Enthone, Inc. et al. v. BASF Corp.
Patentability filed 11 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and closed 13 Jul 2023, with US7303992B2 asserted. Recorded basis of termination: unpatentable.
Case record
- Patent involved
- US7303992B2
- Application no.
- US11/272999
- Case no.
- 22-1356
- Verdict cause
- Patentability
- Court
- Fed. Cir.
- Court level
- Court of Appeals
- Case region
- District of Columbia
- Chief judge
- None recorded
- Trial level
- Appeal
- Filed – Closed
- 11 Jan 2022 – 13 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 548 days
- Basis of termination
- Unpatentable
- Products & marks
- Copper electrodeposition in microelectronics
- Validity challenges
- 3 on record
Check this patent against your own product
Prior art, claim scope, infringement exposure and design-around routes. Every answer cites the records behind it.
Get an FTO claim chart- 01Ranked prior artEvery hit source-linked
- 02Claim-level comparisonAgainst your own product
- 03Legal statusAcross 174 jurisdictions
Copper electrodeposition in microelectronics
An electrolytic plating method and composition for electrolytically plating Cu onto a semiconductor integrated circuit substrate having submicron-sized interconnect features. The composition comprises a source of Cu ions and a suppressor compound comprising polyether groups. The method involves superfilling by rapid bottom-up deposition at a superfill speed by which Cu deposition in a vertical direction from the bottoms of the features to the top openings of the features is substantially greater than Cu deposition on the side walls.
- Legal status
- Inactive
- Granted
- 4 Dec 2007
- Earliest priority
- 12 Nov 2004
- Est. expiry
- 14 Nov 2025
- Validity challenges
- 3 on recordIPR2014-01394 · Other · filed by Moses Lake Industries, Inc.IPR2016-00696 · Other · filed by BASF CorporationIPR2014-00243 · Other · filed by Moses Lake Industries, Inc.
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- PANECCASIO, VINCENT · LIN, XUAN · FIGURA, PAUL · HURTUBISE, RICHARD
- Classification
- H01L21/31
- Examiner
- GHYKA, ALEXANDER
Parties of record
Enthone, Inc.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Not recorded
- Firm
- Not recorded
- Also named
- MacDermid Enthone, Inc.
BASF Corp.
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Holmes J. Hawkins III · Jeffrey S. Bucholtz · Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell · Russell Blythe
- Firm
- King & Spalding LLP
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Holmes J. Hawkins III | BASF Corp. | Defendant |
| Jeffrey S. Bucholtz | BASF Corp. | Defendant |
| Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell | BASF Corp. | Defendant |
| Russell Blythe | BASF Corp. | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”
Case 22-1356 · Fed. Cir. · closed 13 July 2023
Related cases
Three questions this record usually leads to. Each one runs against the full litigation and patent corpus, and cites what it finds.
Frequently asked questions
What is case 22-1356?
22-1356 is a patent patentability brought by Enthone, Inc. against BASF Corp., filed on 11 Jan 2022 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The case closed on 13 July 2023.
Which patent was asserted in 22-1356?
US7303992B2 (“Copper electrodeposition in microelectronics”), assigned to MACDERMID ENTHONE INC., currently inactive. The record also lists Copper electrodeposition in microelectronics.
How was case 22-1356 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is unpatentable. The termination text reads: “THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:AFFIRMED.”
How long did case 22-1356 take?
548 calendar days, from filing on 11 Jan 2022 to closure on 13 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 22-1356?
Holmes J. Hawkins III, Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Joshua Nathaniel Mitchell and Russell Blythe appear for defendant BASF.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 22-1356 and is provided for general information and reference only. It is not legal advice and must not be relied upon as such.
Docket data has limits. Records are drawn from a snapshot and may lag the live docket. Sealed filings, amended complaints, counterclaims and post-closure motions may not be reflected. Party names, attorney names and firm affiliations are reproduced as recorded and may contain omissions. Where a field is absent from the record, this page marks it as not recorded rather than inferring a value.
No characterisation of the parties or the outcome. This page reports what the record contains. Nothing here should be read as an assertion that any party infringed, that any patent is valid or invalid, that any settlement occurred, or that any party prevailed.
No FTO or validity opinion. Nothing on this page constitutes a freedom-to-operate, novelty, validity or infringement opinion. Any decision touching a live patent dispute should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent counsel.