SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
---------
FORM 8-K
---------
CURRENT REPORT
PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 13, 1999
CFM Technologies, Inc.
-----------------------------------------------------
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Pennsylvania 0-27498 22-2298698
--------------------------- ------------ ------------------
(State or other jurisdiction (Commission (IRS Employer
of incorporation) File Number) Identification No.)
150 Oaklands Boulevard
Exton, PA 19341
---------------------------------------------------
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(610) 280-8300
----------------------------------------------------
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
1336 Enterprise Drive, West Chester, PA 19380
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)
<PAGE>
Item 5. OTHER EVENTS.
On May 13, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
(the "Federal Circuit Court") issued its decision in the matter of CFMT, INC.
AND CFM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V. STEAG MICROTECH, INC., No. 98-1487. A copy of the
decision of the Federal Circuit Court is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1
On May 18, 1999, the Registrant issued the press release attached hereto as
Exhibit 99.2 announcing the decision of the Federal Circuit Court.
Item 7. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.
(c) Exhibits.
99.1 CFMT, INC. AND CFM TECHNOLOGIES, INC. V.
STEAG MICROTECH, INC., No. 98-1487 (Fed.
Cir. May 13, 1999).
99.2 Press Release dated May 18, 1999.
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
CFM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
By: /S/ ROGER A. CAROLIN
----------------------------
Date: May 20, 1999 Roger A. Carolin
President and
Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT INDEX
-------------
Number Exhibit
- ------ -------
99.1 CFMT, Inc. and CFM Technologies, Inc. v. Steag
Microtech, Inc., No. 98-1487 (Fed. Cir. May 13,
1999).
99.2 Press Release dated May 18, 1999.
Exhibit 99.1
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
-----------------
OPINION ANNOUNCING
JUDGEMENT OF THE COURT
-----------------
OPINION FILED AND JUDGEMENT ENTERED: 05/13/99
The attached opinion announcing the judgement of the court in your case was
filed today. The judgement was entered pursuant to Rule 36. The mandate will be
issued in due course.
Information is also provided about petitions for rehearing and suggestions
for rehearing in banc. The questions and answered are those frequently asked and
answered by the Clerk's Office.
Each side shall bear its own costs.
Exhibits and visual aids shall be promptly retrieved by the party that
lodged them with this court.
JAN HORBALY
-----------
Clerk
cc: RUDOLF E. HUTZ
DAVID C. BERRY
CFMT INC V STEAG MICROTECH INC, 98-1487
DCT - 95-CV-442
<PAGE>
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6. this disposition is not citable as
precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables
published periodically.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
98-1487
CFMT, INC. and CFM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiffs-Cross Appellants,
v.
STEAG MICROTECH, INC.,
Defendant-Appellant
---------------------
DECIDED: May 13, 1999
---------------------
Before NEWMAN, PLAGER and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judges.
PLAGER, Circuit Judge.
DECISION
In this patent infringement action the parties appeal various aspects of
the district court's decision on their post jury-trial motions. See CFMT, Inc.
v. Steag Microtech, Inc., 14 F. Supp.2d 572 (D. Del. 1998). We have carefully
considered the parties arguments and find grounds for disturbing the district
court's judgement in only one regard, namely, with regard to literal
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4.911.761 ("the '761 patent"). In that regard,
we vacate the judgement and remand for reconsideration of the literal
infringement issue. We affirm the judgement in all other respects, though the
damage award based on the infringement finding should be set aside in the event
the district court, on remand, enters a judgement of no infringement.
<PAGE>
DISCUSSION
After the jury returned a verdict of literal and doctrine of equivalents
infringement of the asserted claims of the '761 patent, Defendand Steag
Microtech, Inc. ("Steag") moved for judgement as a matter of law ("JMOL") of
noninfringement. The district court denied Steag's motion with respect to
literal infringement, but granted the motion with respect to infringement under
the doctrine of equivalents. See id at 589.591. Steag appeals the denial of JMOL
of no literal infringement. Plaintiffs CFMT, Inc. and CFM Technologies, Inc.
(collectively "CFMT") have not appealed the grant of JMOL of no doctrine of
equivalents infringement-accordingly, infringement by equivalence is not at
issue.
With regard to literal infringement, the only ground we detect for
disturbing the judgement is the claim clause "replacing said rinsing fluid with
said drying vapor", which appears in each of the asserted claims. After holding
a Markman hearing prior to trail, the district court construed the claim term
"drying vapor" as "a vapor that facilitates the removal of liquid from a
surface, wherein a "vapor" is "the gaseous state of a substance that, under
ordinary circumstances, is usually liquid or solid." CFMT, Inc. v. Steag
Microtech, Inc. No. 95-442-RRM, slip op. At 11 (D. Del Nov. 25, 1997)
(unpublished memorandum opinion). Additionally, the court construed the claim
term replacing as "taking the place of." Id at 12. We have considered Steag's
arguments that the district court's construction of "drying vapor" is wrong;
however, we are not persuaded.
<PAGE>
Rather, we agree with these aspects of the district court's claim
construction.
Notwithstanding, we find substantial merit in Steag's argument that,
accepting the district court's claim construction, Steag's accused method does
not "replac[e] said rinsing fluid with said drying vapor," as required by the
asserted claims. In particular, Steag points out that in its method the rinsing
fluid is "replaced" not by a "drying vapor," but instead by an atmosphere that
is almost entirely non-vapor, i.e., 97.5% non-vapor (nitrogen) and only 2.5%
vapor (IPA). CFMT fail to rebut this argument. To the contrary, CFMT explains
that the "drying vapor" in Steag's method constitutes solely the 2.5% IPA vapor:
"[V]apor" means the "gaseous state of a substance that, under ordinary
circumstances, is usually a liquid or solid." Because nitrogen is
ordinarily a gas, it cannot constitute a vapor. The vapor used in the
[Steag method] consists of pure IPA vapor, not a mixture of IPA vapor and
another substance.
Pls' Principal Br. At 16 (internal citations omitted).
Because we agree with the district court's construction of "replacing" as
"taking the place of," and its construction of "drying vapor," the only question
is whether the claim cause "replacing said rinsing fluid with said drying
vapor," so construed, reads on Steag's method. This is a matter of claim
application, a question of fact reviewed, in jury trails, for substantial
evidence. See Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353, 48 USPQ2d 1674,
1676 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Cvbor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F3d 1448, 1454, 46
USPQ2d 1169, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc).
From our review of the record it appears that in Steag's method the 97.5
non vapor/2.5% vapor atmosphere "takes the place of" the rinsing fluid, and
thus, the mere 2.5% vapor does not do so. Accordingly, the jury's contrary
verdict seems to lack substantial evidence support. The district court however
did not expressly address this issue. Given that the district court heard the
evidence first hand, we remand the matter for the district court's
consideration; we consider this the more prudent approach, rather than our
trying to reach an ultimate determination on the matter in the first instance.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
Exhibit 99.2
FOR: CFM Technologies, Inc.
1336 Enterprise Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Jeff Randall
Chief Financial Officer
610-280-8509
Michele Katz/Elric Martinez
Morgen-Walke Associates
Press: Frank Domondon/
Tammy Rose
212-850-5600
CFM ANNOUNCES ACTION BY APPEALS COURT
EXTON, PA - May 18, 1999 - CFM Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:CFMT) today
announced that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has
affirmed all but one aspect of the District Court's opinion in the matter of
CFMT, Inc. and CFM Technologies, Inc. v. Steag Microtech, Inc. On appeal, the
Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's interpretation of the claims of
CFM's Direct Displacement(TM) drying technology covered by its U.S. Patent No.
4,911,761. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed the patent's validity and
has returned the case to the District Court for determination of a question of
fact.
"We are pleased that the appeals court ruling upholds such important aspects of
this matter as the District Court's claim interpretation, the amount of the
damages awarded, and the finding that this important patent is valid," said
Roger A. Carolin, President and Chief Executive Officer. "We remain confident
that the jury's original finding of Steag's willful infringement will be
affirmed."
The discussion above includes certain forward-looking statements with regard to
the outcome of pending patent litigation. As such, actual results may vary
materially from such expectations. CFM believes that it will prevail in the
legal proceedings described above; however, there can be no assurance of such
outcome, and an adverse determination in this proceeding could have a material
adverse effect on the Company.
CFM Technologies, Inc. is a leading manufacturer of advanced cleaning equipment
for the semiconductor and flat panel display industries. CFM's systems provide
superior contamination control and processing capabilities using a totally
enclosed processing chamber. Watermarks and other drying defects are eliminated
through CFM Direct-Displacement IPA vapor drying technology. CFM historically
has developed technical innovations to lower cost of ownership for advanced wet
processing systems.
