No Infringement Where Structural Difference Renders Claimed Function Impossible
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.17.06
Despite affirming the district court's summary judgment of non-infringement in Semitool, Inc. v. Dynamic Micro Systems Semiconductor Equipment GmbH, (“DMS”) (No. 05-1299; April 6, 2006), the Federal Circuit finds the district court's claim construction flawed. The primary claim at issue relates to a semiconductor wafer carrier cleaning system and is directed to a process using “a processing chamber within the processing vessel” and furthermore “supplying drying gas to the processing chamber.” The district court granted a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of DMS, but concluded that it did not need to reach the issue of whether a “condensing unit” of the allegedly-infringing product was part of the process chamber or a separate unit. Instead, the district court focused on the function of whether the condenser supplied gas to the processing chamber. In contrast, the Federal Circuit reasons that, since the condenser of the allegedly-infringing product resides inside the processing chamber, it cannot supply the recited drying gas. Thus, the determinative claim language was the recited structure and not the function.
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
