An update on MEMS technology

 

Introduction

Micro-Electro-Mechanical Systems (MEMS) have long played an understated yet indispensable role in modern technology. Born from the microfabrication revolution that accompanied semiconductor advances, these tiny devices integrate mechanical elements with electronic circuitry – a synergy that has resulted in applications across industries such as automotive safety, consumer electronics, medical devices, and biometric security. As litigation over intellectual property rights intensifies in this evolving sector, patent lawyers must appreciate both the technology and the legal strategies underpinning disputes. This post updates my earlier introduction to MEMS technology with recent litigation examples and examines how technical knowledge is important for expert witnesses testifying in such cases.

 

Discussion of Technology and Recent Developments

In 1959 Richard Feynman suggested the possibility of manipulating matter at the atomic scale. Although atom-by-atom assembly remains more aspirational than practical, the subsequent development of MEMS has led to devices made with the same lithographic precision as integrated circuits. Silicon, with its remarkable mechanical properties and established fabrication techniques, has been the material of choice, though glass and polymers are also used. Today, MEMS devices are instrumental in performing sensing tasks in environments as varied as automotive safety systems, high-performance movie theater projection arrays, and the intricate electronic ecosystems of modern cell phones.

Historically, MEMS innovations and the corresponding patent portfolios have been at the center of significant litigation. The field saw landmark disputes exemplified by the STMicroelectronics v. Invensense conflict and the Knowles Electronics v. Analog Devices case, which underscored the complexities of patent infringement disputes in a global electronics market. These cases laid the litigation groundwork for understanding how MEMS elements such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, microphones, and filters, integrate with broader technological systems.

Since those early disputes, recent litigation has sharpened the focus on MEMS technology as new applications have emerged and as manufacturers continue to integrate MEMS devices into high-stakes safety and performance roles.

 

Examples of recent MEMS litigation

Below are three examples of recent patent litigation involving MEMS technology:

1. In re: Certain MEMS‑Based Microphone Devices, ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑758.
   Reflecting the global nature of MEMS litigation, this investigation by the U.S. International Trade Commission involved MEMS-based microphone technology. The case records can be accessed here by entering the docket number 337‑TA‑758 into the site’s search function.

2. In re: Certain MEMS‑Based Inertial Sensor Devices, ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑783. This investigation addressed disputes over patents related to MEMS-based inertial sensors, which are widely used in automotive systems (such as dynamic stability control and airbag deployment) as well as in consumer electronics like smartphones and wearables. The case is notable for its detailed technical analysis of sensor design and operation, and its outcome helped shape how MEMS inertial sensor patents are litigated and enforced. To access the details, search for investigation 337‑TA‑783 in the ITC’s case database.
3. In re: Certain MEMS‑Based Radio Frequency Switch Devices, ITC Investigation No. 337‑TA‑791. This investigation examined allegedly infringing radio frequency (RF) switch devices that incorporate MEMS technology. MEMS‑based RF switches play a pivotal role in today’s wireless communications and Internet-of-Things (IoT) applications. The ITC’s review focused on whether certain imported devices infringed patents covering the design and operation of these MEMS RF switches—a matter with broad implications for both telecommunications and consumer electronics. The case records can be accessed here by entering the docket number 337‑TA‑791.

These recent examples illustrate a broader trend: as the commercial and technical applications of MEMS expand, so too do the complexities of patent litigation. Cases today demand that experts not only understand the fundamental mechanics of MEMS devices but also appreciate the intricate interplay between design, fabrication, and system integration in sectors as varied as automotive safety and health monitoring.

 

Conclusion: The Essential Qualities of an Expert Witness in MEMS Litigation

Given the technical complexity and evolving nature of MEMS technology, an expert witness must embody a rare blend of in-depth scientific skills and a refined understanding of legal and commercial challenges. To testify effectively in patent disputes involving MEMS technology, an expert witness needs to meet several critical criteria:

First, technical mastery is paramount. The expert must have a strong background in semiconductor processes, microfabrication, and signal processing. This knowledge lets the witness dissect design claims and explain the nuances of MEMS operation in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible to non-specialist attorneys and judges.

Second, an effective expert witness shows clarity in communication. In a legal setting, where even minor ambiguities can significantly affect a jury’s understanding, the ability to translate complex engineering principles into plain language is invaluable. Whether discussing the precision of lithographic techniques or the inherent reliability of silicon in high-stress environments, clarity is essential.

Third, some familiarity with recent case law and patent litigation trends is necessary. The cases discussed here illustrate that contemporary disputes often hinge on minute technical details and subtle differences in device functionality. An effective expert witness not only keeps abreast of such developments but also appreciates their broader significance in setting precedents.

Finally, an expert witness should also have a record of practical involvement in patent disputes. Experience under cross-examination, a demonstrated history of clear and persuasive testimony, and an impartial analytical approach all contribute to building credibility. This expertise makes sure complex technical issues are presented in a balanced and authoritative manner, resonating with judges and juries alike.

As an example of practical skill during deposition, an experienced expert witness knows to pause briefly before answering to allow time for objections. But they may not fully consider how to use that pause effectively. During this moment, I first think about where opposing counsel is heading with their question, and how I can truthfully answer in a way that avoids falling into their trap. I also focus on crafting an answer that won’t provide quotes that could be taken out of context to undermine my opinion. If possible, I will consider whether the question opens the door to make key points my client wants emphasized.

In summary, as MEMS technology continues to redefine the landscape of modern devices and systems, the role of the expert witness in patent litigation becomes ever more important. Counsel seeking an expert in this field should look for individuals who combine deep scientific knowledge with the ability to communicate technical intricacies.