August Technology Corp. v. Camtek, Ltd.
655 F.3d 1278
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- Camtek appeals a district court judgment finding infringement of the ’298 patent, non-invalidity, and enforceability, with lost profits and an injunction.
- Jury found Camtek’s Falcon device literally infringed claims 1 and 3 but not willful infringement; NSX-80 not prior art per jury.
- District court construed wafer to include parts of a wafer, allowing a single wafer to be a “plurality” of wafers; disputed whether this defeats infringement.
- Court held intervention necessary because the claim construction misdefines wafer; requires remand for limited infringement trial.
- Strobing based on wafer velocity was construed by district court; court affirms on some aspects but vacates infringement ruling due to flawed claim construction.
- Court addressed nonobviousness over Chau and Moriya, finding substantial evidence supports nonobviousness; NSX-80 not material prior art; inequitable conduct dismissal affirmed.
- Remand for proceedings consistent with opinion; injunction and damages to be reconsidered under correct construction; no costs awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether wafer means plurality of wafers or discrete wafers | Wafer includes portions of a single wafer; plurality may be within one wafer. | Wafer is a discrete physical object; plurality requires multiple wafers. | Wafer is a discrete object; plurality means more than one wafer; infringement vacated and remanded |
| Whether strobing must be based on velocity (not position) | Strobing based on velocity supported by prosecution history and evidence. | Strobing could be based on position; no clear disavowal preventing it. | Strobing must be based at least in part on wafer velocity; retrial not needed for this question |
| Obviousness over Chau and Moriya | Chau and Moriya teach the elements; together render claims obvious. | Moriya lacks pattern-inspecting context; combination fails to teach strobing. | Substantial evidence supports nonobviousness; JMOL/new trial denied |
| NSX-80 on-sale under §102(b) and its effect on obviousness/inequitable conduct | NSX-80 could be prior art for §102(b) or render obviousness; instruction error affected verdict. | NSX-80 not on sale prior to critical date; alternative bases insufficient; no inequitable conduct. | Instruction error; NSX-80 not material to obviousness; inequitable conduct affirmed |
| Remedies and effect of claim-construction error on damages/injunction | Damages and injunction should be offset by correct construction. | Proceedings should be recomputed under corrected construction. | Remand for proceedings under correct claim construction; no final damages/injunction ruling yet |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claims construction methodology; preambles limiting or not)
- Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (de novo review of claim construction)
- Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (proper claim construction preferred; meaning must be given to all terms)
- Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55 (Supreme Ct. 1998) (on-sale bar prerequisites: offer for sale and ready for patenting)
- Robotic Vision Sys. v. View Eng'g, Inc., 249 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (on-sale analysis involving conception date)
- Sparton Corp. v. United States, 399 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (on-sale analysis features and conception timing)
- MBO Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (construction and interpretation of claim scope)
- Allen Eng'g Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (precedent on claim construction and preambles)
- Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., 563 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (standards for denying JMOL or granting new trials on infringement)