Off-topic: no offence but MetaX sound like a Mark-Elon mutant hybrid. Some people should really get creative when naming something.
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
IP associated with any sanctioned equipment should be voided regardless of whether they buy them back or not.
Just buying the machines back is not nearly enough. ASML should have to pay damages as well. YMTC made investments with the assumptions those machines would be operative, and made deals with clients with the same assumption. They should calculate all the damages properly.
No need to invalidate ASML patents, a compulsory licence is the correct approach:
"CHAPTER VI COMPULSORY LICENSE FOR EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENT
Article 48. Where any entity which is qualified to exploit the invention or utility model has made requests for authorization from the patentee of an invention or utility model to exploit its or his patent on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may, upon the request of that entity, grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model.
Article 49. Where a national emergency or any extraordinary state of affairs occurs, or where the public interest so requires, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model.
Article 50. Where the invention or utility model for which the patent right has been granted involves important technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to another invention or utility model for which a patent right has been granted earlier and the exploitation of the later invention or utility model depends on the exploitation of the earlier invention or utility model, the patent administration department under the State Council may, upon the request of the later patentee, grant a compulsory license to exploit the earlier invention or utility model.
Where, according to the preceding paragraph, a compulsory license is granted, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may, upon the request of the earlier patentee, also grant a compulsory license to exploit the later invention or utility model.
Article 51. The entity or individual requesting, in accordance with the provisions of this Law, a compulsory license for exploitation shall furnish proof that it or he has not been able to conclude with the patentee a license contract for exploitation on reasonable terms and conditions.
Article 52. The decision made by the patent administration department under the State Council granting a compulsory license for exploitation shall be notified promptly to the patentee concerned, and shall be registered and announced.
In the decision granting the compulsory license for exploitation, the scope and duration of the exploitation shall be specified on the basis of the reasons justifying the grant. If and when the circumstances which led to such compulsory license cease to exist and are unlikely to recur, the patent administration department under the State Council may, after review upon the request of the patentee, terminate the compulsory license.
Article 53. Any entity or individual that is granted a compulsory license for exploitation shall not have an exclusive right to exploit and shall not have the right to authorize exploitation by any others.
Article 54. The entity or individual that is granted a compulsory license for exploitation shall pay to the patentee a reasonable exploitation fee, the amount of which shall be fixed by both parties in consultations. Where the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council shall adjudicate.
Article 55. Where the patentee is not satisfied with the decision of the patent administration department under the State Council granting a compulsory license for exploitation, or where the patentee or the entity or individual that is granted the compulsory license for exploitation is not satisfied with the ruling made by the patent administration department under the State Council regarding the fee payable for exploitation, it or he may, within three months from the receipt of the date of notification, institute legal proceedings in the people’s court."
"CHAPTER VI COMPULSORY LICENSE FOR EXPLOITATION OF THE PATENT
Article 48. Where any entity which is qualified to exploit the invention or utility model has made requests for authorization from the patentee of an invention or utility model to exploit its or his patent on reasonable terms and conditions and such efforts have not been successful within a reasonable period of time, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may, upon the request of that entity, grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model.
Article 49. Where a national emergency or any extraordinary state of affairs occurs, or where the public interest so requires, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may grant a compulsory license to exploit the patent for invention or utility model.
Article 50. Where the invention or utility model for which the patent right has been granted involves important technical advance of considerable economic significance in relation to another invention or utility model for which a patent right has been granted earlier and the exploitation of the later invention or utility model depends on the exploitation of the earlier invention or utility model, the patent administration department under the State Council may, upon the request of the later patentee, grant a compulsory license to exploit the earlier invention or utility model.
Where, according to the preceding paragraph, a compulsory license is granted, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council may, upon the request of the earlier patentee, also grant a compulsory license to exploit the later invention or utility model.
Article 51. The entity or individual requesting, in accordance with the provisions of this Law, a compulsory license for exploitation shall furnish proof that it or he has not been able to conclude with the patentee a license contract for exploitation on reasonable terms and conditions.
Article 52. The decision made by the patent administration department under the State Council granting a compulsory license for exploitation shall be notified promptly to the patentee concerned, and shall be registered and announced.
In the decision granting the compulsory license for exploitation, the scope and duration of the exploitation shall be specified on the basis of the reasons justifying the grant. If and when the circumstances which led to such compulsory license cease to exist and are unlikely to recur, the patent administration department under the State Council may, after review upon the request of the patentee, terminate the compulsory license.
Article 53. Any entity or individual that is granted a compulsory license for exploitation shall not have an exclusive right to exploit and shall not have the right to authorize exploitation by any others.
Article 54. The entity or individual that is granted a compulsory license for exploitation shall pay to the patentee a reasonable exploitation fee, the amount of which shall be fixed by both parties in consultations. Where the parties fail to reach an agreement, the Patent Administration Department Under the State Council shall adjudicate.
Article 55. Where the patentee is not satisfied with the decision of the patent administration department under the State Council granting a compulsory license for exploitation, or where the patentee or the entity or individual that is granted the compulsory license for exploitation is not satisfied with the ruling made by the patent administration department under the State Council regarding the fee payable for exploitation, it or he may, within three months from the receipt of the date of notification, institute legal proceedings in the people’s court."
Now that I think about it, just buying back and paying damages is still not enough as there will be disruption of production while the machines are being uninstalled.
So the production of the entire line for the time the line is down, is within the calculation of damages. It's what, 10k per wafer at 300 WPH? So $3 million per hour that the line is down, plus full price back for the tools.
What's the practical consequences of this? What can people really do with ASML's IP if they're just working on replacing it?
Subcontract OEM equivalent replacements for wear parts without being sued.
- Status