IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ENTHONE INC., Plaintiff, v.

MOSES LAKE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant. Case No. 1:13-CV-1054 [TJM/RFT] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT Plaintiff Enthone Inc. (Enthone), for its Complaint against Defendant Moses Lake Industries, Inc. (MLI) alleges as follows: Parties 1. Enthone is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware and

maintains a principal place of business at 350 Frontage Road, West Haven, Connecticut 06516. 2. Upon information and belief, MLI is a Washington corporation with a principal

place of business located in Moses Lake, Washington. Jurisdiction and Venue 3. This is an action for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271. The Court has

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1338(a). 4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant MLI in that it has transacted

business, contracted to supply goods or services, and/or committed tortious acts within the State of New York out of which this action arises. N.Y. C.P.L.R. 302.

5.

Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and (c)

and 1400(b), in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred here, and Defendant MLI is subject to personal jurisdiction here. Patent-In-Suit 6. On December 4, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,303,992 (the 992 patent), entitled Copper Electrodeposition in Microelectronics. A copy of the 992 patent is attached as Exhibit A. 7. Enthone owns the 992 patent and holds all rights to sue for past, present, and

future infringement of the 992 patent. 8. On October 19, 2010, the United States Patent and Trademark Office duly and

legally issued U.S. Patent No. 7,815,786 (the 786 patent), entitled Copper Electrodeposition in Microelectronics. A copy of the 786 patent is attached as Exhibit B. 9. Enthone owns the 786 patent and holds all rights to sue for past, present, and

future infringement of the 786 patent. Facts 10. Among other products, Enthone manufactures and sells chemicals used in the

electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates in the field of microelectronics manufacturing. 11. One conventional semiconductor manufacturing process is the copper damascene

process. Specifically, this process begins by etching a combination of trenches and vias (known as interconnect features) into the substrates dielectric material. Next, a barrier layer is laid over the dielectric to prevent diffusion of the subsequently applied copper layer into the substrates junctions, followed by deposition of a copper layer to provide electrical conductivity for a

sequential electrochemical process. After the copper layer has been deposited, excess copper is removed from the facial plane of the dielectric by chemical-mechanical polishing, leaving copper in only the etched interconnect features of the dielectric. 12. substrates. 13. Some electrolytic copper plating systems rely on superfilling or bottom-up Copper can be deposited by electrolytic plating to fill the interconnect features on

growth to deposit copper into the interconnect features. 14. Superfilling involves filling a feature from the bottom up, rather than at an equal

rate on all of its surfaces, to avoid seams and pinching off that can result in voiding. 15. As electronics have decreased in size, the smaller device sizes and increased

circuit density require decreasing the dimensions of interconnect features. 16. Inventors at Enthone discovered that certain suppressor agents comprising

polyether groups bonded to a nitrogen-containing species achieve superior fill speeds and polarization. 17. The discoveries of Enthones inventors, including electrolytic copper plating

compositions with suppressor agents having polyether groups bonded to a nitrogen-containing species and related electroplating methods, are disclosed and claimed in the 992 and 786 patents. 18. MLI is a competitor of Enthone. MLI sells specialty chemicals and solutions to

microelectronics manufacturers for use in the electrolytic plating of copper onto semiconductor substrates. 19. On information and belief, MLI has made, used, sold, or offered for sale

compositions for electrolytic copper plating solutions, whichwhen prepared according to

MLIs instructionscontain a source of copper ions sufficient for electrolytic plating of copper onto a semiconductor substrate and a specific suppressor with a polyether group bonded to a nitrogen-containing species having the specific attributes described and claimed in Enthones 992 and 786 patents (Electrolytic Copper Products). In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3), based at least on MLIs pre-suit correspondence, Enthone believes that this allegation will have additional evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. 20. On information and belief, MLI distributes its Electrolytic Copper Products to

customers in the United States, including GlobalFoundries Inc.s Malta, New York facility in this district. 21. In a letter dated September 23, 2011, Enthone notified MLI of the 992 and 786

patents and requested MLI to either verify or disprove Enthones belief that MLI was distributing copper plating compositions that infringed Enthones 992 and 786 patents. 22. In the September 23, 2011 letter, Enthone also offered to protect the

confidentiality of any information provided by MLI. 23. On October 14, 2011, MLIs in-house counsel responded by email, asserting that

any information concerning MLIs copper-plating composition was a carefully protected secret, but did not deny that MLI was practicing the inventions claimed in Enthones 992 and 786 patents. 24. In a letter dated October 5, 2012, Enthone requested MLI to respond to two

specific inquiries about MLIs copper plating compositions relating to the 992 and 786 patents, in an effort to confirm whether or not MLIs compositions were infringing. 25. In an email dated December 11, 2012, MLIs in-house counsel responded by

asserting that any information concerning MLIs composition was a trade secret, and again did

not deny that MLIs composition contained the features described and claimed in Enthones 992 and 786 patents. 26. In the December 11, 2012 email, MLI also asserted that the details of its copper

plating compositions were closely guarded secrets and that it knew of no way of Enthone to learn these details without conducting unlawful activities. COUNT I INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,303,992 BY MLI 27. Enthone incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 26 above, as if

fully set forth herein. 28. On information and belief, the use of MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products

infringes at least claim 1 of the 992 patent. 29. On information and belief, MLI directly infringes at least claim 1 of the 992

patent by using its Electrolytic Copper Products in this infringing manner. 30. Defendant MLI has known of the 992 patent since no later than when MLI

received Enthones September 23, 2011 letter. 31. On information and belief, MLI has actively induced infringement of the 992

patent, including by manufacturing, selling, and supplying Electrolytic Copper Products to customers in the United States, and facilitating and supporting the customers infringing use of the Electrolytic Copper Products, knowing that use of these products infringes at least claim 1 of Enthones 992 patent. 32. On information and belief, MLI possessed specific intent to induce direct

infringement at least claim 1 of the 992 patent claims by its customers that used MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products.

33.

On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products are especially

made or adapted for use in electroplating processes covered by at least claim 1 of the 992 patent. 34. On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products are not staple

articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 35. On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products constitute a

material part of the invention claimed in the 992 patent. 36. On information and belief, MLI has contributed to infringement of at least claim 1

of the 992 patent by selling or offering to sell Electrolytic Copper Products within the United States knowing that these products were especially made or adapted for use in a process that infringes at least claim 1 of the 992 patent. 37. On information and belief, MLI has directly and/or indirectly infringed at least

claim 1 of Enthones 992 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and/or (c). 38. 39. On information and belief, MLIs infringement has been knowing and willful. Enthone is without an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if

the Court does not enter an order enjoining MLI from infringing the 992 patent. COUNT II INFRINGEMENT OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,815,786 BY MLI 40. Enthone incorporates herein by reference Paragraphs 1 through 39 above, as if

fully set forth herein. 41. On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products infringe at least

claim 1 of the 786 patent. 42. On information and belief, MLI directly infringes at least claim 1 of the 786

patent by making, using, selling, or offering to sell its Electrolytic Copper Products in the United States, or importing its Electrolytic Copper Products into the United States. 6

43.

Defendant MLI has known of the 786 patent since no later than when MLI

received Enthones September 23, 2011 letter. 44. On information and belief, MLI has actively induced infringement of the 786

patent, including by manufacturing, selling, and supplying Electrolytic Copper Products to customers in the United States, and facilitating and supporting the customers infringing use of the Electrolytic Copper Products, knowing that use of these products infringes at least claim 1 of Enthones 786 patent. 45. On information and belief, MLI possessed specific intent to induce direct

infringement of at least claim 1 of the 786 patent claims by its customers that used MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products. 46. On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products are especially

made or adapted for use in electroplating compositions covered by at least claim 1 of the 786 patent. 47. On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products are not staple

articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use. 48. On information and belief, MLIs Electrolytic Copper Products constitute a

material part of the invention claimed in the 786 patent. 49. On information and belief, MLI has contributed to infringement of one or more

claims of the 786 patent by selling or offering to sell Electrolytic Copper Products within the United States knowing that these products were especially made or adapted for use in a composition that infringes at least claim 1 of the 786 patent. 50. On information and belief, MLI has directly and/or indirectly infringed at least

claim 1 of the 786 patent under 35 U.S.C. 271(a), (b), and/or (c).

51. 52.

On information and belief, MLIs infringement has been knowing and willful. Enthone is without an adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if

the Court does not enter an order enjoining MLI from infringing the 786 patent. WHEREFORE, Enthone requests that the Court enter judgment against Defendant MLI and respectfully prays that the Court enters an order: A. No. 7,303,992; B. No. 7,815,786; C. D. Finding that Defendant MLIs infringement has been willful; Enjoining Defendant MLI and its respective officers, agents, servants, employees, Finding that Defendant MLI has directly and/or indirectly infringed U.S. Patent Finding that Defendant MLI has directly and/or indirectly infringed U.S. Patent

and attorneys, and all of those persons in active concert or participation with any of them from directly or indirectly infringing any claim of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,815,786 and 7,303,992; E. F. G. H. Awarding compensatory damages to Enthone under 35 U.S.C. 284; Trebling the damage award under 35 U.S.C. 284; Awarding Enthone pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; Finding this to be an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. 285 and awarding

Enthone its reasonable attorneys fees and expenses in this action; I. J. Awarding Enthone its costs in this action; and Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. JURY DEMAND Under Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Enthone demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted, HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP By: /s/ Michael L. Koenig Samuel C. Breslin 30 S. Pearl Street, Suite 901 Albany, NY 12207 (518) 396-3100 mkoenig@hinckleyallen.com sbreslin@hinckleyallen.com Attorneys for Enthone Inc.