CMC Materials v. DuPont: CMP Slurry Patent Dispute Settled After 1,639 Days
CMC Materials, LLC asserted US9499721B2 — a patent covering chemical mechanical planarization slurry formulations — against DuPont De Nemours and five Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials entities over competing CMP slurry product lines. The Delaware District Court case settled with prejudice after nearly four and a half years, with each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
CMP Slurry Patent War Between Two Specialty Chemical Giants Ends in Settlement
CMC Materials, LLC filed suit on June 1, 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that DuPont De Nemours, Inc. and five affiliated Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials entities infringed US9499721B2, a patent directed to chemical mechanical planarization slurry compositions. The accused products included DuPont’s Optiplane 1000 and 2000 series — specifically models 1600, 1601, 2118, 2300, and 2600 — which compete directly with CMC’s own CMP slurry portfolio used in semiconductor wafer polishing processes.
The case terminated on November 26, 2024 via a stipulated dismissal with prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, executed under the terms of a confidential settlement agreement. Dismissal with prejudice forecloses CMC from reasserting the same claims against these defendants. The court retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, suggesting the parties may have negotiated ongoing licensing, product restrictions, or compliance obligations whose enforcement may require judicial oversight.
The 1,639-day duration suggests the parties engaged in substantial fact and expert discovery before reaching resolution, consistent with complex multi-defendant patent cases in Delaware where CMP chemistry and claim scope disputes typically require extensive technical record-building. The mutual cost-bearing provision and the confidential settlement structure leave commercial terms — including any licensing royalties, design-around commitments, or supply restrictions — outside the public record. What drove the parties toward settlement rather than trial is not discernible from the docket alone.
Filing to Case Settled in 1639 days
1,639 days — roughly 4.5 years, above the median for multi-defendant patent cases in Delaware
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement structure means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 is a final adjudication on the merits for claim-preclusion purposes. CMC Materials cannot re-file these specific infringement claims against these defendants on US9499721B2. The court’s retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement is a standard mechanism allowing either party to return to federal court to enforce settlement terms without filing a new action.
Claim-preclusive; no retrialCMC secures settlement but forfeits right to re-litigate
CMC Materials achieves confidential resolution — potentially including licensing revenue, design-around commitments, or market segmentation terms — but the with-prejudice dismissal bars any future suit on US9499721B2 against these specific DuPont and Rohm & Haas entities on the same claims. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against third parties not party to this action, preserving broader offensive value.
Patent survives; third-party exposure remainsDuPont and Rohm & Haas entities exit litigation with sealed terms
DuPont and its five Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials affiliates obtain a with-prejudice dismissal, eliminating the risk of a damages award or injunction on the asserted claims. The confidential settlement may impose product or commercial constraints not visible from the docket. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement suggests neither side claimed a clear-cut litigation victory sufficient to justify a fee-shifting motion.
Injunction risk removed; private terms applyCMP slurry IP remains a live competitive battleground
US9499721B2 retains enforceability against other CMP slurry manufacturers. Semiconductor equipment and materials companies whose products overlap with the Optiplane-class CMP slurry chemistries should treat this settlement as a signal that CMC Materials actively enforces its CMP formulation portfolio. The retained-jurisdiction clause suggests structured post-settlement obligations that could affect competitive dynamics in the polishing slurry supply chain.
Active enforcement risk for CMP sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | CMC Materials, LLC | Company | Specialty semiconductor materials company — holder of US9499721B2 covering CMP slurry technologySearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dupont De Nemours, Inc. | Company | DuPont De Nemours and five Rohm & Haas Electronic Materials affiliates — makers of Optiplane CMP slurry productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rohm And Haas Electronic Materials Cmp Asia, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials Asia-Pacific Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rohm And Haas Electronic Materials Cmp, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials K.K. | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Russell | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher Wilson | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel Ruesta | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Danielle Morello | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | David K. Bailey | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Eileen Hyde | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Erik T. Koons | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Frank Zhu | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John W. Shaw | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Joseph A. Ostoyich | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Karen Elizabeth Keller | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Katharine M. Burke | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lisa M. Kattan | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Margaret Welsh | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mark Speegle | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Natalie Cardenas | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Nathan Roger Hoeschen | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert C. Scheinfeld | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Robert L. Maier | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Samuel Kassa | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William C. Lavery | Attorney | Counsel for CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Shaw Keller LLP | Law Firm | Representing CMC Materials, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Andrew L. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Anthony A. Hartmann | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bindu Ann George Palapura | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Charles E. Lipsey | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David C. Brownstein | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Ellis Moore | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David M. Goldstein | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Emily Gabranski | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric J. Fues | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Hira Javed | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kaitlyn S. Pehrson | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kyle W. Howarth | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mareesa A. Frederick | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Mark J. Feldstein | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Matthew J. Hlinka | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Paul W. Townsend | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Tracey E. Timlin | Attorney | Counsel for Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Duane Morris LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dupont De Nemours, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Jennifer L. Hall | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal language — ‘with prejudice of all claims, counterclaims, and defenses’ — is notably comprehensive, extinguishing DuPont’s counterclaims as well as CMC’s infringement claims. This bilateral finality, combined with the court’s retained jurisdiction, is consistent with a structured settlement rather than a simple walkaway. The mutual cost-bearing provision removes any implication of a prevailing party, leaving the commercial resolution entirely within the confidential agreement whose terms are not part of the public record.
US9499721B2 — Chemical Mechanical Planarization Slurry Formulations
US9499721B2 — filed under application number US14/749948 — covers chemical mechanical planarization slurry compositions, a critical input in semiconductor manufacturing used to achieve the ultra-flat wafer surfaces required for advanced node lithography. CMP slurries are proprietary chemical blends incorporating abrasive particles, oxidizers, and chemical additives whose precise formulation determines polishing rate, selectivity, and surface defectivity. Patent protection in this space typically attaches to specific composition ratios, particle characteristics, or functional properties that confer a measurable process advantage.
In the competitive CMP materials market — dominated by a handful of specialty chemical suppliers including CMC (now acquired by Entegris), DuPont’s Electronic Materials division, and others — formulation patents are a primary competitive moat. The assertion of US9499721B2 against the Optiplane 1000 and 2000 series, which are positioned as high-performance oxide and barrier CMP products, suggests CMC identified meaningful claim-scope overlap with commercially significant product lines. For any company developing or sourcing CMP slurries for logic, memory, or advanced packaging applications, this patent’s continued enforceability warrants close monitoring.
Should your CMP slurry products be cleared against US9499721B2?
Any company formulating, distributing, or sourcing chemical mechanical planarization slurries — particularly oxide, barrier, or tungsten CMP products — should evaluate their exposure to US9499721B2. CMC Materials has demonstrated willingness to enforce this patent through sustained multi-year litigation against a major industry incumbent. The settlement did not invalidate the patent, meaning the claims remain fully enforceable against third parties. R&D teams developing next-generation slurry formulations and procurement teams qualifying new CMP slurry vendors should both be aware of the claim landscape.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent and dependent claims of US9499721B2 against your specific slurry compositions, identify prior art that may narrow claim scope, and flag related family members or continuation applications that could extend the protection perimeter. Eureka’s citation graph also surfaces other CMC Materials patents in the CMP formulation space, providing a portfolio-level freedom-to-operate picture rather than a single-patent analysis.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9499721B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar CMP Slurry and Semiconductor Materials Patent Cases
Explore related chemical mechanical planarization and semiconductor materials patent infringement cases filed in Delaware District Court and comparable venues.
What this case signals for the CMP slurry and semiconductor materials IP landscape
A four-and-a-half-year Delaware District Court battle over CMP slurry chemistry between two major specialty materials companies carries clear signals for the broader sector.
US9499721B2 remains a live enforcement asset post-settlement
With-prejudice dismissal bars only these named defendants. CMC Materials’ willingness to sustain 1,639 days of litigation against a well-resourced opponent like DuPont signals high confidence in patent validity and claim scope. Other CMP slurry manufacturers producing compositions that may read on US9499721B2 claims should treat this case as a credible enforcement precedent.
Delaware venue continues to attract high-stakes materials patent disputes
Filing in Delaware District Court — before Judge Jennifer L. Hall — reflects the standard strategic choice for technology-intensive patent cases involving large corporate defendants. The multi-entity defendant structure (five Rohm & Haas affiliates plus DuPont) is consistent with plaintiffs seeking to capture global product flows through coordinated U.S. litigation, a pattern worth tracking for global CMP supply chain players.
CMC v Dupont — key questions answered
US9499721B2 is a U.S. patent held by CMC Materials covering chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) slurry compositions used in semiconductor wafer polishing. In Case No. 1:20-cv-00738, CMC asserted this patent against DuPont’s Optiplane 1000 and 2000 series CMP slurry products, alleging those formulations infringed its patented compositions.
The case settled and was dismissed with prejudice on November 26, 2024, after 1,639 days of litigation. Dismissal with prejudice means CMC Materials cannot refile the same infringement claims against these defendants. The court retained jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, suggesting ongoing obligations between the parties. Settlement terms remain confidential.
CMC Materials named five Rohm and Haas Electronic Materials affiliates — spanning U.S., Asian, and Japanese entities — alongside DuPont De Nemours. This multi-affiliate defendant structure is consistent with plaintiffs seeking to address patent infringement across an international manufacturing and distribution chain, ensuring the litigation covers production, importation, and sale of accused CMP slurry products in multiple jurisdictions.
No. A with-prejudice settlement dismissal does not constitute a validity ruling. US9499721B2 remains a granted, enforceable U.S. patent following this case. CMC Materials — now part of Entegris — retains the right to assert this patent against other parties whose CMP slurry products may fall within its claims.
When a district court retains jurisdiction over a settlement agreement, it means either party can seek enforcement of the settlement terms directly in that court without filing a new lawsuit. This mechanism is typically used when settlements include ongoing obligations such as licensing royalties, product usage restrictions, or compliance milestones. In CMC Materials v. DuPont, the specific terms triggering retained jurisdiction are not public.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.