201cto the side of\u201d) and contradicts ST\u2019s proposed substitution (\u201calong\u201d). The\n\nword \u201calong\u201d does not appear in ST\u2019s own submitted definition.\n\n None of ST\u2019s arguments justify departing from the plain meaning of \u201claterally.\u201d First, ST\n\nargues that \u201claterally\u201d is potentially confusing to the jury because it appears to conflict with the\n\nclaims\u2019 recitation of \u201cabove.\u201d Def. Br. at 8. But these everyday words are sufficiently clear. In\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 12 of 29\n\n\n\n\naddition to the dictionary definitions, ST\u2019s brief itself acknowledges that \u201c\u2018laterally\u2019 connotes a\n\nsideways direction,\u201d not necessarily \u201calong.\u201d Id.\n\n Second, ST\u2019s citations to the specification do not support rewriting the word \u201claterally\u201d to\n\n\u201calong.\u201d Def. Br. at 8 (citing \u2019351 Pat. at 2:31\u201334, 2:35\u201339, 6:58\u201361, Fig. 10.) In each of those\n\ndisclosures, the specification uses substantially the same language as the claim\u2014\u201cprotruding\n\nlaterally\u201d (\u2019351 Pat. 2:33) or \u201claterally protruding\u201d (id. 2:38, 6:60\u201361 and Fig. 10)\u2014without any\n\nuse or reference to the word \u201calong.\u201d\n\n Third, ST\u2019s attorney argument concerning the patent\u2019s drawings and embodiments is\n\nunpersuasive. For example, ST argues that the figures depict and describe the claimed inventions\n\nas allowing mold compound to \u201cflow\u201d under a protrusion. (Def. Br. at 9\u201310.) But that aspect of\n\nthe inventions is already addressed in the claim language itself (and in both parties\u2019 proposed\n\nconstructions), which makes clear that the claimed \u201cpositive mold lock structures\u201d protrude \u201cabove\n\nthe top surface.\u201d See \u2019351 Pat., claim 1 (emphasis added). No basis exists to rewrite the plain\n\nmeaning of \u201claterally\u201d to \u201calong\u201d based on these disclosures.\n\n Fourth, ST cites Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639 F.3d 1329, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2011) for\n\nthe proposition that when a relative term has no clearly stated frame of reference, the Court should\n\nsupply one from the specification. Def. Br. at 10. But Hologic is inapplicable here because the\n\nclaim itself provides the reference: the claim term is \u201claterally protrude above the top surface,\u201d\n\nand \u201cthe top surface\u201d is the reference plane. A structure that extends laterally\u2014to the side\u2014from\n\nits base while elevated above that surface protrudes \u201cto the side of and above\u201d it in exactly the\n\nsense that Plaintiff Chip Packaging\u2019s construction describes. No specification-supplied gloss is\n\nneeded. And even if the Court were to look to the specification for additional guidance, the\n\nspecification nowhere defines \u201claterally protrude\u201d to mean \u201calong.\u201d The word \u201calong\u201d appears in\n\nST\u2019s characterization of the figures, not in any definitional statement.\n\n Finally, ST argues that Chip Packaging\u2019s \u201cto the side of\u201d language would exclude\n\nembodiments where the protrusion is above and along the surface. Def. Br. at 11. That is wrong.\n\nAny structure that protrudes to the side of and above the surface necessarily also extends along the\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 13 of 29\n\n\n\n\nsurface to some degree. The two descriptions are not mutually exclusive. Chip Packaging\u2019s\n\nconstruction simply requires a lateral component\u2014which is all that the claim\u2019s use of \u201claterally\u201d\n\nrequires. By contrast, ST\u2019s \u201calong\u201d construction risks confusion by importing a specific geometric\n\nrelationship\u2014parallel travel along the surface\u2014that exists in certain disclosed embodiments but\n\nthat is not a requirement of the plain claim language. The Court should reject ST\u2019s proposal and\n\nadopt Chip Packaging\u2019s construction.\n\n B. U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646\n\n 1. \u201csaid area\u201d\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201csaid area\u201d \u2019646 Patent, No construction Plain and ordinary\n (Claims 1, 5\u20137, 11) Claims 1, 5\u20137, necessary meaning which refers\n 11 to the same area\n referred to earlier in the\n claim (the area between\n the [embedded portions\n of the] plurality of\n signal leads and the\n semiconductor die)\n\n U.S. Patent No. 9,299,646 (the \u201c\u2019646 Patent\u201d; Dkt. 42-2) generally relates to semiconductor\n\npackaging methods and structures that are adapted to reduce noise from power structures.\n\n The parties do not genuinely dispute what \u201csaid area\u201d means. Both parties agree that the\n\nphrase has antecedent basis in the claims\u2019 earlier recitations of \u201can area . . . .\u201d In claim 1, \u201csaid\n\narea\u201d refers to the area \u201cbetween the embedded portions of the plurality of signal leads and the\n\nsemiconductor die.\u201d In claim 7, \u201csaid area\u201d refers to the area \u201cbetween the plurality of signal leads\n\nand the semiconductor die.\u201d\n\n The dispute is whether the Court must engage in claim construction to spell out that\n\nantecedent relationship\u2014i.e., to recite the claim language a second time in the same claim. But\n\nclaim construction is not an exercise in redundancy, and there is no need for the Court to construe\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 14 of 29\n\n\n\n\nlanguage that is already clear. U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir.\n\n1997). Here, there is no dispute as to the antecedent basis of the phrase \u201csaid area\u201d in each claim.\n\n Indeed, construction of \u201csaid area\u201d increases the likelihood of juror confusion. As the Court\n\nis aware, at trial the parties introduce testimony concerning infringement on an element-by-\n\nelement basis, including the Court\u2019s construction for any construed terms. Repeating antecedent\n\nlanguage\u2014for the sake of repetition\u2014may lead jurors to believe that additional proof of\n\ninfringement is required. Furthermore, as outlined below, the parties dispute the meaning of the\n\n\u201cbetween the plurality of signal leads . . . \u201d claim phrase. ST\u2019s insistence on claim construction for\n\n\u201csaid area\u201d\u2014and that the Court repeat the phrase \u201cbetween the plurality of signal leads . . .\u201d as part\n\nof the construction\u2014appears calculated to leave jurors with the impression that ST has two\n\nseparate non-infringement defenses for this claim term. The antecedent basis of \u201csaid area\u201d is\n\nalready clear for each claim, and no further construction is necessary.\n\n 2. \u201cdisposed between . . . the plurality of signal leads and the first side of\n the power bar\u201d\n\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201cdisposed between [the \u2019646 Patent, No construction Plain and ordinary\n embedded portions of] Claims 1, 5\u20137, necessary meaning which refers\n the plurality of signal 11 to \u201cdisposed in an area\n leads and the first side of between the ends [of\n the power bar\u201d the embedded portions]\n (Claims 1, 5\u20137, 11) of the signal leads and\n the first side of the\n power bar\u201d\n\n Claim 1 of the \u2019646 Patent recites a \u201cground bar having a first portion disposed between\n\nthe embedded portions of the plurality of signal leads and the first side of the power bar,\u201d and\n\nclaim 7 recites a \u201cground bar having a first portion disposed between the plurality of signal leads\n\nand the first side of the power bar.\u201d (Emphasis added). No construction of these phrases is\n\nnecessary. The words possess readily understandable plain meanings\u2014indeed, ST\u2019s construction\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 15 of 29\n\n\n\n\nsimply repeats the words of the claim, except that it impermissibly rewrites the single word\n\n\u201cbetween\u201d to the phrase \u201carea between the ends\u201d of.\n\n The plain meaning of \u201cbetween\u201d is readily understandable. To be \u201cbetween\u201d two things is\n\nto exist, at least in part, in the space or interval separating them. ST\u2019s own dictionary definitions\n\nare consistent with this definition\u2014and, significantly, those dictionaries do not require or suggest\n\n\u201cthe ends\u201d of limitation that ST seeks to import. See Dkt. 42, Ex. L (defining \u201cbetween\u201d as \u201cin the\n\ntime, space, or interval that separates\u201d).\n\n ST argues that the specification supports rewriting \u201cbetween,\u201d but those arguments fail.\n\nThe portion of the specification that describes the \u201cground bar\u201d\u2014which is the limitation at issue\n\nhere\u2014explains that \u201ceach ground bar 132 includes a first portion 132a disposed between the\n\nadjacent embedded portions 122b of the signal leads 122 and the first side 124a of the adjacent\n\npower bar 124.\u201d \u2019646 Pat. at 3:46\u201349.1 That description tracks the claim language without adding\n\n\u201cthe ends\u201d of, confirming that no further construction is necessary or warranted. By contrast, ST\n\nrelies on \u2019646 Pat. Figure 2 and the specification at 2:62\u201364, but that portion of the specification\n\ndescribes the \u201csignal leads,\u201d not the \u201cground bar\u201d at issue here. Likewise, ST\u2019s reliance on \u2019646\n\nPat. 3:5\u20137 is misplaced, because that portion of the specification discusses the location of the\n\n\u201cpower bar 124,\u201d not the \u201cground bar,\u201d which is the claim element in dispute.\n\n ST also argues that construction of \u201cbetween\u201d is necessary in light of Chip Packaging\u2019s\n\ninfringement allegations. Def. Br. at 14 (citing FAC \u00b6 71). Once again, that argument demonstrates\n\nST\u2019s true intent: ST asks the Court to resolve an infringement dispute under the guise of\n\nconstruction. Where the first portion of an accused ground bar sits is a question for the factfinder\n\nunder the plain claim language.\n\n\n\n\n1\n Nor can the specification supply the clarity ST\u2019s rewrite requires: ST itself concedes that the\n\u2019646 Patent specification \u201ccontains a typographical error and at times incorrectly refers to the\nembedded ends 122a as embedded ends 122b.\u201d Def. Br. at 15 n.4. A specification ST admits is\ninternally inconsistent on these very reference numerals is no basis for importing \u201cthe ends\u201d of\ninto the claim.\n\n 11\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 16 of 29\n\n\n\n\n Finally, ST argues that its construction is necessary because it avoids an alleged\n\nindefiniteness issue. Def. Br. at 16. But that is not a proper claim construction argument; it is an\n\ninvalidity defense. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910\u201311 (2014). A term\n\nthat ST contends is clear enough to have a \u201cplain meaning\u201d cannot simultaneously be indefinite\n\nfor failure to inform a skilled artisan of its scope. If the term has a plain meaning\u2014as both parties\n\npropose\u2014then the term is sufficiently definite. Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. ITC, 435 F.3d 1366,\n\n1371 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Moreover, ST\u2019s Nautilus concern is unfounded. Bars and leads are\n\ndistinguishable by their function: signal leads carry signal connections to external pins, while the\n\npower bar supplies power. A skilled artisan reading the specification would have no difficulty\n\nidentifying the structures at issue. The \u201cends\u201d limitation ST proposes would not solve any\n\ndefiniteness problem; it would simply narrow the claim in ST\u2019s favor.\n\n The Court should reject ST\u2019s proposal and adopt the plain meaning.\n\n C. U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299\n\n 1. \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d \u2019299 Patent, Plain and ordinary \u201ctape\u201d\n (Claims 1, 3, and 4) Claims 1, 3, meaning\n and 4\n\n U.S. Patent No. 9,263,299 (the \u201c\u2019299 Patent\u201d; Dkt. 42-3) generally relates to improvements\n\nin integrated circuit packaging for enhanced thermal performance.\n\n ST seeks to construe \u201ctemporary carrier.\u201d Chip Packaging submits that this term can be\n\nconstrued to have its plain and ordinary meaning\u2014a structure that carries something temporarily.\n\nST\u2019s proposed construction would rewrite the claim term to \u201ctape.\u201d While tape is certainly an\n\nexample of a \u201ctemporary carrier,\u201d the claims, specification, and file history do not support limiting\n\nthe claim term to just that one example.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 17 of 29\n\n\n\n\n The claims are most instructive. Claim 1 of the \u2019299 Patent recites a step of \u201cmounting a\n\nplurality of active device die, into predetermined positions, onto a temporary carrier. . . .\u201d \u2019299\n\nPat. at 8:11\u201312. Dependent claim 5 recites that the \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d is one of \u201ca carrier tape\n\nstretched in a carrier ring apparatus\u201d or \u201ca carrier tape attached to a support plate.\u201d That dependent\n\nclaim adds \u201ctape\u201d as a specific type of temporary carrier. If \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d already meant only\n\n\u201ctape\u201d\u2014as ST contends\u2014then claim 5\u2019s additional limitation that the carrier is a tape would be\n\nentirely redundant. The doctrine of claim differentiation strongly presumes that a dependent\n\nclaim\u2019s additional limitation is not already present in the independent claim. Tandon Corp. v. ITC,\n\n831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987). ST\u2019s one-word construction is also inaccurate even as to\n\nthe embodiments: ST itself describes the Figure 6 embodiment\u2019s temporary carrier as the \u201csupport\n\nplate-backed carrier tape 620\u201d\u2014a tape-plus-support-plate assembly, not \u201ctape.\u201d Def. Br. at 20;\n\n\u2019299 Pat. at 6:53\u201361. A construction that misdescribes the disclosed embodiments will not aid the\n\njury.\n\n ST\u2019s rewrite of the claim term relies almost entirely on a single passage of the specification.\n\nAt column 3:45\u201352, the specification of the \u2019299 Patent describes \u201canother example process\u201d in\n\nwhich \u201cthe dies are placed on a temporarily [sic] carrier (tape) in an array (e.g., a matrix) format\n\nwith fixed pitch in X and Y direction.\u201d ST argues that this single parenthetical \u201cfunctions like an\n\n\u2018i.e.\u2019\u201d and therefore serves as a binding definition of \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d for the entire patent. Def.\n\nBr. at 18 (emphasis added). But the specification passage at issue does not use \u201ci.e.,\u201d and one\n\nshould not be inferred\u2014especially where, as here, the specification does use \u201ci.e.\u201d in other contexts\n\nto actually define a term. See \u2019299 Pat. at 3:17\u201319 (\u201cThe present disclosure has been found useful\n\nin reducing in a FET device, in the \u2018On\u2019 state, the drain/source electrical resistance (i.e., RDson)).\u201d\n\nAdditionally, the specification regularly uses parentheticals to describe examples, not definitions.\n\nSee id. at 3:33\u201334 (\u201cIn this disclosure the die backside is coated on wafer level with a solderable\n\nback side metal (NiAu, Cu, NiAg, etc.)\u201d). Therefore, the intrinsic evidence is clear: the phrase\n\n\u201ctemporary carrier (tape)\u201d discloses \u201ctape\u201d as an example of a \u201ctemporary carrier,\u201d not as a\n\ndefinition of that term. At a minimum, the single passage does not meet the \u201cexacting\u201d standard\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 18 of 29\n\n\n\n\nrequired to find that the patentee acted as a lexicographer and defined \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d\n\ndifferently than its plain meaning. See Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365 (internal quotation and citation\n\nomitted) (explaining that to act as a lexicographer, a patentee \u201cmust clearly express an intent to\n\nredefine the term\u201d). ST\u2019s own authority underscores the gap: Rembrandt concerned an express\n\n\u201ci.e.,\u201d which \u201cis often definitional\u201d; here ST is left to argue that a bare parenthetical \u201cfunctions\n\nlike\u201d an \u201ci.e.\u201d the patentee never wrote. Def. Br. at 18; Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v. Samsung\n\nElecs. Co., 853 F.3d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2017).\n\n ST also argues that \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d should be limited to \u201ctape\u201d because the terms are\n\nallegedly used interchangeably, such that every disclosed embodiment purportedly uses tape as the\n\n\u201ctemporary carrier.\u201d Def. Br. at 18\u201320. But the terms are not used interchangeably. To the contrary,\n\nthe specification repeatedly uses the phrase \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d without reference to \u201ctape.\u201d \u2019299\n\nPat. at 1:59\u201361, 1:65\u20132:4, 2:22\u201327. And ST\u2019s argument is contrary to established claim\n\nconstruction law. As the Federal Circuit has explained, \u201c[i]t is . . . not enough that the only\n\nembodiments, or all of the embodiments, contain a particular limitation,\u201d because courts \u201cdo not\n\nread limitations from the specification into [the] claims\u201d or \u201credefine words.\u201d Thorner, 669 F.3d\n\nat 1366.\n\n Finally, ST argues that the prosecution history supports its redefinition of \u201ctemporary\n\ncarrier\u201d to \u201ctape.\u201d Def. Br. at 19. But the prosecution history reinforces that \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d is\n\ndifferent than \u201ctape.\u201d As ST notes, claim 1 originally referred to a \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d with later\n\nreferences to \u201ctape.\u201d Dkt. 42-6 at 57. The applicant could have amended claim 1 to replace\n\n\u201ctemporary carrier\u201d with \u201ctape\u201d throughout\u2014but it did not. Instead, it amended the claims to recite\n\n\u201ctemporary carrier\u201d throughout. Id. at 85. The Examiner approved the claims as presented. Id. at\n\n112\u2013113. No amendment narrowed \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d to \u201ctape,\u201d and the applicant made no\n\nstatement that could constitute a disavowal\u2014let alone a clear and unmistakable disavowal\u2014of\n\nnon-tape temporary carriers.\n\n For the foregoing reasons, the Court should reject ST\u2019s proposed construction and afford\n\nthe term \u201ctemporary carrier\u201d its plain and ordinary meaning.\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 19 of 29\n\n\n\n\n 2. \u201ceach of said active device die having a solderable conductive surface\n on its underside\u201d\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201ceach of said active \u2019299 Patent, No construction Plain meaning; this\n device die having a Claims 1, 3, necessary describes the packaged\n solderable conductive and 4 active device die\n surface on its underside\u201d\n (Claims 1, 3, and 4)\n\n Claim 1 of the \u2019299 Patent claims a method for \u201cpackaging an integrated circuit (IC)\n\ndevice,\u201d including a step of mounting active device die \u201chaving a solderable conductive surface\n\non its underside.\u201d The parties dispute whether a method of \u201cpackaging\u201d and mounting device die\n\nwould require the device die to already be \u201cpackaged,\u201d as ST argues. The plain language of the\n\nclaim dictates that ST\u2019s construction is wrong. The limitation \u201ceach of said active device die having\n\na solderable conductive surface on its underside\u201d describes a characteristic of the die used as an\n\ninput to the claimed method\u2014not a characteristic of the die after the method is complete. ST\u2019s\n\nconstruction adds the word \u201cpackaged,\u201d importing a post-process product requirement into a\nlimitation that describes a pre-process input. Indeed, the limitation sits inside the \u201cmounting\u201d step\n\nitself: claim 1 recites \u201cmounting a plurality of active device die, into predetermined positions, onto\n\na temporary carrier, each said active device die having bond pads, each of said active device die\n\nhaving a solderable conductive surface on its underside.\u201d \u2019299 Pat. at cl. 1. Grammatically, the\n\n\u201chaving\u201d clauses describe the die as they are mounted\u2014at the front end of the claimed process,\n\nnot at its conclusion. It should be rejected, and the Court should afford this phrase its plain and\n\nordinary meaning.\n\n ST\u2019s arguments to the contrary should be rejected. First, ST contends that the title and\n\nSummary of the Invention section of the patent dictate that the final packaged product must have\n\nan exposed, solderable surface. Def. Br. at 21\u201322 (citing \u2019299 Pat. at Title, 1:40\u201355). But even if\n\nthat were true, it does not somehow limit the method of \u201cpackaging\u201d to a particular condition that\n\n\n 15\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 20 of 29\n\n\n\n\nexists after packaging. The structure of the claims confirms the point. Claim 1 ends with the reflow\n\nstep; it is dependent claim 4 that adds \u201cencapsulating . . . in a molding compound,\u201d \u201cremoving the\n\ntemporary carrier,\u201d and \u201csingulating . . . into individual devices.\u201d \u2019299 Pat. at cls. 1, 4. Asserted\n\nclaims 1 and 3 thus stop short of any completed package at all. A construction that makes the\n\nmounting step turn on the configuration of a finished \u201cpackaged\u201d device that claims 1 and 3 never\n\nrequire cannot be correct.\n\n ST\u2019s citations to other portions of the specification (Def. Br. at 22) are similarly misplaced.\n\nFor instance, at \u2019299 Pat. at 3:34\u201338, the specification explains that \u201c[a]ny solderable finish can\n\nbe used, as long as the solderability is not deteriorated by the processing conditions and allows\n\nstorage for a sufficient period between package assembly and customer use.\u201d ST reads this as\n\nrequiring the solderable surface to remain present and exposed in the finished package. But the\n\npassage merely describes criteria for material selection: it tells the skilled artisan which solderable\n\nfinishes are acceptable inputs to the claimed method\u2014those that withstand the assembly process\n\nand retain solderability through the storage period before customer use. The passage says nothing\n\nabout whether the die\u2019s underside must be externally exposed in the finished package versus\n\nconsumed in an internal solder joint during assembly. It is an engineering specification for the\n\ninput material, not a definition of the finished package configuration.\n\n Nor does the prosecution history compel ST\u2019s construction. Def. Br. at 22\u201323. The\n\nExaminer distinguished a prior art reference, Kelkar, because it did not \u201cdisclose the die having a\n\nsolderable conductive surface on its underside.\u201d Dkt. 42-6 at 114. This statement confirms that the\n\nclaim requires the die to have a solderable surface\u2014not that the resulting package must have a\n\nparticular configuration.\n\n Finally, contrary to ST\u2019s argument (Def. Br. at 23), Chip Packaging\u2019s construction does\n\nnot exclude any disclosed embodiment. The exposed-die packages shown in the \u2019299 Patent satisfy\n\nthe element under Chip Packaging\u2019s construction because those packages use die with solderable\n\nundersides as inputs, and the resulting packages expose those surfaces. ST\u2019s citation to Vitronics\n\nis misplaced: Vitronics bars constructions that exclude the disclosed embodiments; it does not\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 21 of 29\n\n\n\n\nprohibit broader constructions. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed.\n\nCir. 1996). The Court should reject ST\u2019s proposed construction.\n\n 3. \u201cmounting . . . dispensing . . . attaching . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201cmounting . . . \u2019299 Patent, No construction \u201c(1) mounting . . . (2)\n dispensing . . . attaching Claims 1, 3, necessary dispensing . . . (3)\n . . . and reflowing . . .\u201d and 4 attaching . . . and (4)\n (Claims 1, 3, and 4) reflowing\u201d (The\n claimed method\n requires the recited\n steps to be performed\n in the order stated)\n\n The Federal Circuit\u2019s two-part Altiris test governs step ordering in method claims. Altiris,\n\nInc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369\u201370 (Fed. Cir. 2003). A strict sequential order is\n\nrequired only if: (1) the claim language requires it as a matter of logic or grammar, or (2) the\n\nspecification or prosecution history make clear that order is required. Id. Neither condition is\n\nsatisfied here.\n\n Under the first part of the Altiris test, the claim language does not require all four steps to\n\nbe performed strictly in the listed order, without overlap, as a matter of logic or grammar. ST\n\ncorrectly notes that two specific phrases in the attaching step acknowledge temporal relationships.\n\nDef. Br. at 24. The requirement that the lead frame have device positions \u201cwhich correspond to\n\nthe predetermined positions of the plurality of active device die\u201d (\u2019299 Pat. at cl. 1) confirms that\n\nthe die must already be mounted\u2014and thus occupy their predetermined positions\u2014before the lead\n\nframe is attached. The requirement that \u201cupper lead frame portions contact the solder paste present\n\non the bond pads\u201d (id.) confirms that solder paste must already be present on the bond pads before\n\nthe lead frame is attached. Chip Packaging does not dispute either dependency. But those phrases\n\ndo not establish that all four steps must be performed in strict sequence with no overlap, or that\n\nattaching must be fully complete before any reflowing can begin. Stripped of the dependencies the\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 22 of 29\n\n\n\n\nclaim itself supplies, the only ordering ST\u2019s construction would actually add is a requirement that\n\nthe mounting step be completed before any solder paste is dispensed. Nothing in the claim\u2019s logic\n\nor grammar requires that: solder paste may be applied to the bond pads of the die before, during,\n\nor after the die are mounted onto the temporary carrier, and the claim reads on each alternative.\n\nST identifies no claim language to the contrary.\n\n The specification does not compel a different result under the second part of the Altiris test.\n\nST points to 3:53\u201360, where the specification uses sequential \u201cNext\u201d language to describe\n\ndispensing solder paste onto the exposed bond pads and then placing the lead frame over the\n\ndeposited paste. Def. Br. at 25. ST also cites Figure 5, which depicts the process steps as a\n\nflowchart in which each step follows the prior. But describing manufacturing steps sequentially in\n\nan embodiment\u2014the standard format for any process patent\u2014does not transform every step into\n\na strict claim limitation. The Federal Circuit has held that a specification\u2019s sequential description\n\nof preferred embodiment steps does not, by itself, require those steps to be performed in that order,\n\nwithout overlap, as a claim limitation. Altiris, 318 F.3d at 1370. \u201cNext\u201d is the natural language of\n\nprocess disclosure, not a signal of claim restriction. Under ST\u2019s logic, virtually every process\n\npatent that uses ordinary sequential narration to describe its preferred embodiment would impose\n\na strict no-overlap requirement on its claims\u2014a result directly at odds with the principle that\n\nembodiments do not limit claim scope.\n\n Finally, contrary to ST\u2019s argument, the prosecution history does not compel ST\u2019s requested\n\nresult. Def. Br. at 25\u201326. During prosecution, the Examiner distinguished the prior art Gong\n\nreference because \u201cGong first mounts the die into positions on the lead frame\u201d in a manner that\n\ndoes not involve a temporary carrier. Dkt. 42-6 at 114. The applicant responded by emphasizing\n\nthat the claimed method uses a temporary carrier to mount the die before dispensing solder paste.\n\nId. The prosecution history\u2019s discussion of the Kelkar reference is similarly limited in scope. The\n\nExaminer distinguished Kelkar because Kelkar dispensed solder material through an opening in a\n\nlead frame that was already attached\u2014meaning Kelkar dispensed after and through the already-\n\nplaced lead frame, not onto exposed die bond pads before lead frame attachment. Id. at 113\u201314.\n\n\n 18\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 23 of 29\n\n\n\n\nThe Examiner\u2019s concern was not about step sequencing broadly; it was about whether Kelkar\n\ndisclosed the claimed dispensing step at all: dispensing solder paste onto exposed bond pads of die\n\nmounted on a temporary carrier, before the lead frame is placed. That distinction is about what is\n\ndispensed, where, and in relation to which structure\u2014not about whether all four claimed steps\n\nmust proceed to completion before the next begins.\n\n The Gong and Kelkar prosecution history exchanges were narrow prior-art distinctions\u2014\n\nabout the use of a temporary carrier and the manner of solder deposition\u2014not clear and\n\nunmistakable disclaimers of all methods in which any two steps proceed with overlap. Indeed, the\n\nstatements at issue were not even made by the applicant, but rather by the patent Examiner. Courts\n\nhave consistently refused to import requirements from prosecution history statements that are not\n\nclear and unmistakable disclaimers made by the patent applicant. ST\u2019s own cited authority holds\n\nprecisely that. Salazar v. Procter & Gamble Co., 414 F.3d 1342, 1345\u201347 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see\n\nalso 3M Innovative Props. Co., 725 F.3d at 1326.\n\n D. U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189\n\n 1. \u201cpower rail pad\u201d\n\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201cpower rail pad\u201d \u2019189 Patent, \u201cA conductive pad on \u201cA conductive pad not\n (Claims 1, 13, 14, and Claims 1, 13, the die connection pad integrated with the die\n 19) 14, and 19 surface\u201d circuitry that supplies\n power to circuit nodes\n of the die.\u201d\n\n U.S. Patent No. 8,643,189 (the \u201c\u2019189 Patent\u201d; Dkt. 42-4) generally relates to semiconductor\n\npackaging structures and methods for improved power connectivity.\n\n Both parties agree that the \u201cpower rail pad\u201d is a \u201cconductive pad.\u201d The Court should adopt\n\nChip Packaging\u2019s proposed construction\u2014\u201ca conductive pad on the die connection pad surface\u201d\u2014\n\nbecause, unlike ST\u2019s proposed construction, it is consistent with the claims, specification, and\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 24 of 29\n\n\n\n\nprosecution history. Claim 1 explains that the \u201cpower rail pad\u201d exists \u201con the die connection pad\n\nsurface.\u201d \u2019189 Pat., 7:36\u201337. The specification likewise explains that the \u201cpower rail pads\u201d are\n\n\u201cmounted on the die connection pad surface 303 by an epoxy or other form of adhesive.\u201d Id. at\n\n4:13\u201316. During prosecution, the applicant likewise described that the \u201cpower rail pad\u201d is\n\n\u201celectrically connected to the die connection pads 304 with bond wires 501\u201d and that the \u201cpower\n\nrail pads\u201d are \u201cmounted on the die surface and attached thereto with an adhesive.\u201d Dkt. 42-7 at 77.\n\nChip Packaging\u2019s construction is consistent with these disclosures.\n\n ST\u2019s proposed construction should be rejected for several reasons. First, ST\u2019s construction\n\nviolates the doctrine of claim differentiation, which presumes that each claim differs in scope. See\n\nTandon, 831 F.2d at 1023. Claim 11 of the \u2019189 Patent expressly limits \u201cthe power rail pad\u201d to \u201ca\n\nnon-circuit node.\u201d That dependent limitation would be entirely superfluous under ST\u2019s proposed\n\nconstruction. If independent claim 1 already required a power rail pad to be \u201cnot integrated with\n\nthe die circuitry\u201d (as ST proposes), claim 11\u2019s additional qualifier that the \u201cpower rail pad\u201d be a\n\n\u201cnon-circuit node\u201d would add nothing. Such a construction is almost never correct. The claim set\n\nas a whole confirms the point: independent claim 15 and dependent claims 11 and 20 each\n\nexpressly recite that \u201cthe power rail pad is a non-circuit node of the semiconductor die,\u201d while\n\nasserted independent claims 1 and 19 contain no such language. The patentee knew exactly how\n\nto claim the \u201cnon-circuit node\u201d characteristic when it wanted to\u2014and chose not to in the asserted\n\nindependent claims. ST\u2019s riposte\u2014that claim differentiation cannot override lexicography or\n\ndisavowal (Def. Br. at 28 n.6)\u2014assumes its conclusion: as shown below, there is neither.\n\n Second, ST\u2019s proposed construction is misleading\u2014it distorts the disclosures of the\n\nspecification and the arguments made during prosecution, and it would likely cause juror confusion\n\nif adopted. ST relies heavily on the specification\u2019s description, at \u2019189 Pat. 4:27\u201331, that the power\n\nrail pads are \u201cnon-circuit nodes of the semiconductor die\u201d and \u201care not integrated nodes of the\n\ncircuitry within the semiconductor die.\u201d Def. Br. at 26\u201328. But ST\u2019s construction does not use\n\nthose words; instead, its proposed construction imprecisely defines the \u201cpower rail pad\u201d as \u201cnot\n\nintegrated with die circuitry.\u201d That imprecision will very likely lead to juror confusion, because\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 25 of 29\n\n\n\n\n\u201cnot integrated with\u201d die circuitry could lead jurors to believe that the \u201cpower rail pad\u201d has no\n\nconnection whatsoever with the die circuitry.\n\n That interpretation of \u201cpower rail pad\u201d would be inconsistent with the intrinsic record.\n\nDuring prosecution, the inventors explained that a prior art reference (Jassowski) did not disclose\n\nthe claimed \u201cpower rail pads\u201d because the power rails of Jassowski \u201care located inside the die and\n\nare formed during die fabrication.\u201d Dkt. 42-7 at 77 (emphasis added). By contrast, the \u201cpower rail\n\npads\u201d of the claimed invention exist \u201con the top surface of the die.\u201d Id. But, as the applicants\n\nfurther explained, although the claimed \u201cpower rail pads\u201d exist on the top surface of the die, they\n\nare still \u201celectrically connected to the die connection pads\u201d with bond wires. Id. Thus, in describing\n\nthat the claimed power rail pads are \u201cnot integrated nodes of the circuitry within the semiconductor\n\ndie\u201d and \u201cnon-circuit nodes,\u201d the inventors were merely clarifying that the claimed \u201cpower rail\n\npads\u201d do not exist inside the die.\n\n ST\u2019s proposed construction (specifically, the language \u201cnot integrated with the die\n\ncircuitry\u201d) is therefore confusing\u2014and wrong\u2014because it could improperly leave jurors with the\n\nimpression that the \u201cpower rail pads\u201d have no connection whatsoever with the die circuitry. As the\n\nspecification and file history makes clear, the \u201cpower rail pads\u201d are, in fact, still electrically\n\nconnected to the die circuitry. Dkt. 42-7 at 77 (\u201c[T]he power rail pad 309 or 310 is electrically\n\nconnected to the die connection pads 304 with bond wires 501.\u201d). Nor is any of this lexicography:\n\nunlike in Sinorgchem, where the specification set the defined term off in quotation marks and\n\nsupplied an express definition, the sentences ST quotes merely describe the depicted\n\nembodiment\u2014\u201cthe power rail pads 309, 310\u201d\u2014by figure numeral. Sinorgchem Co., Shandong v.\n\nITC, 511 F.3d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Embodiment description is not redefinition. Thorner,\n\n669 F.3d at 1365\u201366. Chip Packaging\u2019s proposed construction\u2014\u201ca conductive pad on the die\n\nconnection pad surface\u201d\u2014is faithful to the intrinsic record. It reflects the structural characteristic\n\nthat consistently defines a power rail pad throughout the specification: it is a pad located on the\n\ndie\u2019s surface (the die connection pad surface), as opposed to an internal die circuit element. This\n\nconstruction captures the key distinction drawn in prosecution without importing limitations that\n\n\n 21\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 26 of 29\n\n\n\n\nappear nowhere in the claim language and that would render claim 11 superfluous. The Court\n\nshould adopt Chip Packaging\u2019s construction.\n\n 2. \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d\n\n Plaintiff Chip\n Defendant ST\u2019s\n Claim Term Patent/Claims Packaging\u2019s\n Construction\n Construction\n \u201copposite die connection \u2019189 Patent, No construction \u201cthe top active surface\n pad surface\u201d Claims 1, 15, necessary of the die (opposite to\n (Claims 1, 15, and 19) and 19 the mounting surface)\u201d\n\n Independent claims 1, 15, and 19 of the \u2019189 Patent recite structures and methods for\n\nsemiconductor packaging that include a \u201cdie support mounting surface\u201d and an \u201copposite die\n\nconnection pad surface with associated die connection pads.\u201d The claim language itself already\n\nmakes clear that the \u201cdie connection pad surface\u201d is opposite to\u2014i.e., on the other side of\u2014the\n\n\u201cmounting surface.\u201d Chip Packaging submits that this concept is readily understandable, and that\n\nno further construction is necessary.\n\n ST\u2019s proposed construction should be rejected at least because it imposes an absolute\n\ndirectional constraint\u2014the word \u201ctop\u201d\u2014where no such constraint exists in the claim. Whether a\nsurface is physically \u201ctop\u201d depends on orientation, which may vary across package configurations,\n\nor even just one\u2019s perspective. The operative structural relationship of the claim is \u201copposite\u201d to\n\nthe mounting surface. ST\u2019s construction also inserts the word \u201cactive\u201d\u2014a technical\n\ncharacterization of the surface that likewise appears nowhere in the claims. The claims require\n\nonly die connection pads (circuit nodes) on the surface opposite the mounting surface; whether\n\nthat surface is also the die\u2019s \u201cactive\u201d surface is an extraneous limitation that invites needless\n\ndispute at trial.\n\n ST relies on a single statement in the prosecution history where the applicant described the\n\nopposite die connection pad surface as the \u201c(top, active surface).\u201d Dkt. 42-7 at 75. But that one\n\nstatement was made to describe a particular embodiment\u2014it was not made to distinguish prior art,\n\nlet alone as a definitional statement that \u201copposite die connection pad surface\u201d means \u201ctop\u201d in all\n\n\n\n 22\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 27 of 29\n\n\n\n\nconfigurations. It does not remotely constitute the sort of clear and unmistakable statement\n\nrequired to limit a claim\u2019s scope based on prosecution history. See 3M, 725 F.3d at 1326.\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC respectfully\n\nrequests that the Court adopt its proposals for each of the nine disputed claim terms, enter the\n\nparties\u2019 agreed constructions for the two agreed terms, and reject Defendant ST\u2019s proposed\n\nconstructions in their entirety.\n\n\nDated: July 21, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n /s/ Ameet Modi\n Garland Stephens (Texas Bar No. 24053910)\n garland@bluepeak.law\n Robert Magee (pro hac vice)\n robert@bluepeak.law\n Justin Constant (pro hac vice)\n justin@bluepeak.law\n Richard Koehl (Texas Bar No. 24115754)\n richard@bluepeak.law\n Kate Falkenstien (pro hac vice)\n kate@bluepeak.law\n Heng Gong (New York Bar No. 4930509)\n heng@bluepeak.law\n Natalie Lieber (pro hac vice)\n lieber@bluepeak.law\n Ameet Modi (pro hac vice)\n modi@bluepeak.law\n BLUE PEAK LAW GROUP LLP\n 3139 West Holcombe Blvd.\n PMB 8160\n Houston, TX 77025\n Telephone: (281) 972-3036\n\n Of Counsel:\n Mark D. Siegmund (Texas Bar No. 24117055)\n msiegmund@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n 7901 Fish Pond Road, 2nd Floor\n Waco, TX 76710\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n\n\n 23\n\fCase 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 28 of 29\n\n\n\n\n William D. Ellerman (Texas Bar No. 24007151)\n wellerman@cjsjlaw.com\n CHERRY JOHNSON SIEGMUND JAMES, PC\n One Glen Lakes Tower\n 8140 Walnut Hill Lane, Suite 105\n Dallas, TX 75231\n Telephone: (254) 732-2242\n Fax: (866) 627-3509\n\n ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF CHIP\n PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\f Case 7:25-cv-00505-DC-DTG Document 45 Filed 07/21/26 Page 29 of 29\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\n A true and correct copy of Plaintiff Chip Packaging Technologies, LLC\u2019s Responsive\n\nClaim Construction Brief was served via CM/ECF to all counsel of record on July 21, 2026.\n\n\n /s/ Ameet Modi\n Ameet Modi\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-21T18:19:38.401446-07:00","document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"181037027224","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":false,"document_type":1,"description":"Claim Construction Brief","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-21T18:19:38.011973-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-21T19:09:05.581812-07:00","date_filed":"2026-07-21","time_filed":"20:18:40","entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-07-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":148,"description":"Reply Claim Construction Brief regarding [42] Claim Construction Brief,, by CHIP PACKAGING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,. (Modi, Ameet)","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=71824787&page_size=40"}