Mohith Verghese et al. v. ASM America Incorporated
Declaratory judgement filed 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and closed 18 Jul 2023, with 2 patents asserted. Recorded basis of termination: case remanded.
Case record
- Patents involved
- US20220145456A1US11634812B2
- Case no.
- 2:22-cv-01762
- Verdict cause
- Declaratory judgement
- Court
- D. Ariz.
- Court level
- District Court
- Case region
- Arizona
- Chief judge
- Michael T Liburdi
- Trial level
- First instance
- Filed – Closed
- 13 Oct 2022 – 18 Jul 2023
- Duration
- 278 days
- Basis of termination
- Case Remanded
- Products & marks
- REFILLABLE LARGE VOLUME SOLID PRECURSOR SUBLIMATION VESSEL · Solid source sublimator
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
Refillable large volume solid precursor sublimation vessel
Embodiments of a solid chemical delivery system having a refillable sublimation vessel are provided herein. In some embodiments, a solid chemical delivery system includes: a refillable sublimation vessel including: a vessel body coupled to a vessel lid to define an interior volume of the refillable sublimation vessel, wherein the vessel lid includes a central refill port, a gas inlet port, and a gas outlet port; a flow restricting structure disposed in an upper portion of the interior volume; and a vertical appendage disposed in the interior volume and extending from a bottom plate of the vessel body; a refill cartridge removably coupled to the central refill port of the refillable sublimation vessel and having an internal volume therein; and a first valve disposed between the refillable sublimation vessel and the refill cartridge.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 12 May 2022
- Est. expiry
- 13 Feb 2042
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Classification
- C23C16/448
- Prosecution counsel
- Moser Taboada
Solid source sublimator
Herein disclosed are systems and methods related to solid source chemical sublimator vessels and corresponding deposition modules. The solid source chemical sublimator can include a housing configured to hold solid chemical reactant therein. A lid may be disposed on a proximal portion of the housing. The lid can include a fluid inlet and a fluid outlet and define a serpentine flow path within a distal portion of the lid. The lid can be adapted to allow gas flow within the flow path. The solid source chemical sublimator can include a filter that is disposed between the serpentine flow path and the distal portion of the housing. The filter can have a porosity configured to restrict a passage of a solid chemical reactant therethrough.
- Legal status
- Active
- Granted
- 25 Apr 2023
- Earliest priority
- 16 Aug 2018
- Est. expiry
- 25 Nov 2041
- Validity challenges
- None recorded
- Licences recorded
- None recorded
- Inventors
- SHERO, ERIC JAMES · WHITE, CARL LOUIS · VERGHESE, MOHITH E. · FONDURULIA, KYLE · SULLIVAN, TIMOTHY JAMES
- Classification
- H01L21/00C23C16/448H01L21/67H10P95/00H10P72/00
- Prosecution counsel
- Knobbe, Martens, Olson & Bear LLP
- Examiner
- AMER, MOUNIR S
Parties of record
Mohith Verghese
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Chad Steven Campbell · Christopher Stuart Coleman · Kristine Jolie Beaudoin · Samantha Jones Burke
- Firm
- Perkins Coie LLP
- Also named
- Carl White
ASM America Incorporated
- Core tech
- Not recorded
- Counsel
- Jill Johnson Chasson · Joseph Reed · Michael D. Powell · Nathan J. Kunz · Robert W. Stone
- Firm
- Coppersmith Brockelman PLC, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (Redwood Shores), Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP (San Francisco, CA)
Counsel of record
| Attorney | For | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Chad Steven Campbell | Mohith Verghese | Plaintiff |
| Christopher Stuart Coleman | Mohith Verghese | Plaintiff |
| Kristine Jolie Beaudoin | Mohith Verghese | Plaintiff |
| Samantha Jones Burke | Mohith Verghese | Plaintiff |
| Jill Johnson Chasson | ASM America Incorporated | Defendant |
| Joseph Reed | ASM America Incorporated | Defendant |
| Michael D. Powell | ASM America Incorporated | Defendant |
| Nathan J. Kunz | ASM America Incorporated | Defendant |
| Robert W. Stone | ASM America Incorporated | Defendant |
Basis of termination
From the record · verbatim“IT IS ORDERED granting ASM’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 15). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remand ASM America Incorporated v. Verghese et al., 2:22-cv-01764-MTL to the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County and Verghese and White’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) shall remain pending. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting ASM’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 14) and Verghese and White’s Complaint in Verghese et al. v. ASM America Incorporated, 2:22-cv-01762-MTL is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and shall terminate this case.”
Case 2:22-cv-01762 · D. Ariz. · closed 18 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 2:22-cv-01762?
2:22-cv-01762 is a patent declaratory judgement brought by Mohith Verghese against ASM America Incorporated, filed on 13 Oct 2022 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The case closed on 18 July 2023.
Which patents were asserted in 2:22-cv-01762?
US20220145456A1 (“Refillable large volume solid precursor sublimation vessel”), assigned to APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., currently active; US11634812B2 (“Solid source sublimator”), assigned to ASM IP HOLDING B.V., currently active. The record also lists REFILLABLE LARGE VOLUME SOLID PRECURSOR SUBLIMATION VESSEL and Solid source sublimator.
How was case 2:22-cv-01762 terminated?
The recorded basis of termination is case remanded. The termination text reads: “IT IS ORDERED granting ASM’s Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. 15). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall remand ASM America Incorporated v. Verghese et al., 2:22-cv-01764-MTL to the Arizona Superior Court in Maricopa County and Verghese and White’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 10) shall remain pending. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting ASM’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 14) and Verghese and White’s Complaint in Verghese et al. v. ASM America Incorporated, 2:22-cv-01762-MTL is dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and shall terminate this
How long did case 2:22-cv-01762 take?
278 calendar days, from filing on 13 Oct 2022 to closure on 18 July 2023.
Who were the attorneys and the judge in 2:22-cv-01762?
Chief Judge Michael T Liburdi presided. Chad Steven Campbell, Christopher Stuart Coleman, Kristine Jolie Beaudoin and Samantha Jones Burke are recorded as counsel for plaintiff Mohith Verghese. Jill Johnson Chasson, Joseph Reed, Michael D. Powell, Nathan J. Kunz and Robert W. Stone appear for defendant ASM America.
Disclaimer. This page reproduces publicly available court docket data for case 2:22-cv-01762 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.