Semitool v. Dynamic Micro (Fed. Cir. 2006).
This case settled originally, but Semitool revived the litigation after Dynamic began selling a new product. Interestingly, the settlement agreement included a provision for how the patent claims should be construed in any future enforcement proceeding — according to the district court’s claim construction order.
In the revived proceeding, the district court applied its old construction and found the new product noninfringing. On appeal, the CAFC also applied the agreed upon claim construction — rather than questioning it de novo.
Because it resides inside the processing chamber, the condenser in the Tornado cannot supply a drying gas as construed by the Final Claim Construction order issued by the district court. DMS is entitled to judgment as a matter of law that it does not infringe Semitool’s patents
