Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Rodel Holdings, Inc.) v NexPlanar Corporation and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | George Wei J |
Judgment Date | 08 December 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHC 310 |
Published date | 27 June 2020 |
Date | 08 December 2017 |
Year | 2017 |
Hearing Date | 08 March 2017,17 January 2017,23 January 2017,25 January 2017,24 January 2017,19 January 2017,13 January 2017,16 January 2017,20 January 2017,18 January 2017,12 January 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Tan Tee Jim SC, Christopher de Souza, Darrell Wee Jiawei and Jasper Nathanael Lim Shih Hao (Lee & Lee) |
Defendant Counsel | Low Chai Chong, Long Ai Ming, Alvin Lim Jun Hao and Kenneth Fok Quan Wei (Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGHC 310 |
Docket Number | Suit No 470 of 2012 |
This suit involves a patent for a polishing pad used in the field of semiconductor manufacturing. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants infringed its patent by selling and dealing with certain polishing pads manufactured by the first defendant. In their defence, the defendants deny that their actions amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s patent, and further contend that the plaintiff’s patent is invalid for lack of novelty, lack of inventive step and insufficiency of particulars. The defendants also counterclaim for the revocation of the patent.
The trial of this suit was heard over ten days in January 2017, with closing submissions filed in March 2017. I now deliver my judgment.
Background factsThe plaintiff, Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc (formerly known as Rodel Holdings, Inc) (“the Plaintiff”), is a company incorporated in the United States of America and the subsidiary of Dow Chemical Company (“Dow Chemical”). It was the registered proprietor of Singapore Patent No 43335, in respect of a “Polymeric Polishing Pad Containing Hollow Polymeric Microelements” (“the Patent”)1, which expired on 2 August 2013.2
While I will go into greater technical detail later in my judgment, at this juncture, I will first provide a simple description of the Patent and a brief explanation of the context in which the claimed invention is used. The claimed invention relates to the field of semiconductor manufacturing. Semiconductors are built on thin round discs or wafers, commonly made of silicon. One of the stages in wafer manufacturing is known as “chemical mechanical polishing / planarisation” (“CMP”), which refers to the process of smoothening a surface by means of a combination of chemical and mechanical forces. In the CMP process, the wafer is pressed against a polishing pad, and both the wafer and the pad rotate while in contact with each other. At the same time, an abrasive and corrosive chemical slurry is dispensed onto the polishing pad to aid in the smoothening of the wafer.3
The claimed invention is a polishing pad used to polish or planarise the surface of an electronic substrate such as a wafer. This pad includes a polymeric matrix or substrate that is embedded with hollow polymeric microelements. The pad comprised a “work surface” with microelements that come into direct contact with the work-piece, as well as another “subsurface” of microelements. The microelements at the work surface are less rigid than those embedded in the subsurface. As the work surface wears out, the subsurface becomes the new work surface. The regeneration of the subsurface as the new work surface allows for a more consistent and even polishing of the wafer.4
The Patent consists of 21 claims, of which only eight have been put in issue in the present case (“the asserted claims”). What this means is that only eight claims are relied on by the Plaintiff. The table below sets out these eight asserted claims in full, according to the patent specification filed with the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore on 23 February 19965 and amended most recently on 23 August 1999:6
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
Out of the asserted claims, it is undisputed that only claim 1 and claim 21 are independent claims, while claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11 and 12 relate back to claim 1. Claim 21 differs from claim 1 only in that the “work surface” is described as a “texturized work surface”.
On 19 September 2000, the Plaintiff obtained a grant of the Patent under s 29(1)(
The first defendant, NexPlanar Corporation (“the 1st Defendant”), is a US-incorporated company in the business of designing and manufacturing CMP pads. The second defendant, Wah Lee Tech (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“the 2nd Defendant”), is a locally-incorporated company which imports and purchases CMP pads from suppliers such as the 1st Defendant and resells the CMP pads to its customers in Singapore. I will refer to the 1st and 2nd Defendants collectively as “the Defendants”.10
The Plaintiff’s caseOn 5 June 2012, the Plaintiff commenced the present suit against the Defendants. According to the Plaintiff, certain CMP pads manufactured and sold by the 1st Defendant infringed the asserted claims of the Patent. The CMP pads in question (“the NexPlanar Pads”) corresponded to twelve of the 1st Defendant’s pad models, namely, “NEX4-6035-30S”, “NEXX-0901”, “NEXX-09NH-30S-25-70TS-4CF”, “NEXX-09NP-30S-25-70TS-4CF”, “NEXX-09V1”, “E7980-30S-25-70TS-4CF”, “NEXX-09P6-30S”, “NEXX-09P7-30S w/ sub-pad 4”, “NEXPLANAR PAD-NEXX-09NF-30S-25”, “NEXPLANAR PAD NEXX-09NP-30S-25-70TS-40F”, “NEXX-09V1-30S” and “Nexx-09NH”.11
The Plaintiff alleges that the following acts by the Defendants between 2010 and 2012 constitute infringement of the Patent:12
The Plaintiff thus claims against the Defendants for:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
IIa Technologies Pte Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd
...Inc v Kymab Ltd [2021] 1 All ER 475, SC (Eng) (folld) Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc v NexPlanar Corp [2018] 5 SLR 180 (folld) Saint-Gobain Adfors SAS v 3M Innovative Properties Co [2022] EWHC 1018 (Pat) (folld) Sandvik Intellectual Property AB v Kennametal UK Ltd [201......
-
IIa Technologies Pte Ltd v Element Six Technologies Ltd
...has expired (Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc (formerly known as Rodel Holdings, Inc) v NexPlanar Corp and another [2018] 5 SLR 180 (“Rohm”) at [161]; Warner-Lambert Company LLC v Generics (UK) Ltd t/a Mylan and another [2019] 3 All ER 95 at [17]). The patent bargain bre......
-
Lee Tat Cheng v Maka GPS Technologies Pte Ltd
...High Court in Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc (formerly known as Rodel Holdings, Inc) v NexPlanar Corp and another [2017] SGHC 310 (“Rohm and Haas Electronic”), which was released after the oral hearing of the present appeal and which, incidentally, was also a decision ......
-
Element Six Technologies Ltd v IIa Technologies Pte Ltd
...George Wei J in Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials CMP Holdings, Inc (formerly known as Rodel Holdings, Inc) v NexPlanar Corp and another [2018] 5 SLR 180 (“Rohm & Haas”) at [145] are also pertinent: Even though the skilled reader is assumed to have had access to the prior art as a whole, it ......