Agreed-upon Claim Construction from Settlement Agreement Goes Unchallenged by CAFC

Semitool v. Dynamic Micro (Fed. Cir. 2006).

This case settled originally, but Semitool revived the litigation after Dynamic began selling a new product.  Interestingly, the settlement agreement included a provision for how the patent claims should be construed in any future enforcement proceeding — according to the district court’s claim construction order.

In the revived proceeding, the district court applied its old construction and found the new product noninfringing.  On appeal, the CAFC also applied the agreed upon claim construction — rather than questioning it de novo.

Because it resides inside the processing chamber, the condenser in the Tornado cannot supply a drying gas as construed by the Final Claim Construction order issued by the district court. DMS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe Semitool’s patents


2 thoughts on “Agreed-upon Claim Construction from Settlement Agreement Goes Unchallenged by CAFC

  1. 2

    This is such good advice! And it gives me comfort to know another writer who doesn’t write ( systematically same amount of time each day.

  2. 1

    An interesting problem with this case from Semitool’s perspective is the disconnect between the specification and the claims. This was noted in the opinion of the CAFC. Specifically, the specification treated the terms “processing chamber” and “processing vessel” synonymously. However, the claims attempted to distinguish them, “…the processing vessel defining a processing chamber therewithin…” This distinction allowed Dynamic Micro to effectively design around the Semitool patents.

Comments are closed.