China Micro Semiconductor equipment announced 8th, Fujian Court agreed to Veeco Shanghai ban application, the ban immediately effective enforcement, not to appeal. The ban prohibits the veeco of Shanghai from being imported, manufactured, and sells or promises to any cooperating manufacturer of any chemical vapor deposition device and a substrate tray for such devices that violate the patents of the micro-CN No. No. 202492576. The ban covers $number equipment for Turbodisk EPIK $number, EPIK C2 EPIK and $number C4 MOCVD, as well as substrate trays used in such MOCVD devices. In July 2017 to the mainland court formally sued Veeco Shanghai patent infringement, apply for Veeco Shanghai issued a permanent ban, and compensation for the micro-economic losses of RMB 100 million yuan or more. In addition, the Chinese micro will be in the United States December 8, 2017 local time to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent Trial and Appeal Committee (PTAB) to submit the invalid Veeco U.S. patent (US 6,726,769) request. The patent application for the separable substrate pallet technology was previously veeco by U.S. companies in 2001 for patent infringement of the microchip pallet suppliers in the United States. In addition to the patent in the United States in the prosecution of the patent invalid request, but also on its mainland kin patents and Korean kin patent filed a patent invalid request. In response to another U.S. patent case against Veeco, a U.S. prosecution in the United States (US 6,506,252), the medium-and-micro supplier is preparing an invalid declaration material and will soon be filing an invalid patent request with the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board. Yun Zhiyao, Chairman and CEO of China Micro, said he was confident that China and the United States would win a patent lawsuit against Veeco Shanghai and that it would eventually win a patent lawsuit in the US. China Micro Senior Vice President, COO and MOCVD Products Division general manager Du Zhihong said, very pleased to see the court to make such a ruling. It has always been serious in protecting intellectual property rights and will not tolerate any infringement of micro-intellectual property rights. Wenjun, chief analyst for long-term observation and tracking of the case, analyzed that the court sentenced Veeco Shanghai to ban Epik $number MOCVD equipment in the mainland because the court had previously imposed a patent infringement on it. But between manufacturers, a lawsuit to fight to hurt each other will not benefit, sit down to negotiate is the right way. It is expected that the case will continue to develop further in the future.
