Taiwan Intellectual Property Court rejects patent infringement claim against Atotech

The second instance of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court confirmed that Atotech's Stannatech process and equipment were not affected by a competitor's patent. The judgment confirmed the first instance's rejection of a patent claim against Atotech after a competitor took legal action for the alleged infringement of one of its patents. 

Atotech's Stannatech technology is an immersion tin process. Stannatech ensures long bath life, saves costs and is environmentally friendlier than other conventional processes available on the market today. It combines bath stability over a long lifetime with unique soldering performance for multiple soldering even after prolonged storage. For the immersion tin process, Atotech offers process chemistry and horizontal manufacturing equipment as well as auxiliary equipment to further enhance the performance of the process. 

As is customary with such breakthrough products and in order to protect our investment, Atotech applied for patent coverage for the Stannatech process in various industrialized countries of the world, including Taiwan and China. 

An international competitor claimed that Atotech's Stannatech processes and equipment would infringe one of its patents. The competitor's patent was filed over 10 years ago and makes use of a typical technology that Atotech has never employed. 

Both the first and the second instances of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court ruled in Atotech's favor and fully rejected the alleged infringement claimed by the competitor. 

The judgments are based on detailed technical discussions and inspection of Atotech's equipment by independent technical examination officers appointed by the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court. It was declared that Atotech had not infringed the competitor's patent at any time because of substantial differences in the technology. 

In addition, the second instance of the Intellectual Property Court also held that the international competitor's patent was invalid because the competitor's patent lacks an inventive step. The competitor cannot enforce any rights against Atotech based on the patent.