Bluetooth Devices


Even if the ‘ patent is not prior art, the court finds that CFMT’s disclosure of the ‘ patent made the other publications immaterial. Judge Michel, writing for the court, noted that plaintiff had not presented any “testimony reasonably served to articulate the comparison” between the patent’s claims and the accused device. Yuan High-Tech Development Co. It is often quite helpful in the obviousness inquiry. Did CFMT fail to disclose material prior art? Second, the nonaqueous drying fluid is evaporated using a predried gas. Be respectful, keep it civil and stay on topic.

Uploader: Shakora
Date Added: 22 December 2014
File Size: 42.46 Mb
Operating Systems: Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads: 13953
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

In its answer to the amended complaint, Steag denies infringement and asserts that the ‘ patent is invalid and unenforceable. APC by Schneider Electric. These claims read as follows:. Did CFMT present sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict that Steag’s infringement was willful?

Blue Std Compressed Air Filter, Watt, Rs /piece, Micro Tech Engineering | ID:

Shenzhen Elnor Optoelectronic Technology Co. Shenzhen Elnor Optoelectronic Technology Co. The two co-founders began developing a “process flow vessel” for this chemical processing.

Thus, Chai testified that the greater IPA concentration in the water near the wafer will reduce the surface area to a greater extent than it will for areas away from the wafer, and the Marangoni effect will draw water away from the wafer. Kunshan Hongie Electronics Co. However, CFMT presented sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the drying process described in the brochure miicrotech different from the ‘ drying process, and that miicrotech description in the brochure did not “accidentally” disclose the ‘ process.


Similarly, in Malta v. Thomas Regout International B. Benchmark Media Systems, Inc. A court should only grant a new trial on the basis that the verdict was against the weight of evidence and the “failure to do so would result in injustice, or would shock the conscience of the court.

Radian Audio Engineering, Inc. The court draws the following facts from the pre-trial order and the testimony and evidence presented at trial. The tank feeds water in from the bottom, so that water is constantly overflowing the sides of the tank.

Here, CFMT showed that Steag’s Marangoni dryer infringes the ‘ process, that Steag sold the dryer to other companies, and that Steag produced manuals and preset the dryer so that customers were instructed to use the dryer in a way that infringes. Thus, CFMT gave the patent examiner an opportunity to consider the Full Flow’s previous drying technique before allowing a patent on the new technique.

CFMT, Inc. v. Steag Microtech, Inc., 14 F. Supp. 2d (D. Del. ) :: Justia

The advertisement describes a process that brings semiconductor wafers “to complete dryness” using isopropanol vapors. The Light Source, Inc. For effective utilization of compressed air, it has to be clean. Guangzhou Hedong Electronic Co. What is the standard for establishing willful infringement?


MicroTech Memory Stick CamerMate

Thom McAn Shoe Co. The Light Source, Inc. He also reduced the number of wafer carriers in the chamber, so that they were not stacked. Shenzhen Hiboled Photoeletricity Co. Electrified Specialized Turbo makes cycling as easy as driving hands-on Would you give up driving for a sexy, electric bicycle?

Roger Carolin testified that the drying step is a fundamental part of any cleaning process, and that the ‘ patent micritech the most important patent that CFMT owns. Microtevh Lift Systems GmbH.

United States District Court, D. Thinklogical, A Belden Brand.

However, to rely on commercial success to refute an obviousness assertion, the micrptech owner must show a nexus between the sales and the claimed invention. The jury could reasonably conclude that the Full Flow equipment delivered to TI did not use the direct displacement method disclosed in the ‘ patent, since the jury could reasonably have concluded that this method did not exist before CFMT shipped out the equipment.

Back To Top