Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03235/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-03235-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 Patent Infringement

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ULTRATECH, INC.,,

Plaintiff,

 v.

TAMARACK SCIENTIFIC CO.,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 03-03235 CRB

ORDER RE: QUESTIONS FOR ORAL

ARGUMENT

The Court will hold oral argument on the parties’ various motions regarding invalidity

at 10:00 a.m. on May 13, 2005. Oral argument shall be limited to the issues raised by the

following questions:

1. If in 1990 one had designed an exposure and alignment system using a Cognex pattern

recognition system that could not be re-programmed to recognize any new or different

fiducials, would such a system satisfy IBM’s demand for a system with the flexibility to

recognize different fiducials in the future?

2. When Professor Oldham opines that the Cognex 2000 and 3400 do not have a

“‘command interface’ to rapidly reconfigure the system to enable the user to select and use

arbitrary key and target patterns for alignment,” Hale Decl. Exh. 16 at ¶ 19, does he mean

that they do not permit the user to select the key and target patterns at the time of operation? 

If not, what is he talking about? 

Case 3:03-cv-03235-CRB Document 567 Filed 05/11/05 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

G:\CRBALL\2003\3235\orderrequestions2.wpd 2

3. Does Ultratech dispute that an exposure and alignment system utilizing Cognex 2000

or 3400 could have been reprogrammed--prior to (but not during) alignment--to recognize

any fiducial selected by the user of the system? Does it dispute that IBM used earlier

Tamarack off-axis exposure and alignment systems to do just that?

4. What does Professor Oldman mean when he says that the ‘813 requires “key and

target patterns that are arbitrary and user selectable, for use in alignment?” Hale Decl. Exh.

16 at ¶ 15. Similarly, what is meant by a system utilizing Cognex could be designed to have

“no functionality to learn and store arbitrary and user selectable key and target patterns on the

reticle and substrate?” Id. ¶ 18. Does he mean that the ‘813 requires the user at the time of

operation to “select” a pattern that has not been previously learned and stored in memory?

5. What does footnote 5 in In Re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 675 (Fed. Cir. 1985) mean? 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 11, 2005

 /s/ 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:03-cv-03235-CRB Document 567 Filed 05/11/05 Page 2 of 2