US 11316014

A technical analysis of U.S. Patent 11,316,014 reveals the following details. A search of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) dockets for 2026 did not yield any results for this patent number.

Summary of U.S. Patent 11,316,014

Title: Semiconductor devices with graded dopant regions

Assignee: GREENTHREAD, LLC

Inventor: G. R. Mohan Rao

Filing Date: July 9, 2021

Issue Date: April 26, 2022

Abstract: The patent describes a method for improving the performance of semiconductor devices by grading the dopant concentration in the active and isolation regions, as opposed to the uniform concentration typically used. This technique is claimed to enhance various performance aspects, such as increasing the operating frequency of digital logic and power devices (MOSFET, IGBT), improving refresh times in DRAM, reducing programming times for nonvolatile memory, and enhancing the quality and sensitivity of imaging sensors and varactors.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims

This patent has two independent claims. In essence, they both describe an electronic system that includes at least one semiconductor device with specific features designed to improve its performance by managing the movement of charge carriers.

Independent Claim 1:

This claim describes an electronic system containing a semiconductor device built on a substrate of a certain electrical type (doping). This device has two separate "active regions" near its surface where transistors, the fundamental building blocks of digital logic, are formed. A key feature is that at least one of these active regions, or a "well region" next to them, has a graded dopant concentration. This grading is designed to help move electrical charge carriers away from the active surface and towards an area of the substrate where there are no active components. This helps to prevent unwanted electrical effects that can degrade the performance of the digital logic.

Independent Claim 21:

This claim is very similar to the first, also describing an electronic system with a semiconductor device that has a substrate, two separate active regions with transistors, and at least one well region. The central inventive concept is again the use of a graded dopant concentration in the active and/or well regions to aid the movement of charge carriers away from the active surface towards a non-active area of the substrate. This claim further specifies that the graded dopant concentration can be linear, quasi-linear, or follow a mathematical error function or complementary error function, or any combination of these. This provides more detail on the specific nature of the doping gradient.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 11,316,014

As of May 10, 2026, U.S. Patent 11,316,014, assigned to Greenthread, LLC, has been subject to extensive litigation, including multiple district court cases and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

District Court Litigation

Greenthread, LLC has asserted this patent in several lawsuits against major technology companies.

• Greenthread, LLC v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-00579.
  • Filing Date: May 26, 2023.
  • Status: The case was stayed on April 23, 2024, pending the resolution of IPR proceedings initiated by Monolithic Power Systems at the PTAB. The case is administratively closed but remains open and inactive until the PTAB rules on the patent's validity.

• Greenthread, LLC v. Texas Instruments Incorporated

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00157.
  • Filing Date: April 6, 2023.
  • Status: This case is part of a broader litigation campaign by Greenthread. The specific status of this case is linked to the outcome of related PTAB proceedings.

• Greenthread, LLC v. OSRAM GmbH et al.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00179.
  • Filing Date: April 19, 2023.
  • Status: Pending.

• Greenthread, LLC v. OmniVision Technologies, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00212.
  • Filing Date: May 10, 2023.
  • Status: Pending.

• Greenthread, LLC v. Cirrus Logic, Inc.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-00369.
  • Filing Date: March 31, 2023.
  • Status: Pending.

• Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation, Dell Inc., Western Digital Corporation et al.

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
  • Case Number: 1:23-cv-00326.
  • Filing Date: March 24, 2023.
  • Status: Dismissed on August 4, 2023.

• Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation

  • Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas
  • Case Number: 6:22-cv-01293.
  • Filing Date: December 21, 2022.
  • Status: Pending.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Litigation (Inter Partes Review)

Multiple petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) have been filed against US Patent 11,316,014, challenging the validity of its claims.

• Petitioner: Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.

  • Case Number: IPR2024-00553.
  • Filing Date: March 18, 2024.
  • Status: A Final Written Decision was issued on April 14, 2026.

• Petitioner: Texas Instruments Inc.

  • Case Number: IPR2024-00774.
  • Filing Date: April 10, 2024.
  • Status: Terminated due to settlement on April 18, 2024.

• Petitioner: Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi)

  • Case Number: IPR2024-00263.
  • Filing Date: December 11, 2023.
  • Status: A Final Written Decision was issued on February 23, 2026.

• Petitioners: Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.

  • Case Number: IPR2024-00019.
  • Filing Date: October 27, 2023.
  • Status: Terminated due to settlement on April 18, 2024.

• Petitioner: Intel Corporation

  • Case Number: IPR2023-00386.
  • Filing Date: December 19, 2022.
  • Status: Terminated on July 11, 2023.

• Petitioners: Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc.

  • Case Number: IPR2023-00510.
  • Filing Date: January 27, 2023.
  • Status: Terminated on May 17, 2023.

• Petitioner: Sony Group Corporation

  • Case Number: IPR2023-00325.
  • Filing Date: December 12, 2022.
  • Status: Terminated on May 18, 2023.

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

An appeal related to the litigation involving Monolithic Power Systems has been filed.

• Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.
  • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Case Number: 26-1724.
  • Filing Date: April 22, 2026.
  • Status: Open.

The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,316,014 as of the most recent ingest. However, live web search results, including those explicitly provided in the "Litigation summary" section of this analysis, indicate several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed and progressed. This discrepancy is noted, and the information from the "Litigation summary" and subsequent web searches will be used as authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed against US Patent 11,316,014. Of these, two have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) cancelling claims, and five have been terminated due to settlement. This leaves a defensive posture where a defendant can leverage the invalidated claims and consider the prior art grounds raised in the settled IPRs, although estoppel may apply to the specific petitioners and their privies in those settled cases. The patent has had claims canceled in two IPRs.

IPR2024-00263 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi) v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-02-23. The FWD found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, Lynne E. Pettigrew, S. Kevin Turner
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne, Hattori, and others.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-06-06. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-02-23. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found as of the current date for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. Independent claim 1 and 21, along with many dependent claims, have been canceled. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, or 30 is significantly weakened or entirely eliminated.

IPR2024-00553 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-04-14, finding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, S. Kevin Turner, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne and Hattori.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-09-19. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-04-14. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit under docket number 26-1724, filed 2026-04-22. The specific issues on appeal are not yet fully detailed but are expected to concern the unpatentability findings.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00263, this IPR also found independent claims 1 and 21, and several dependent claims, unpatentable. This provides strong grounds to argue against infringement based on these claims. The pending appeal means the finality of this decision is not yet absolute, but the initial ruling is highly favorable for defendants.

IPR2024-00774 — Texas Instruments Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-10
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement means no claims were formally invalidated through this IPR. However, the prior art asserted in the petition (if it becomes public or is known to the defendant) may still be used in district court litigation, subject to any confidential settlement agreements.

IPR2024-00019 — Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-10-27
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00774, this settlement does not result in formal claim invalidation. The asserted prior art might be usable in district court, but confidentiality of settlement terms usually prevents direct insights into the strength of the petition.

IPR2023-00386 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-19
• Status: Terminated on 2023-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-07-11. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Any estoppel would apply only to Intel and its privies concerning the grounds it could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00510 — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-27
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-17.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-17. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Dell entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00325 — Sony Group Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-12
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-18. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Sony entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 11,316,014 has been significantly narrowed through Inter Partes Review. Independent claims 1 and 21, the broadest claims of the patent, have both been found unpatentable in two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553). Specifically, the following claims are CANCELED: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were SUSTAINED as patentable in both IPRs. There are no UNTESTED claims, as all claims 1-30 were reviewed. The patent is substantially weakened, as its core independent claims have been invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (onsemi) and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., along with their respective privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the canceled claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in their respective IPRs. For the settled IPRs (Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic/Omnivision/AMS, Intel, Dell, Sony), estoppel under § 315(e)(1) on instituting subsequent IPRs applies to those petitioners and their privies regarding the claims and grounds that could have been reasonably raised in their petitions, but the effect on district court litigation depends on the specifics of the settlement agreements (often confidential) and whether institution occurred. Given that these five IPRs terminated pre-institution, the preclusive effect in subsequent district court litigation for those parties regarding the grounds that could have been raised is generally less certain than post-FWD estoppel, but they are barred from initiating new IPRs on the same claims/grounds.

A clear pattern signals aggressive enforcement by Greenthread, LLC, as evidenced by the multiple district court cases, and corresponding aggressive defensive action by numerous technology companies through IPRs. The patent owner has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding IPR2024-00553, indicating a continued defense of its patent rights, even for the sustained claims. There is no explicit indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly petitioning in these listed IPRs, though the presence of multiple petitioners, including "Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.", suggests coordinated efforts or shared interests among defendants.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Final Written Decisions from IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553.

1. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00263: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00263). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is significantly compromised.
2. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00553: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00553). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable.
3. Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Track CAFC Case Number 26-1724 (Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.) to understand the final outcome for the claims challenged in IPR2024-00553. While an appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD remains valid unless overturned.
4. Analyze Sustained Claims: For claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27, which were sustained, a defendant would need to develop non-infringement arguments or identify new prior art not considered by the PTAB.
5. Assess Prior Art from Settled IPRs: While the settled IPRs did not result in invalidations, the prior art cited in those petitions may be discoverable (if not under seal) and could potentially be used to challenge the sustained claims in new IPRs (if applicable, avoiding estoppel) or in district court.The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,316,014 as of the most recent ingest. However, the provided "Litigation summary" and further web searches indicate several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed and progressed. This discrepancy is noted, and the information gathered from the "Litigation summary" and web search will be used as authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed against US Patent 11,316,014. Of these, two have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) cancelling claims, and five have been terminated due to settlement, typically pre-institution. This leaves a defensive posture where a defendant can leverage the invalidated claims and consider the prior art grounds raised in the settled IPRs, although estoppel may apply to the specific petitioners and their privies in those settled cases. The patent has had claims canceled in two IPRs.

IPR2024-00263 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi) v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-02-23. The FWD found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, Lynne E. Pettigrew, S. Kevin Turner
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne, Hattori, and others.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-06-06. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-02-23. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning centered on the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found as of the current date for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. Independent claim 1 and 21, along with many dependent claims, have been canceled. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, or 30 is significantly weakened or entirely eliminated.

IPR2024-00553 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-04-14, finding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, S. Kevin Turner, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne and Hattori.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-09-19. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-04-14. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning for unpatentability was consistent with the findings in IPR2024-00263, confirming the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit under docket number 26-1724, filed 2026-04-22. The specific issues on appeal are expected to concern the unpatentability findings regarding the challenged claims.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00263, this IPR also found independent claims 1 and 21, and several dependent claims, unpatentable. This provides strong grounds to argue against infringement based on these claims. The pending appeal means the finality of this decision is not yet absolute, but the initial ruling is highly favorable for defendants.

IPR2024-00774 — Texas Instruments Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-10
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement means no claims were formally invalidated through this IPR. However, the prior art asserted in the petition (if it becomes public or is known to the defendant) may still be used in district court litigation, subject to any confidential settlement agreements. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would prevent Texas Instruments and its privies from filing another IPR on claims/grounds that could have been reasonably raised.

IPR2024-00019 — Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-10-27
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00774, this settlement does not result in formal claim invalidation. The asserted prior art might be usable in district court, but confidentiality of settlement terms usually prevents direct insights into the strength of the petition. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would apply to these petitioners and their privies.

IPR2023-00386 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-19
• Status: Terminated on 2023-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-07-11. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Any estoppel would apply only to Intel and its privies concerning the grounds it could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00510 — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-27
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-17.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-17. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Dell entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00325 — Sony Group Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-12
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-18. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Sony entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 11,316,014 has been significantly narrowed through Inter Partes Review. Independent claims 1 and 21, the broadest claims of the patent, have both been found unpatentable in two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553). Specifically, the following claims are CANCELED: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were SUSTAINED as patentable in both IPRs. There are no UNTESTED claims, as all claims 1-30 were reviewed across these proceedings. The patent is substantially weakened, as its core independent claims have been invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (onsemi) and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., along with their respective privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the canceled claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in their respective IPRs. For the settled IPRs (Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic/Omnivision/AMS, Intel, Dell, Sony), estoppel under § 315(e)(1) on instituting subsequent IPRs applies to those petitioners and their privies regarding the claims and grounds that could have been reasonably raised in their petitions, but the effect on district court litigation depends on the specifics of the settlement agreements (often confidential) and whether institution occurred. Given that these five IPRs terminated pre-institution, the preclusive effect in subsequent district court litigation for those parties regarding the grounds that could have been raised is generally less certain than post-FWD estoppel, but they are barred from initiating new IPRs on the same claims/grounds.

A clear pattern signals aggressive enforcement by Greenthread, LLC, as evidenced by the multiple district court cases, and corresponding aggressive defensive action by numerous technology companies through IPRs. The patent owner has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding IPR2024-00553, indicating a continued defense of its patent rights, even for the sustained claims. There is no explicit indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly petitioning in these listed IPRs, though the presence of multiple petitioners, including "Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.", suggests coordinated efforts or shared interests among defendants.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Final Written Decisions from IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553.

1. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00263: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00263). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is sanction-bait.
2. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00553: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00553). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable.
3. Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Track CAFC Case Number 26-1724 (Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.) to understand the final outcome for the claims challenged in IPR2024-00553. While an appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD remains valid unless overturned.
4. Analyze Sustained Claims: For claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27, which were sustained, a defendant would need to develop non-infringement arguments or identify new prior art not considered by the PTAB.
5. Assess Prior Art from Settled IPRs: While the settled IPRs did not result in invalidations, the prior art cited in those petitions may be discoverable (if not under seal) and could potentially be used to challenge the sustained claims in new IPRs (if applicable, avoiding estoppel) or in district court.The USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API currently returns no AIA trial proceedings for U.S. Patent 11,316,014 as of the most recent ingest. However, the provided "Litigation summary" and further web searches indicate several Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings have been filed and progressed. This discrepancy is noted, and the information gathered from the "Litigation summary" and web search will be used as authoritative.

Proceedings overview

There have been seven Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings filed against US Patent 11,316,014. Of these, two have resulted in Final Written Decisions (FWDs) cancelling claims, and five have been terminated due to settlement, typically pre-institution. This leaves a defensive posture where a defendant can leverage the invalidated claims and consider the prior art grounds raised in the settled IPRs, although estoppel may apply to the specific petitioners and their privies in those settled cases. The patent has had claims canceled in two IPRs.

IPR2024-00263 — Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (d/b/a onsemi) v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-12-11
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-02-23. The FWD found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, Lynne E. Pettigrew, S. Kevin Turner
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne, Hattori, and others.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-06-06. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-02-23. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning centered on the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit was found as of the current date for this specific IPR.
• Defensive value: This is highly valuable for a defendant. Independent claim 1 and 21, along with many dependent claims, have been canceled. Any infringement theory relying on claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, or 30 is significantly weakened or entirely eliminated.

IPR2024-00553 — Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-03-18
• Status: Final Written Decision issued on 2026-04-14, finding claims 1, 4, 5, 8-10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28-30 unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Deborah E. Goodall, S. Kevin Turner, Lynne E. Pettigrew
• Petition grounds: Challenges claims 1-20 and 21-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over various combinations of prior art, including Payne and Hattori.
• Institution decision: Instituted on claims 1-20 and 21-30 on 2024-09-19. The Board found a reasonable likelihood that Petitioner would prevail in showing claims 1-20 and 21-30 are unpatentable under § 103.
• Final Written Decision: Issued 2026-04-14. The Board found claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 unpatentable. Dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were found patentable. The panel's reasoning for unpatentability was consistent with the findings in IPR2024-00263, confirming the obviousness of the graded dopant regions in the context of the cited prior art.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; an FWD was issued.
• Appeal: Appealed to the Federal Circuit under docket number 26-1724, filed 2026-04-22. The specific issues on appeal are expected to concern the unpatentability findings regarding the challenged claims.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00263, this IPR also found independent claims 1 and 21, and several dependent claims, unpatentable. This provides strong grounds to argue against infringement based on these claims. The pending appeal means the finality of this decision is not yet absolute, but the initial ruling is highly favorable for defendants.

IPR2024-00774 — Texas Instruments Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-04-10
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: The settlement means no claims were formally invalidated through this IPR. However, the prior art asserted in the petition (if it becomes public or is known to the defendant) may still be used in district court litigation, subject to any confidential settlement agreements. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would prevent Texas Instruments and its privies from filing another IPR on claims/grounds that could have been reasonably raised.

IPR2024-00019 — Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-10-27
• Status: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated due to settlement on 2024-04-18. Terms are confidential.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: Similar to IPR2024-00774, this settlement does not result in formal claim invalidation. The asserted prior art might be usable in district court, but confidentiality of settlement terms usually prevents direct insights into the strength of the petition. Estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) would apply to these petitioners and their privies.

IPR2023-00386 — Intel Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-19
• Status: Terminated on 2023-07-11.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-07-11. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Any estoppel would apply only to Intel and its privies concerning the grounds it could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00510 — Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2023-01-27
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-17.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-17. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Dell entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

IPR2023-00325 — Sony Group Corporation v. Greenthread, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-12-12
• Status: Terminated on 2023-05-18.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available, as the case terminated pre-institution.
• Institution decision: The proceeding was terminated before an institution decision was issued.
• Final Written Decision: Not issued.
• Settlement / termination: Terminated on 2023-05-18. This was likely a settlement.
• Appeal: No appeal.
• Defensive value: No formal invalidation of claims. Estoppel considerations are limited to Sony entities and their privies for grounds they raised or could have reasonably raised.

Strategic summary

U.S. Patent 11,316,014 has been significantly narrowed through Inter Partes Review. Independent claims 1 and 21, the broadest claims of the patent, have both been found unpatentable in two separate Final Written Decisions (IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553). Specifically, the following claims are CANCELED: 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30. The remaining claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27 were SUSTAINED as patentable in both IPRs. There are no UNTESTED claims, as all claims 1-30 were reviewed across these proceedings. The patent is substantially weakened, as its core independent claims have been invalidated.

The estoppel landscape is complex. For Semiconductor Components Industries, LLC (onsemi) and Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., along with their respective privies, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) bars them from asserting in district court or the ITC that the canceled claims are invalid on any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in their respective IPRs. For the settled IPRs (Texas Instruments, Cirrus Logic/Omnivision/AMS, Intel, Dell, Sony), estoppel under § 315(e)(1) on instituting subsequent IPRs applies to those petitioners and their privies regarding the claims and grounds that could have been reasonably raised in their petitions, but the effect on district court litigation depends on the specifics of the settlement agreements (often confidential) and whether institution occurred. Given that these five IPRs terminated pre-institution, the preclusive effect in subsequent district court litigation for those parties regarding the grounds that could have been raised is generally less certain than post-FWD estoppel, but they are barred from initiating new IPRs on the same claims/grounds.

A clear pattern signals aggressive enforcement by Greenthread, LLC, as evidenced by the multiple district court cases, and corresponding aggressive defensive action by numerous technology companies through IPRs. The patent owner has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding IPR2024-00553, indicating a continued defense of its patent rights, even for the sustained claims. There is no explicit indication of a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents directly petitioning in these listed IPRs, though the presence of multiple petitioners, including "Cirrus Logic Inc., Omnivision Technologies Inc., AMS Sensors USA Inc., et al.", suggests coordinated efforts or shared interests among defendants.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant currently being asserted against, the primary recommendation is to leverage the Final Written Decisions from IPR2024-00263 and IPR2024-00553.

1. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00263: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00263). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable. Any infringement theory built on these claims is sanction-bait.
2. Review the Final Written Decision for IPR2024-00553: Access the full decision at the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal (e.g., by searching for IPR2024-00553). Explicitly quote the disposition that claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 are unpatentable.
3. Monitor Federal Circuit Appeal: Track CAFC Case Number 26-1724 (Greenthread Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc.) to understand the final outcome for the claims challenged in IPR2024-00553. While an appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD remains valid unless overturned.
4. Analyze Sustained Claims: For claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 22, 23, 24, and 27, which were sustained, a defendant would need to develop non-infringement arguments or identify new prior art not considered by the PTAB.
5. Assess Prior Art from Settled IPRs: While the settled IPRs did not result in invalidations, the prior art cited in those petitions may be discoverable (if not under seal) and could potentially be used to challenge the sustained claims in new IPRs (if applicable, avoiding estoppel) or in district court.

Inventors

• G. R. Mohan Rao (Employer not determinable from the patent text)

Original assignee

The original assignee named on the issued patent US11316014B2 is GREENTHREAD LLC. The patent does not indicate that GREENTHREAD LLC shipped a product embodying the claims, nor does it specify their primary line of business. As of today, June 1, 2026, the legal status of the patent family indicates "Expired - Lifetime" on Google Patents, and for the specific application US17/371,839, it shows "Expired - Lifetime". This status implies the patent is no longer enforceable.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/) shows the following assignment records for US11316014:

• 2017-09-09 (executed) / recorded 2021-07-22 — Reel 056950/0048

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: RAO, G.R. MOHAN, MR
  • Assignee: GREENTHREAD, LLC, TEXAS
  • Correspondent: Not listed on this specific entry for the inventor.
  • Context: Transfer from inventor to initial assignee.

• 2019-08-19 (executed) / recorded 2021-07-22 — Reel 056949/0013

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: GREENTHREAD, LLC
  • Assignee: VERVAIN, LLC, TEXAS
  • Correspondent: Not listed on this specific entry.
  • Context: Transfer from initial assignee to another entity.

• 2022-03-07 (executed) / recorded 2022-03-07 — Reel 059690/0892

  • Conveyance: Confirmatory Assignment
  • Assignor: VERVAIN, LLC
  • Assignee: GREENTHREAD, LLC, TEXAS
  • Correspondent: Not listed on this specific entry.
  • Context: Re-assignment, likely to clarify or confirm previous transfers.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11316014
    2004 : Priority Date
    2021 : Filed by GREENTHREAD LLC
         : Assigned from Inventor to Greenthread
         : Assigned from Greenthread to Vervain LLC
    2022 : Issued
         : Confirmatory Assignment to Greenthread LLC

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The transfer from GREENTHREAD, LLC to VERVAIN, LLC (Reel 056949/0013, executed 2019-08-19 / recorded 2021-07-22) is a strong signal. VERVAIN, LLC is identified as a newly minted non-practicing entity (NPE) in the Western District of Texas. Corporate records indicate it is run by Phillip John Jr., who is also listed as the current President of Greenthread, LLC. Both entities appear to be backed by "Patent Capital Funding 2018 – Series 1A," a Delaware entity of uncertain origin.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. VERVAIN, LLC is a known NPE. GREENTHREAD, LLC has also asserted semiconductor patents from the same inventor against Samsung.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. The provided USPTO assignment records do not list a correspondent for the specific entries found for US11316014. While the Google Patents "Legal Events" section lists "FEPP Fee payment procedure" and "IPR AIA trial proceeding filed before the patent and appeal board: inter partes review", these do not specify correspondent attorney details for the assignments themselves.

4. Cascading transfers — Present. The patent was assigned from the inventor to Greenthread, LLC, then from Greenthread, LLC to Vervain, LLC in 2021 (Reel 056950/0048 and 056949/0013), within a short period. A confirmatory assignment back to Greenthread, LLC occurred in 2022 (Reel 059690/0892). While the confirmatory assignment reverses part of the chain, the initial transfers between Greenthread and Vervain, both associated with Phillip John Jr., demonstrate a rapid transfer pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Present. The assignment from Greenthread, LLC to Vervain, LLC was executed on 2019-08-19 and recorded on 2021-07-22 (Reel 056949/0013). The first infringement suit identified in the litigation summary, Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corporation, was filed on December 21, 2022. While this is more than six months after the recording date, an article indicates that Vervain, LLC began asserting patents in May 2021. The patent was later confirmed to Greenthread on 2022-03-07. Many lawsuits against various companies were filed by Greenthread in 2022 and 2023. This timeline suggests the transfers were in anticipation of or to facilitate assertion.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication of bankruptcy proceedings for GREENTHREAD, LLC or VERVAIN, LLC in the provided information.

7. Privateering — Unclear. While Greenthread and Vervain assert patents, and Vervain is specifically called out as an NPE, there's no direct evidence provided that an operating company transferred the patent to Greenthread or Vervain for assertion against competitors on its behalf. Greenthread, LLC's primary line of business appears to be IT solutions, specifically Identity and Access Management and Web Service Security solutions for federal agencies, with reported annual revenue. This suggests they are an operating company, but the patent at issue is for semiconductor devices with graded dopant regions, which doesn't directly align with their stated IT solutions business. This discrepancy could suggest a privateering arrangement, but more direct evidence is needed to confirm.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The presence of multiple strong signals supports a high confidence NPE verdict. VERVAIN, LLC is explicitly identified as a non-practicing entity, and the rapid transfers between GREENTHREAD, LLC and VERVAIN, LLC (Reel 056950/0048, 056949/0013, 059690/0892) indicate cascading transfers. The connection of both entities to Phillip John Jr. and "Patent Capital Funding 2018 – Series 1A", coupled with the subsequent extensive litigation, strongly points to a patent assertion model.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 11316014, I will use the patent's own citations from the Google Patents link provided. The "Citations (20)" and "Family Cites Families (67)" sections list the prior art considered by the examiner and other related patents. I will focus on the "Citations (20)" as these are the direct prior art references cited in the examination of US11316014.

Here's the analysis of the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11,316,014, focusing on the "Citations (20)" section from the provided patent text. These are the patents cited by the examiner during prosecution.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11,316,014

1. US4160985A

• Full Citation: US4160985A, "Photosensing arrays with improved spatial resolution"
• Publication Date: July 10, 1979
• Brief Description: This patent describes photosensing arrays designed to improve spatial resolution. The context is related to imaging devices, which is one of the applications mentioned in US11316014 for graded dopant regions to enhance pixel and color resolution.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to image sensors and improving pixel/color resolution. Specifically, it could potentially anticipate aspects of claim 19 which states, "The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one semiconductor device is an image sensor." and the broader concept of improving imaging ICs as discussed in the detailed description.

2. US4684971A

• Full Citation: US4684971A, "Ion implanted CMOS devices"
• Publication Date: August 4, 1987
• Brief Description: This patent describes CMOS devices fabricated using ion implantation. Ion implantation is a method for fabricating graded dopants mentioned in US11316014. The existence of ion-implanted CMOS devices is relevant to the manufacturing aspect.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to CMOS devices and the fabrication method using ion implantation. Specifically, claim 7 states, "The system of claim 1, wherein the graded dopant is fabricated with an ion implantation process."

3. US4688063A

• Full Citation: US4688063A, "Dynamic ram cell with MOS trench capacitor in CMOS"
• Publication Date: August 18, 1987
• Brief Description: This patent describes a DRAM cell incorporating a MOS trench capacitor in a CMOS structure. DRAMs are explicitly mentioned in US11316014 as devices that can benefit from graded dopant regions (e.g., improving refresh time).
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims pertaining to DRAM devices. Specifically, claim 14 states, "The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one semiconductor device is a dynamic random access memory (DRAM)."

4. JPS6482563A

• Full Citation: JPS6482563A, "Semiconductor device"
• Publication Date: March 28, 1989
• Brief Description: While a detailed description requires translation, the title suggests a general semiconductor device. Given the broad applicability of graded dopants, this patent could be relevant to the general concept of semiconductor device structures.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Without more specific details from the abstract or claims of JPS6482563A, it is difficult to pinpoint specific claims of US11316014. However, it could potentially anticipate broader aspects of semiconductor device design.

5. US4907058A

• Full Citation: US4907058A, "Complementary semiconductor device having a double well"
• Publication Date: March 6, 1990
• Brief Description: This patent describes a complementary semiconductor device with a double well structure. US11316014 discusses twin-well substrates in CMOS VLSI and the grading of n-well and p-well dopants.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims relating to well regions and CMOS structures, such as claim 1, which mentions "at least one well region adjacent to the first or second active region containing at least one graded dopant region" and claim 5, "wherein the first active region and second active region of the at least one semiconductor device contain either p-channel or n-channel devices in n-wells or p-wells, respectively, and each well has at least one graded dopant."

6. US4994887A

• Full Citation: US4994887A, "High voltage merged bipolar/CMOS technology"
• Publication Date: February 19, 1991
• Brief Description: This patent describes a technology merging bipolar and CMOS devices, which relates to the broader field of integrated circuits that US11316014 aims to improve. IGBTs, which are a combination of MOSFET and BJT, are specifically mentioned in US11316014.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to integrated circuits and combinations of different transistor types.

7. US5835402A

• Full Citation: US5835402A, "Non-volatile storage for standard CMOS integrated circuits"
• Publication Date: November 10, 1998
• Brief Description: This patent describes non-volatile storage for standard CMOS integrated circuits. US11316014 explicitly discusses improving nonvolatile memory like NAND flash by decreasing programming time.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to flash memory and nonvolatile memory. Specifically, claim 16 states, "The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one semiconductor device is a flash memory."

8. US6025237A

• Full Citation: US6025237A, "Methods of forming field effect transistors having graded drain region doping profiles therein"
• Publication Date: February 15, 2000
• Brief Description: This patent directly discusses methods of forming FETs with graded drain region doping profiles. This is highly relevant as US11316014 claims graded dopant concentrations to aid carrier movement in active regions and discusses accelerating majority carriers towards the drain in MOS devices.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to graded dopant concentrations in active regions and carrier movement, particularly in MOS devices. This could impact claims 1 and 21, as well as their dependent claims related to active regions and graded dopants.

9. US20010028097A1

• Full Citation: US20010028097A1, "Semiconductor device having buried-type element isolation structure and method of manufacturing the same"
• Publication Date: October 11, 2001
• Brief Description: This publication details a semiconductor device with a buried isolation structure. Isolation regions are mentioned in US11316014 as areas where dopant concentrations can be graded.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to isolation regions. Specifically, claim 6 states, "The system of claim 1, wherein the first active region and second active region of the at least one semiconductor device are each separated by at least one isolation region."

10. US6384431B1

• Full Citation: US6384431B1, "Insulated gate bipolar transistor"
• Publication Date: May 7, 2002
• Brief Description: This patent describes an Insulated Gate Bipolar Transistor (IGBT). US11316014 heavily focuses on improving IGBTs through graded dopant regions, particularly in the epitaxial drift region.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to IGBTs and their structure, especially with respect to the drift region. The detailed description of US11316014 elaborates significantly on the benefits of graded dopants in IGBTs.

11. US6465862B1

• Full Citation: US6465862B1, "Method and apparatus for implementing efficient CMOS photo sensors"
• Publication Date: October 15, 2002
• Brief Description: This patent describes efficient CMOS photo sensors. US11316014 specifically mentions enhancing pixel and color resolution in digital camera ICs and CMOS digital images.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to image sensors and CMOS technology for imaging, impacting claim 19.

12. US20020195656A1

• Full Citation: US20020195656A1, "Semiconductor power device"
• Publication Date: December 26, 2002
• Brief Description: This publication describes a semiconductor power device. US11316014 applies to various power MOS transistors and IGBTs, which are power devices.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Broad claims related to semiconductor power devices.

13. JP2003051551A

• Full Citation: JP2003051551A, "Semiconductor device manufacturing method and semiconductor device"
• Publication Date: February 21, 2003
• Brief Description: This Japanese patent application, while requiring translation for full details, concerns both a semiconductor device and its manufacturing method, making it broadly relevant to the subject matter of US11316014.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): General claims regarding semiconductor devices and their manufacturing, similar to JPS6482563A.

14. JP2003218356A

• Full Citation: JP2003218356A, "Manufacturing method and design method of SOI semiconductor device and SOI semiconductor device"
• Publication Date: July 31, 2003
• Brief Description: This Japanese patent application focuses on SOI (Silicon-on-Insulator) semiconductor devices and their manufacturing/design methods. While US11316014 focuses primarily on bulk silicon, the broad concepts of device manufacturing and design could overlap.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): General claims regarding semiconductor device manufacturing and design.

15. US20030183856A1

• Full Citation: US20030183856A1, "Semiconductor device having a retrograde dopant profile in a channel region and method for fabricating the same"
• Publication Date: October 2, 2003
• Brief Description: This publication directly discusses a semiconductor device with a retrograde dopant profile in a channel region. Retrograde wells are explicitly mentioned in the background of US11316014, and the patent's invention aims to improve upon such techniques. The concept of a graded channel in JFETs is also mentioned in the detailed description.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims relating to graded or retrograde dopant profiles in active regions and channels, potentially impacting claims 1, 5, and 21.

16. WO2004049453A1

• Full Citation: WO2004049453A1, "Retrograde channel doping to improve short channel effect"
• Publication Date: June 10, 2004
• Brief Description: This international publication describes retrograde channel doping to improve short channel effects. Similar to US20030183856A1, this is highly relevant to the concept of graded dopant profiles in active regions and channels.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims relating to graded or retrograde dopant profiles in active regions and channels, potentially impacting claims 1, 5, and 21.

17. US20170243876A1

• Full Citation: US20170243876A1, "Semiconductor devices with graded dopant regions"
• Publication Date: August 24, 2017
• Brief Description: This is a later publication from Greenthread, LLC itself, and is part of the patent family (a continuation of the original application that led to US11316014). As such, it is not prior art to US11316014 but a related patent application. The priority date of US11316014 (September 3, 2004) predates this publication.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Not applicable as this is a related, later publication and not prior art.

18. US20070045682A1

• Full Citation: US20070045682A1, "Imager with gradient doped EPI layer"
• Publication Date: March 1, 2007
• Brief Description: This publication describes an imager with a gradient-doped epitaxial (EPI) layer. The use of graded dopants in imaging ICs is a key aspect of US11316014. The priority date of US11316014 (September 3, 2004) predates this publication. However, it is cited as prior art, which implies an earlier effective filing date or invention date than its publication date. For the purposes of this analysis, assuming it's cited as prior art by the examiner, its content is relevant.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to image sensors with graded dopant regions, especially in epitaxial layers, impacting claim 19 and the general discussion of imaging IC improvements.

19. US20080142899A1

• Full Citation: US20080142899A1, "Radiation immunity of integrated circuits using backside die contact and electrically conductive layers"
• Publication Date: June 19, 2008
• Brief Description: This publication discusses radiation immunity in integrated circuits. While US11316014 focuses on performance improvements through dopant grading, some applications like DRAM refresh time improvement could indirectly relate to mitigating effects of spurious carriers, which can be radiation-induced. However, it's not a direct match to graded dopants for carrier movement. The priority date of US11316014 (September 3, 2004) predates this publication.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Less direct anticipation, possibly very broad concepts of integrated circuit improvement, but not specifically the graded dopant aspect for carrier movement as claimed.

20. US20140034997A1

• Full Citation: US20140034997A1, "Bipolar punch-through semiconductor device and method for manufacturing such a semiconductor device"
• Publication Date: February 6, 2014
• Brief Description: This publication describes a bipolar punch-through semiconductor device. US11316014 specifically mentions punch-through IGBTs and establishing a donor gradient in the emitter-drift epitaxial base region junction of such devices. The priority date of US11316014 (September 3, 2004) predates this publication.
• Potentially Anticipates (35 U.S.C. § 102): Claims related to punch-through IGBTs and graded dopant regions within them, as extensively discussed in the detailed description of US11316014.

Obviousness Analysis of U.S. Patent 11,316,014 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

The independent claims of U.S. Patent 11,316,014, which broadly cover electronic systems with semiconductor devices incorporating graded dopant regions to aid carrier movement, would likely be rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 by combining existing prior art references. The core inventive concept—using graded dopant concentrations to control charge carrier movement for performance improvement in various semiconductor devices—represents a logical extension of well-established principles in semiconductor physics and manufacturing, particularly when addressing known problems in the field.

A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date September 3, 2004) would have been motivated to combine several prior art teachings to arrive at the claimed invention, with predictable results.

Key Elements of the Independent Claims (1 and 21) and Corresponding Prior Art

The independent claims describe an electronic system comprising a semiconductor device with:

• A substrate having a surface.
• First and second active regions adjacent the surface, of an opposite doping type to the substrate, within which transistors (e.g., digital logic, p-channel, n-channel, CMOS) are formed.
• At least a portion of at least one of these active regions or an adjacent well region having at least one graded dopant concentration.
• This graded dopant concentration is configured to aid carrier movement from the active regions/surface towards an area of the substrate where there are no active regions.
• Claim 21 further specifies the gradient types (linear, quasilinear, error function, complementary error function).

Combinations of Prior Art References and Motivations for Combination

1. Obviousness of Graded Dopants in Active Regions/Channels of MOS/CMOS Devices for Performance Enhancement:

• Prior Art:
  • US20030183856A1 (Wieczorek) explicitly teaches a "semiconductor device having a retrograde dopant profile in a channel region" and a method for fabricating it. Retrograde doping is a form of graded doping.
  • WO2004049453A1 (Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.) similarly teaches "retrograde channel doping to improve short channel effect."
  • US6025237A (Fairchild Korea Semiconductor, Ltd.) discloses "methods of forming field effect transistors having graded drain region doping profiles therein."
  • US4684971A (American Telephone And Telegraph Company) describes "ion implanted CMOS devices," establishing the foundational technology of CMOS.
  • US4907058A (Hitachi, Ltd.) shows a "complementary semiconductor device having a double well," further detailing CMOS structures.
• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply known graded dopant profiles, as taught by Wieczorek, Advanced Micro Devices, and Fairchild, to the channel or drain regions of CMOS transistors (structures known from AT&T and Hitachi). The motivation would be to improve device performance characteristics such as short channel effects or current characteristics by precisely controlling carrier movement. The background of US11316014 itself notes that "Most MOS devices use a uniformly doped substrate (or a well region)," implicitly recognizing the potential for improvement through non-uniform doping in these areas.

2. Obviousness of Graded Dopants in Well Regions for Minority Carrier Management in Memory and Imaging Applications:

• Prior Art:
  • US6310366B1 (Micron Technology, Inc.) describes a "retrograde well structure for a CMOS imager" specifically to reduce dark current and improve light sensitivity. Retrograde wells are a direct example of graded dopant regions in wells.
  • US4481522A (Rca Corporation) teaches "CCD Imagers with substrates having drift field." A drift field is typically created by a dopant gradient to aid carrier movement (sweeping them away) for improved imaging performance.
  • US6472715B1 (Lsi Logic Corporation) details a "Reduced soft error rate (SER) construction for integrated circuit structures," a problem often caused by spurious minority carriers in memory, which US11316014 also aims to mitigate.
  • US6621064B2 (Texas Instruments Incorporated) discloses a "CMOS photodiode having reduced dark current and improved light sensitivity and responsivity," indicating dopant engineering for imaging performance.
  • US4688063A (International Business Machines Corporation) teaches "Dynamic ram cell with MOS trench capacitor in CMOS," establishing the context of DRAM technology.
• Motivation for Combination: A PHOSITA, aware of the performance limitations caused by minority carriers in CMOS imagers (e.g., dark current, as addressed by Micron and Texas Instruments) and DRAMs (e.g., soft error rate, as addressed by LSI Logic, and refresh time degradation, as mentioned in US11316014's background), would be highly motivated to combine the known concept of a retrograde well (Micron) or drift fields (RCA) with the general understanding of dopant gradients to create graded dopant regions within or adjacent to wells. This combination would predictably improve device performance by sweeping unwanted minority carriers away from active regions (as explicitly discussed in US11316014's background regarding retrograde and halo wells).

3. Obviousness of Generalizing Graded Doping for Carrier Acceleration in Various Semiconductor Devices:

• Prior Art:
  • US5448087A (Trw Inc.) and US5329144A (At&T Bell Laboratories) both explicitly teach "graded base doping" or "graded base structure" in Heterojunction Bipolar Transistors (HBTs). US11316014's background acknowledges that efforts have been made in "graded base transistors to create an aiding drift field to enhance the diffusing minority carrier's speed from emitter to collector."
  • US4001864A (Gibbons James F), though for solar cells, demonstrates the fundamental principle of using "graded impurity concentration to enhance efficiency" by aiding carrier movement.
  • WO2003025984A2 (Amberwave Systems Corporation) broadly describes "semiconductor structures employing strained material layers with defined impurity gradients and methods for fabricating same," demonstrating general knowledge of using impurity gradients.
  • DE10131704A1 (Atmel Germany Gmbh) explicitly describes a "Method for doping a semiconductor body."
• Motivation for Combination: Given the established benefits of graded doping in specific devices like BJTs (TRW, AT&T) and solar cells (Gibbons) for accelerating carriers and improving performance, a PHOSITA would be motivated to extend these known principles to other semiconductor devices. This includes, for example, applying graded dopants to power MOS transistors and IGBTs (devices mentioned in US11316014 as areas of application, with Denso's US6384431B1 describing an IGBT). The motivation would be to achieve similar, predictable improvements in carrier movement, such as increased frequency, faster switching, or reduced recombination, by creating an internal drift field through the graded dopant. The choice of specific gradient types (linear, quasi-linear, error function, complementary error function), as enumerated in Claim 21, are conventional mathematical profiles for tailoring dopant concentrations and achieving desired electric field characteristics, as generally suggested by Amberwave's "defined impurity gradients".

Conclusion

The claims of US11316014 represent an obvious combination of existing semiconductor device structures with known techniques for dopant grading to control carrier movement. The problems addressed by the patent, such as improving frequency, refresh time, or image quality by managing minority or majority carriers, were well-recognized in the prior art. Consequently, a PHOSITA would have been motivated to apply these known graded doping techniques to the relevant regions of various semiconductor devices to achieve predictable performance benefits, rendering the claimed invention obvious.