Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy vs. Sigray: X-Ray Imaging Patent Verdict
Was möchten Sie als Nächstes tun?
Wählen Sie Ihren Weg entsprechend Ihren aktuellen Bedürfnissen:
📋 Fallzusammenfassung
| Fallbezeichnung | Carl Zeiss X-Ray Microscopy, Inc. v. Sigray, Inc. |
| Fallnummer | 5:21-cv-01129 (N.D. Cal.) |
| Gericht | US-Bezirksgericht, nördlicher Bezirk von Kalifornien |
| Dauer | Feb 2021 – Jan 2026 4 years 11 months |
| Ergebnis | Plaintiff Win — $785K Damages |
| Streitige Patente | |
| Beschuldigte Produkte | Sigray TriLambda NanoXRM Microscope, Prisma, Eclipse |
Fallübersicht
Die Parteien
⚖️ Kläger
X-ray microscopy division of the globally recognized Carl Zeiss group, a leader in optical and imaging systems with a significant patent portfolio in x-ray optics and nano-scale imaging.
🛡️ Beklagter
California-based startup specializing in advanced x-ray technology, including laboratory-scale x-ray sources and microscopy systems competing in the nano-resolution imaging market.
Die streitigen Patente
This landmark case involved two U.S. patents protecting foundational x-ray microscopy apparatus and detection technology, critical to high-resolution imaging in semiconductor inspection, materials science, and life sciences research.
- • U.S. Patent No. 7,057,187 — covering x-ray microscopy apparatus and detection technology. Key claims 1–6, 8–12, and 17 were found infringed.
- • U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704 — directed to x-ray imaging systems and optical configurations. Key claims 7, 9–15 were found infringed.
Developing a similar x-ray imaging product?
Check if your product design might infringe these or related patents before launch.
Das Urteil und die rechtliche Analyse
Outcome Summary
The jury delivered a split verdict, finding Sigray liable for infringing Carl Zeiss’s x-ray microscopy patents and awarding $785,000 in damages as a reasonable royalty. This outcome highlights the significant value of legacy patent portfolios in specialized technology markets.
Patent Damages Awarded
| Produkt | Patent(s) | Damages |
|---|---|---|
| TriLambda | ‘187 Patent | $170,000 |
| Prisma | ‘187 & ‘704 Patents | $421,000 |
| Eclipse | ‘704 Patent | $194,000 |
| Insgesamt | $785,000 |
Wichtige rechtliche Fragen
All infringement findings rested on literal infringement, establishing that Sigray’s accused products embodied each element of the asserted claims without relying on the doctrine of equivalents. This is a robust finding for the plaintiff, reinforcing clear claim scope.
Critically, the jury found Sigray’s infringement was not willful, protecting Sigray from potentially triple damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. This demonstrates the effectiveness of a strong defense against willfulness, likely by presenting reasonable beliefs in non-infringement or invalidity.
Parallel trade secret claims resulted in a **partial defense victory** for Sigray. While some alleged trade secrets were found to qualify as such, the jury found no misappropriation of any of the 15 alleged trade secrets. This underscores the high evidentiary bar for proving both the existence of a trade secret and its improper use.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis in X-Ray Imaging
This case highlights critical IP risks in the scientific instrumentation and x-ray microscopy market. Choose your next step:
📋 Die Auswirkungen dieses Falls verstehen
Informieren Sie sich über die spezifischen Risiken und Auswirkungen dieses Rechtsstreits.
- Alle zugehörigen Patente in diesem Technologiebereich anzeigen
- See which companies are most active in x-ray imaging patents
- Muster der Anspruchsauslegung für optische Systeme verstehen
🔍 Das Risiko meines Produkts überprüfen
Führen Sie eine umfassende FTO-Analyse für Ihre eigene Technologie oder Ihr eigenes Produkt durch.
- Geben Sie Ihre Produktbeschreibung oder technischen Merkmale ein.
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents in x-ray optics
- Erhalten Sie einen umsetzbaren Risikobewertungsbericht
Hochrisikogebiet
Precision X-ray microscopy apparatus
2 Patents Infringed
Foundational x-ray optical systems
No Willful Infringement
Avoided enhanced damages
✅ Wichtigste Erkenntnisse
Literal infringement findings across multiple claims and products significantly strengthen a plaintiff’s position.
Verwandte Rechtsprechung suchen →A successful defense against willfulness can protect defendants from enhanced damages, emphasizing the importance of building a contemporaneous good-faith record.
Präzedenzfälle erkunden →Trade secret claims, while adding complexity, require meeting distinct evidentiary standards for both existence and misappropriation.
Learn more about trade secret litigation →Multi-patent, multi-product assertion strategies maximize royalty exposure and negotiating leverage in specialized technology markets.
Analyze patent portfolio strategy →Reasonable royalty damages in niche instrumentation markets provide useful licensing benchmarks for future negotiations or expert damages analyses.
Benchmark licensing rates →Häufig gestellte Fragen
The case involved U.S. Patent No. 7,057,187 and U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704, both directed to x-ray microscopy imaging systems and optical configurations.
The jury awarded $785,000 in total reasonable royalties across three accused Sigray products: TriLambda ($170,000), Prisma ($421,000), and Eclipse ($194,000).
The jury found no misappropriation of any alleged trade secrets — meaning even those qualifying as trade secrets were not improperly acquired or used by Sigray, defeating the claim on its merits.
Sind Sie bereit, Ihre Patentstrategie zu stärken?
Schließen Sie sich den über 18.000 Fachleuten aus dem Bereich des geistigen Eigentums an, die PatSnap Eureka nutzen, um mit KI-gestützter Präzision Recherchen zum Stand der Technik durchzuführen, Patentanmeldungen zu erstellen und Wettbewerbslandschaften zu analysieren.
Referenzen
- PACER — Case No. 5:21-cv-01129, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- USPTO Patent Center — U.S. Patent No. 7,057,187
- USPTO Patent Center — U.S. Patent No. 7,400,704
- Cornell Legal Information Institute — 35 U.S.C. § 284 (Damages)
- PatSnap – Lösungen für den Umgang mit geistigem Eigentum für Anwaltskanzleien
Dieser Artikel dient ausschließlich zu Informationszwecken und stellt keine Rechtsberatung dar. Alle Angaben zu den Fällen stammen aus öffentlich zugänglichen Gerichtsakten. Informationen zu den Funktionen der Plattform finden Sie auf PatSnap.