Providers of metal organic chemical vapor deposition (MOCVD) equipment Veeco and AMEC have been exchanging heavy fire this year, filing patent infringement lawsuits against each other in the US and China.

Two major lawsuits—one is from Veeco against SGL Carbon, a US-based wafer carrier technology supplier, and the other from AMEC against Veeco Shanghai—affected trade activities of the two MOCVD firms, most notably in China, as well as Chinese LED manufacturing behemoths that purchase equipment from AMEC, such as San’an Optoelectronics and HC Semiteks.

Here are some updates provided by Veeco about the two litigations:

Veeco vs SGL Carbon

On April 12, 2017, Veeco filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (“EDNY”) against SGL Carbon, LLC and SGL Carbon SE (collectively, “SGL”), alleging infringement of patents relating to wafer carrier technology used in metal organic chemical vapor deposition (“MOCVD”) equipment.  The complaint alleges that SGL infringes Veeco’s patents by making and selling certain wafer carriers to Veeco’s competitor, Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment, Inc. (“AMEC”).

On November 2, 2017, the EDNY granted Veeco’s motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting SGL from shipping wafer carriers using Veeco’s patented technology without Veeco’s express authorization.  On November 16, 2017, the EDNY denied SGL’s motion to suspend the preliminary injunction prohibiting SGL’s sale of wafer carriers for use in MOCVD systems made by AMEC.  SGL had filed a motion requesting that the court suspend, or “stay,” the preliminary injunction pending an appeal by SGL to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”).   

The court’s order means that the preliminary injunction, which prohibits SGL from shipping wafer carriers using Veeco’s patented technology, will remain in place during the appeal by SGL.  The appeal process at the CAFC usually takes over a year to complete.   In its appeal, SGL will bear the burden of convincing the CAFC that the preliminary injunction should be overturned.  Appeals of preliminary injunctions are evaluated by the CAFC under the highly deferential “abuse of discretion” standard of review.  As a result, Veeco believes that it is highly unlikely that the CAFC will overturn the preliminary injunction, especially in light of statistics showing that a substantial majority of preliminary injunctions are affirmed by the CAFC on appeal.  Moreover, Veeco cross-appealed, seeking to broaden the scope of the preliminary injunction.

In the meantime, Veeco’s patent infringement action in the EDNY is proceeding toward trial.  In this action, Veeco is seeking a post-trial permanent injunction, monetary damages and other relief.

AMEC vs Veeco

On July 13, 2017, AMEC filed a patent infringement complaint against Veeco Instruments Shanghai Co., Ltd. (“Veeco Shanghai”) with the Fujian High Court in China, alleging that Veeco’s MOCVD systems infringed a Chinese utility model patent relating to the synchronous movement engagement mechanism in a chemical vapor deposition reactor and seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. Veeco Shanghai filed a petition for invalidation of this patent with the Chinese Patent Reexamination Board (“PRB”).  The Fujian High Court suspended the infringement case against Veeco Shanghai pending the outcome of the invalidation proceeding at the PRB.  On November 24, 2017, the PRB issued a ruling in the invalidation proceeding which upheld AMEC’s patent.  During the proceeding, AMEC surrendered its broadest independent claim, thereby significantly narrowing the scope of this patent.   

On December 7, 2017, without providing notice to Veeco and without hearing Veeco’s position on alleged infringement, the Fujian High Court issued a ruling, applicable in China, that requires Veeco Shanghai to stop importing, making, selling and offering to sell Veeco EPIK 700 model MOCVD systems which contain the accused infringing synchronous movement engagement mechanism covered by AMEC utility model patent ZL 201220056049.5 and wafer carriers used as supplies for the EPIK 700 MOCVD system.

(Source: LEDinside)

On the other hand, AMEC today claimed that Veeco’s latest EPIK 868 also infringes AMEC’s patent CN 202492576 and thus should be prohibited along with EPIK 700 model systems in China.

The company continued it will make an appeal to both The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to invalidate Veeco’s patent US 6,726,769, of which the wafer carrier technology, AMEC claimed, was already explicitly addressed in other patents in the 1960s.

Apart from Veeco’s patent, AMEC will also request to invalidate similar patents of some Chinese and Korean companies.

AMEC added it is also collecting documents and will soon be ready to make another appeal to invalidate Veeco’s patent US 6,506,252 and its case against SGL.