In the long-running litigation between Asyst Technologies, Inc. and various defendants over Asyst’s patent directed to a system used in the production of integrated circuits, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has—for a second time—overturned the district court’s summary judgment grant of non-infringement. Asyst Techs., Inc. v. Emtrak, Inc., Case Nos. 04-1048, 04-1064 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 22, 2005) (Bryson, J.).
Asyst accused Emtrak and others of patent infringement in a suit first filed almost nine years ago. After construing pertinent terms in the asserted claims, the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement. In the first appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded the district court had erred on claim construction, reversed the summary judgment of non-infringement and remanded for further proceedings. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment of non-infringement. In its second review, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision of non-infringement in part but vacated the summary judgment and remanded the case for further fact-finding as to other claims.
Asyst’s patent discloses a system for the production of integrated circuits, a central feature of which is an automated process that ensures that the integrated circuit wafers are processed by the right tool at the right time. Claim one is directed to a processing system and claim two to an inventory management system.
Asyst urged that the term "mounted on" as used in claim one ought to be construed broadly to include "connected by a cable." Finding no justification in the specification or the prosecution history for the broader construction, the Court instead gave the term its ordinary meaning and then held that the limitation was not literally met in the accused device. The district court also held that the term was entitled to no range of equivalents as allowing an equivalent would effectively read the "mounted on" limitation out of the patent. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of no infringement of claim one.
The district court also granted summary judgment of non-infringement on the inventory management system of claim two, finding that the accused system did not have the required "sensing means." The Federal Circuit, however, clarified its earlier decision on this point, noting that while the claim did require a particular corresponding structure to perform the sensing function, it did not require use of a particular sensing protocol. Because the district court had applied the wrong legal analysis, the Federal Circuit remanded for a determination of whether Asyst’s evidence was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to whether the defendants’ system has a structure equivalent to the claimed sensing means.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
