Patents Claiming a Range of Values, Such as Gate Sizes for Semiconductor Chips, Must Enable One of Ordinary Skill to Make and Use the Entire Claimed Range

Jul 6, 2020

Reading Time : 4 min

In December 2018, complainant Tela Innovations, Inc. filed a complaint in the ITC against various semiconductor companies, including Acer, Asus Computer, Intel, Lenovo and Micro-Star (“Respondents”) for importing products that infringe five of Tela’s patents that relate to semiconductor chips with gate structures. On May 22, 2020, after an evidentiary hearing, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot issued an initial determination, finding that claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,141,334 (“the ’334 Patent”) were not enabled because they required undue experimentation to manufacture chips at the low end of the claimed size ranges.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), or pre-AIA § 112, ¶ 1, a valid patent must describe “the manner and process of making and using” the claimed invention. A claim is adequately enabled when the specification teaches “those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation.” The Federal Circuit has articulated a set of factors to consider in assessing enablement, including: (1) the quantity of experimentation necessary; (2) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (3) the presence or absence of working examples; (4) the nature of the invention; (5) the state of the prior art; (6) the relative skill of those in the art; (7) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; and (8) the breadth of the claims. In re Wands, 585 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

The ALJ began with claim construction to determine the “full scope” of the claims. The claims recite ranges of gate pitch and width—sizing features of semiconductor chips—and specifically, “a gate pitch of less than or equal to about 193 nanometers” and “a width of less than or equal to about 45 nanometers.” The Respondents indicated, however, that there was a “(yet unknown) physical limit to how small gate widths and pitches can ultimately be.” According to the ALJ, the parties agreed that a “gate pitch” should be construed to range from about 40 to 193 nanometers. With respect to “gate width,” however, the parties did not agree on a lower bound. Because Tela’s expert, Dr. Hook, testified that seven nanometers was within the scope of the claimed range, and the parties agreed that his testimony was authoritative on the knowledge of one of ordinary skill, the ALJ construed “gate width” to range from about 7 to 45 nanometers.

The ALJ then applied the Wands factors to determine whether the full scope of the claimed ranges were enabled for a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). To start, the ALJ looked to the related factors (1), the quantity of experimentation necessary, and (6), the relative skill of those in the art. Dr. Hook testified that a seven nanometer node was “beyond today’s manufacturing” abilities and that, to reduce the scale of integrated circuit chips in a single process node, it takes “the full-time effort of at least 1,000 engineers, 95% of whom have doctorates, and ‘billions’ of dollars in research and development expenses.” Although such labors are “commonplace” and “business as usual” in the semiconductor industry, the ALJ found that “they are surely far from ‘routine’ within the meaning of Wands” and “clearly well beyond the capabilities of a POSITA.”

Turning to factor (2), the ALJ weighed the amount of direction or guidance presented. The ALJ noted the ’334 Patent is “silent on the process” of resolving the technological hurdles to scale down chip size. The patent’s disclosure of the standard “CMOS” semiconductor fabrication process provided no guidance to a skilled artisan on how to shrink a chip’s size. According to the ALJ, the specification presupposes that any technological hurdles to shrinking gate width and pitch will be overcome with time, and “leaves entirely to someone else the task of solving the problems preventing a skilled artisan from practicing the full scope of the invention.”

Factors (3), the presence or absence of working examples, and (5), the state of the prior art, also weighed in favor of finding undue experimentation. The working examples in the ’334 Patent did not pertain to the lower bounds of the claimed ranges, and expert testimony confirmed that working examples of the lower bounds of the claimed ranges did not exist. Factor (4), the nature of the invention, however, weighed slightly against a finding of undue experimentation. The ALJ noted that the claimed ranges are not the “heart of the invention,” which is “the combination of various chip layers possessing rectilinear features” as opposed to the size of those features.

Next, the ALJ determined that factor (7), predictability of the art, weighs against undue experimentation based on the concept of Moore’s Law, which provides that integrated circuits halve in area on average once every two years. Finally, factor (8), the breadth of the claims, weighed against a finding of enablement because they included gate width and pitch ranges with lower bounds beyond what could be made and used at the time of the invention and even at the time of the decision.

Having weighed the Wands factors, the ALJ held that the breadth of enablement in the patent specification is not commensurate in scope with the claims. Consequently, the ’334 Patent was found invalid for lack of enablement.

Practice tip: Patent owners should be particularly careful when drafting claims directed to ranges, ensuring that the patent specification enables the full scope of the claimed range. This applies to open-ended ranges with no upper bound, but also, as seen in this investigation, ranges that extend to zero. A POSITA must be able to make and use the full scope of any claimed range at the time of the invention.

Certain Integrated Circuits & Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1148 (U.S.I.T.C. May 22, 2020) (ALJ Elliot)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of
products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal
of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims
were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an
attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of
the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug
product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and
the related statutory context.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition
challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged
claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the
Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel
litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a
parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB
would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in
view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal
Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to
invalidate claims in district court.
...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s
later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s
patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory
forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.
...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.