Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp.

I'll research the case and the parties before drafting the overview.

Now let me verify the patent details, parties' backgrounds, and related litigation.

Case Overview — Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00682-KAJ (D. Del.)

The parties. Intel Corporation (Santa Clara, Calif.) needs little introduction: at the time it was the world's largest semiconductor company, with roughly 94,000 employees and $35.4 billion in 2006 revenue, and its 90-nm "Prescott" (desktop Pentium 4) and "Dothan" (Pentium M) processors were the flagship products. AmberWave Systems Corporation (Salem, N.H.) was the mirror image — a venture-backed university spin-out founded in 1998–99 by MIT materials-science professor Eugene Fitzgerald (often called the "father of strained silicon") and his student Mayank Bulsara, built on an exclusive MIT license and roughly $91 million in VC funding. AmberWave was not a classic non-practicing entity in the modern sense: it ran its own 30,000-square-foot R&D facility with a class-10 clean room, employed roughly 20–23 people (about a quarter with Ph.D.s), and operated a deliberate "IP business model" — patenting and licensing process technology rather than fabricating chips — with disclosed licensees including Applied Materials, Agere, Sumitomo Mitsui and LG Siltron. Its small-versus-giant posture later made it a recurring exhibit in the 2007–08 patent-reform debate; AmberWave's VP/General Counsel Bryan Lord testified before the House Small Business Committee as a founding member of the Innovation Alliance.

The technology and patents. The dispute was over strained silicon — the technique of stretching the silicon lattice (typically via a relaxed SiGe buffer or embedded SiGe source/drain) to raise carrier mobility and thereby speed transistors without new lithography. AmberWave's May 9, 2005 cease-and-desist letter (from Steven I. Frank of Goodwin Procter to Intel CEO Paul Otellini), following a May 3, 2005 technical presentation at Intel's Hillsboro, Oregon campus, expressly accused Intel's Prescott and Dothan processors. The patent centrally at issue in this docket is U.S. Patent No. 6,946,371, "Methods of fabricating semiconductor structures having epitaxially grown source and drain elements" (App. No. 10/458,544, filed June 10, 2003; issued September 20, 2005; inventors Thomas A. Langdo and Anthony J. Lochtefeld; priority to Provisional No. 60/387,867, June 10, 2002). In one line: it claims selective epitaxial growth of in-situ-doped Si/SiGe raised source/drain regions that suppresses facet formation, using standard CVD tools, so that spacer geometry need not be tightly controlled. The '371 was litigated alongside two sibling patents from the same program — U.S. Patent No. 6,831,292 ("Semiconductor structures employing strained material layers with defined impurity gradients and methods for fabricating same"), which addresses controlling impurity diffusion gradients in strained-layer structures, and U.S. Patent No. 6,881,632, which the E.D. Tex. court described as teaching a method of constructing inverters and other circuits using strained semiconductor transistors.

Procedural posture and why it matters. This is one of the more vivid forum-race artifacts of the pre-TC Heartland era. Intel fired first with a Delaware declaratory-judgment action on May 17, 2005 (C.A. 05-301-KAJ, before Judge Kent A. Jordan) as to the '292 patent, expressly reserving rights as to AmberWave's then-pending applications. AmberWave answered in Marshall, Texas on July 15, 2005 (No. 2:05-cv-321-LED, Judge Leonard E. Davis) with an infringement suit on the '632 patent. Then, on the day the '371 issued — September 20, 2005 — AmberWave deposited an infringement complaint in the E.D. Tex. drop box at 5:50 a.m. Central; Intel filed this DJ action (05-682-KAJ) in Wilmington at about 8:30 a.m. Eastern, roughly two hours later. On November 1, 2005 Judge Davis transferred the Texas case to Delaware under the first-to-file rule, holding that substantial overlap "does not require that the core issues be identical" where the same products and closely related subject matter are involved (AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 2:05-cv-321, 2005 WL 2861476 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005)); the case landed as C.A. 05-837-MPT before Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge. Judge Jordan then granted Intel leave to supplement its 05-301 complaint to add the '371, reasoning that the same Intel devices were accused of infringing both patents and that the technology was closely enough related to try together — Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Sys. Corp., 233 F.R.D. 416 (D. Del. 2005) — and the actions were consolidated under 05-301-KAJ in February 2006, with 05-682 terminated at settlement. The significance is threefold: (i) it is a leading, still-cited authority on anticipatory DJ practice and the first-to-file rule, invoked routinely in modern venue fights (e.g., Wi-LAN v. Acer, Actifio v. Delphix, and Intertrust's 2019–20 transfer briefing); (ii) it illustrates how a well-resourced operating company used a home-court DJ plus the first-to-file rule to strip a patentee of its preferred Marshall, Texas venue — precisely the dynamic that later drove the TC Heartland and discretionary-denial fights; and (iii) it is a snapshot of the strained-silicon licensing wars at the 90-nm node, where AmberWave's portfolio was reportedly being taken by much of the industry. On March 5, 2007 the parties settled: Intel took a 10-year license to AmberWave's technology, made payments (amount confidential), and the parties jointly dismissed the actions with prejudice while agreeing to keep evaluating AmberWave's R&D — the terms appearing in Intel's FY2006 Form 10-K. Amusingly, no IPR linkage exists to analyze: the case closed more than five years before the AIA created the PTAB, and no post-grant proceeding appears in the record.

I'll research this case across the docket, opinions, and related proceedings.

Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00682-KAJ (D. Del.) — Litigation Chronology

Scope note up front: No. 05-682 was one piece of a three-front, consolidated Delaware/Texas dispute over AmberWave's strained-silicon portfolio. Because 05-682 was folded into the earlier-filed Delaware action (No. 05-301-KAJ) and the whole matter settled globally on 2007-03-05, most substantive rulings in the 05-682 "case" are actually rulings in 05-301. I've flagged that where relevant.

---

1. The procedural map (four dockets, one dispute)

The court itself characterized the sequence as "the parties' forum shopping," with a literal "race to the courthouse." Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Sys. Corp., 233 F.R.D. 416, 417–18 (D. Del. 2005) (CourtListener; D. Del. opinion page).

---

2. Chronology

Filing and initial pleadings

2005-05-09 — AmberWave cease-and-desist letter. AmberWave's counsel formally notified Intel that its "current commercial products" infringed the '292 patent and the applications that became the '371 patent. This letter is the triggering act for Intel's DJ action and is cited repeatedly in the Delaware opinions (D.I. 31, Ex. C).

2005-05-17 — Intel files the first Delaware action (No. 05-301-KAJ). Intel sought a declaration of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,831,292 ('292), expressly reserving "all rights to amend this Complaint to seek a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the patents that issue from the '947 and '499 Applications" — i.e., Intel pre-positioned for the '371. Intel Corp. v. AmberWave, 233 F.R.D. at 417. (Note a sourcing discrepancy: contemporaneous press accounts date Intel's DJ filing to May 25, 2005 — EE Times, 2005-07-18 — while Judge Jordan's opinion states May 17, 2005 (D.I. 1). The May 17 date is the court's own record; I'd treat it as authoritative and the press date as a reporting error.)

2005-07-15 — AmberWave sues in Marshall, Texas on the '632 patent (No. 2:05-cv-321-TJW), and simultaneously asserts the '292 patent as a counterclaim in the Delaware action. AmberWave publicly stated the suits arose after license negotiations failed and that Intel refused "reasonable commercial terms." (EE Times, 2005-07-18; InformationWeek, 2005-07-18.) Accused products: Intel's 90-nm Pentium processors and their strained-silicon technology.

2005-09-20 — Two complaints in one morning. The '371 patent issued; AmberWave dropped its infringement complaint in the E.D. Tex. clerk's night depository at 5:50 a.m. CT; Intel filed its 05-682 DJ complaint in Wilmington at approximately 8:30 a.m. ET. 233 F.R.D. at 418; InformationWeek, 2005-09-29.

2005-09-26 — Intel moves to supplement its 05-301 complaint (D.I. 30) to add a '371 DJ claim, recognizing the 05-682 filing was duplicative. 233 F.R.D. at 418.

2005-09-28 — AmberWave opposes by letter (D.I. 33 in 05-301). AmberWave argued 05-682 was an improper anticipatory filing that should be "stayed or dismissed under the

I'll research the docket and related filings for counsel of record.

Let me pull the actual docket sheets and more filings to confirm appearances.

Now let me verify the 05-682 complaint signatures and confirm the docket/appearances.

Plaintiff's counsel of record — Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., C.A. No. 05-682-KAJ (D. Del.)

Scope note: The '371 patent case was filed by Intel as a declaratory-judgment action on 20 Sept. 2005 (D.I. 1) and was formally dismissed without prejudice by stipulated order filed 1 March 2006 (D.I. 21), with Intel's '371 claims then being pursued by supplementation of the earlier-filed Intel v. AmberWave action, C.A. No. 05-301-KAJ, into which the dispute was consolidated (the consolidated case closed 5 March 2007). The same Intel team appears on both dockets, so the roster below is drawn from signed filings, service lists and the stipulated dismissal across both numbers.

Caveat up front: I was not able to pull the raw PACER docket sheet for 05-682 (and the 05-682 files themselves are not sealed, but I relied on reproduced ECF images/PDFs rather than live PACER). The names below are all taken from documents signed by or served on those attorneys; I did not locate separate "Notice of Appearance" entries for the out-of-state Simpson Thacher lawyers, and the Delaware lawyers' appearances appear via signed pleadings rather than standalone entries.

1. Delaware counsel — Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Wilmington, DE)

The 1 March 2006 stipulated dismissal in 05-682 is expressly signed "YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP … Josy W. Ingersoll (No. 1088), John W. Shaw (No. 3362) … Attorneys for Plaintiff Intel Corporation," confirming Ingersoll and Shaw as the operative Delaware record counsel at dismissal.

2. Lead / outside counsel — Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP

Because none of the Simpson Thacher lawyers were members of the Delaware bar, they were designated "Of Counsel" in the Delaware filings (the customary Delaware practice for pro hac vice/admitting out-of-state counsel); that label reflects Delaware practice, not necessarily their firm title.

3. Items I could not confirm

• No Intel in-house counsel appears of record. I found no Intel Legal Department attorney signature on any 05-682/05-301 filing.
• Additional Simpson Thacher lawyer, initials only. A 17 May 2005 letter on Simpson Thacher Palo Alto letterhead to AmberWave's counsel Steven J. Frank (Goodwin Procter) — transmitting Intel's just-filed DJ complaint — is signed only "Jeffrey E." I could not reliably resolve the surname from the available document image and will not guess it; treat as an unidentified member of the Intel/Simpson Thacher team.
• No formal appearance entries located for Newcombe, King, Anderson or LaRocca; their participation is established by service lists and "Of Counsel" blocks rather than by separate ECF appearances. If you need the actual pro hac vice orders, the 05-301 docket (Judge Kent A. Jordan until 7 Dec. 2006, then Judge Farnan; referral to Mag. Judge Mary Pat Thynge) is the place to check — I could not retrieve that docket's full text within this search.
• The "of counsel" designations in the reproduced filings are text-extraction artifacts in places (e.g., "YOUNG CONWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP," "IKELL 3.; MANELLA" for Irell & Manella), which I have normalized; no names were inferred from OCR garbage.

Sources grounding the above

• 05-682-KAJ D.I. 14 (28 Oct. 2005) — letter to Judge Jordan signed by Josy W. Ingersoll on behalf of Intel, cc'ing Blumenfeld, Morgan Chu and Patrick King (reproduced ECF image).
• 05-682-KAJ D.I. 21 & 21-2 (1 Mar. 2006) — stipulated order of dismissal without prejudice, listing Newcombe (Simpson Thacher) and Ingersoll/Shaw (Young Conaway) as "Attorneys for Plaintiff Intel Corporation" (ECF image).
• 05-301-KAJ D.I. 6 (6 June 2005) — stipulation signed by Ingersoll, Shaw and Mandalas for Intel (ECF image).
• 05-301-KAJ D.I. 30 (26 Sept. 2005) — Intel's Motion for Leave to Supplement Complaint, signed Ingersoll/Shaw/Keller, "Of Counsel: George M. Newcombe, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP" (ECF image).
• 05-301-KAJ D.I. 132 (30 June 2006) — AmberWave's notice of service listing Newcombe, King, Anderson (Palo Alto) and LaRocca (New York) for Intel (ECF image).
• 05-301-KAJ D.I. 1 (17 May 2005) — Intel's DJ complaint (Young Conaway signature block) (ECF image).
• Court's substantive ruling on the relationship between 05-301 and 05-682: Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Sys. Corp., 2005 WL 3448066 (D. Del. Nov. 29, 2005) (Jordan, J.) (reproduced at cetient); parallel transfer ruling, AmberWave Sys. Corp. v. Intel Corp., No. 2:05-cv-321, 2005 WL 2861476 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 1, 2005).

I'll research the counsel of record for AmberWave Systems Corp. in this case.

Initial results give strong leads. Let me verify with the docket and additional filings.

Let me pull the actual docket sheet and check the additional names.

Counsel of Record — Defendant AmberWave Systems Corp.

Intel Corp. v. AmberWave Systems Corp., No. 1:05-cv-00682-KAJ (D. Del.)

Sourcing note: The identification below comes from AmberWave's own filings in C.A. No. 05-682-KAJ — principally D.I. 6, Defendant's Rule 7.1 Statement filed 09/29/2005, which bears the full signature block and "OF COUNSEL" designation (captured via a third‑party PACER mirror, findforms.com, and cross‑checked against the parallel filing in related C.A. No. 05‑837 and the CourtListener opinion at 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29830). I was not able to pull a live PACER docket report or CourtListener RECAP docket sheet for 05‑682 within this session, so I cannot rule out additional appearances (e.g., later‑appearing Delaware counsel or an expert/consultant appearance) that do not appear in the filings I could retrieve. Filings in this case were not sealed as to counsel identification.

---

1. Delaware counsel of record (local counsel)

2. Lead / trial counsel (designated "OF COUNSEL" on the Delaware filings)

3. Related / probable but not confirmed for 05‑682 specifically

• Alexander C. D. Giza (then Irell & Manella, Century City office) — his published professional bio expressly lists representation of "patentee AmberWave" against Intel in the related D. Del. cases (Nos. 1:06‑cv‑429, 1:06‑cv‑638) and E.D. Tex. No. 9:06‑cv‑157, describing a "favorable settlement." His bio does not name 05‑682, so treat his appearance in this case as likely but unverified.
• Steven I. Frank (Goodwin Procter LLP, Boston) — authored the May 9, 2005 cease‑and‑desist letter to Intel's Paul Otellini on AmberWave's behalf (attached as an exhibit to Intel's 05‑682 complaint). He is the pre‑litigation IP/business counsel, not counsel of record in the Delaware action. The same letter copied Bryan P. Lord, Esq., whose role I could not verify.
• "Patrick King, Esq." — copied (with Morgan Chu) on Intel's Delaware counsel's Oct. 28, 2005 letter to Judge Jordan, in a list that otherwise contains only litigation counsel. This is consistent with an AmberWave in‑house counsel role, but I found no document confirming his title or that he entered an appearance. Treat as unconfirmed.

4. For context — adverse counsel (Intel)

Not asked, but useful for cross‑reference: Josy W. Ingersoll (Del. Bar No. 1088) of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, was Intel's Delaware counsel of record in 05‑682 and 05‑301.

---

Caveats to flag in any published work product:

1. Counsel identification rests on filed documents (D.I. 6 and related filings), not a certified PACER docket report for 05‑682; the case was consolidated into 05‑301‑KAJ and terminated 03/05/2007, so withdrawal/substitution entries — if any — were not reviewed.
2. AmberWave's counsel lineup was stable across the family of Intel suits (D. Del. 05‑301, 05‑682, 05‑837, 06‑429, 06‑638; E.D. Tex. 2:05‑cv‑321, 9:06‑cv‑157), which is why Morris Nichols + Irell is a reliable answer even where a given filing could not be retrieved.
3. No AmberWave in‑house lawyer is documented as counsel of record in 05‑682; do not attribute one without a docket entry.