Mueller found that the Marangoni dryer does not infringe, and wrote a letter stating this opinion on June 30, An inventor may not obtain a patent “if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which” the patent pertains. Pro Co Sound, Inc. Artel Video Systems, Inc. Scranton apparently decided that the ‘ patent was most relevant to Steag’s product. Thus, the court would not find that CFMT’s conduct constituted inequitable conduct, even if the brochure, the advertisements, and the Rodel press release were material. United Visual Products, Inc.

Uploader: Yobar
Date Added: 5 February 2009
File Size: 8.38 Mb
Operating Systems: Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2003/7/8/10 MacOS 10/X
Downloads: 45283
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

Universal Champion Electroacoustic Technology. In fact, the court listed expert opinions as only one factor to consider in determining a reasonable royalty rate.

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

I agree to the terms and privacy policy. Receive Verified supplier details. Thomas Regout International B. Amphenol Australia Pty Ltd. APC by Schneider Electric.

For the same reasons, the court rejects Steag’s argument that the Full Flow process does not use the patented method. CFMT argues that the system delivered to TI in and used in early was nothing more than the system disclosed in the brochure and claimed in the ‘ patent.


Super Micro Computer, Inc. – Support | Contact

Microtech Gefell GmbH – P Steag claims that it was justified in believing it did not infringe, based on Scranton’s analysis of CFMT’s patents and Mueller’s opinion letter. Steag argues that, even if the asserted claims of the ‘ patent are not anticipated, they were obvious to those skilled in the art at the time that CFMT applied for its cmfs in April Chai described the process that Steag uses in its Marangoni dryer.

Brinkmann testified that Parr had incorrectly calculated Steag’s sales totals, because he misunderstood the Steag sales sheets and had double-counted some Steag sales. CD digital GmbH Goodview. The chart shows that the number of drops approach zero when the flow rate is at about 2. Okugi Lift Systems GmbH. The integrated memory for microphone identification is one of the outstanding features. United States District Court, D. CFMT not only presented evidence that the drying step is an important one in the Full Flow process, but also presented evidence that its first customer, TI, was not satisfied with the Full Flow machine until CFMT had improved the drying step.

Thus, the court will deny Steag’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of literal infringement. Trumedia with DS Mucrotech Screens.

MicroTech Memory Stick CamerMate

Neitzel also testified that the advertisement for the Full Flow machine in the February issue of Semiconductor International describes the ‘ process. When Microtwch testified on direct that the ‘ patent was not prior art to the ‘, the court sustained CFMT’s objection, and instructed the jury to disregard that testimony.


The court can dispense with the first dispute quickly. Mueller opines that the Steag process does not infringe the ‘ patent because the Steag dryer lifts wafers through the liquid-vapor interface, while in the ‘ patent “moving or handling of wafers is not required, and the structure of the vessel First, the rinsing fluid in micrktech Coberly method is supposed to be heated, to between 60 and degrees centigrade.

A division of Logitech. Shenzhen Elnor Optoelectronic Technology Co. Monster Cable Products, Inc. From the evidence presented, the jury could reasonably conclude that Steag did not have a good faith reason for believing it did not infringe.

See Richardson-Vicks, F. Blonder Tongue Laboratories, Inc. Microech Industry Co, Ltd. Cameras – Studio Video. Shenzhen Lightking Optoelectronics Tech Group. Post-Trial Motions At the close of CFMT’s evidence, at the close of its own evidence, and again after CFMT’s rebuttal case, Steag moved for microrech as a matter of law on the issues of infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability.