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 | 6 min read | 11.19.25
The facts before the Third Circuit in the recently decided case of Patel v. United States illustrate how parties can put themselves in a bind if they make factual admissions when resolving a criminal case involving fraud on the government while not simultaneously resolving the government’s civil claims under the False Claims Act (FCA) for the same underlying conduct.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 11.18.25
DOJ Announces Major Enforcement Actions Targeting North Korean Remote IT Worker Schemes
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.18.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 11.14.25
