`
`_ FOR THE DISTRICT OFMASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`ENERGETIQ TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`'
`
`
`
`ASML NETHERLANDS B.V.,
`
`EXCELITAS TECHNOLOGIES CORP., and
`
`QIOPTIQ PHOTONICS GMBH & CO. KG,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:] 5—cv-10240-LTS
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`
`DECLARATION OF DONALD K. SMITH, PH.D. IN SUPPORT OF
`ENERGETIQXS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`1, Donald K. Smith, Ph.D., am President of Energetiq Technology,
`
`Inc.
`
`(“Energetiq”), which has its principal place of business at 7 Constitution Way, Woburn, MA
`
`01801.
`
`I have worked at Energetiq Technology, Inc. in this capacity since 2004.
`
`2.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Energetiq’s Motion for a Preliminary
`
`Injunction.
`
`3.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, unless
`
`otherwise noted. If called upon as a witness, I could and would competently testify to the
`
`statements made herein.
`
`II.
`
`QUALIFICATIONS
`
`4.
`
`I am a named inventor on each of the patents asserted in this litigation: United
`
`States Patent No. 7,435,982, entitled “Laser—Driven Light Source,” (the “’982” patent”), a true
`
`ASML 1410
`
`
`
`and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit A; United States Patent No. 7,786,455, entitled
`
`“Laser-Driven Light Source,” (the ‘"455 patent”), a true and correct copy of which is attached as
`
`Exhibit B; United States Patent No. 8,309,943, entitled “Laser~Driven Light-Source,” (the “’943
`
`patent”), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit C; and United States Patent No.
`
`8,525,138, entitled “Laser—Driven' Light Source,” (the “’ 138 patent”), a true and correct copy of
`
`which is attached as Exhibit D.
`
`5.
`
`In addition, I have significant expertise in the design and functionality of high
`
`brightness light sources, including laser—driven light sources. I hold a Ph.D. in electrical
`
`engineering from the University of Wisconsin. Full descriptions of my educational background,
`
`professional achievements, qualifications and publications are set forth in my curriculum vitae, a
`
`true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit E to this declaration.
`
`—l
`
`N
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`ENERGETKXS PATENTED TECHNOLOGY
`
`7.
`
`.
`
`For decades, the brightest broadband (white) light source for semiconductor wafer
`
`inspection and metrology was the Xenon or Mercury arc lamp. The brightness of this source was
`
`‘fundamentally limited by the basic principles of physics that it employed and failed to progress
`
`over time-~even as the semiconductor industry demanded constant improvements in the
`
`throughput and resolution of wafer inspection and metrology.
`
`8.
`
`For many years the necessary improvements in these tools had to come through
`
`steady improvements in the ability to detect and measure light, rather than from the ability to
`
`deliver more light into smaller places, because the arc lamp sources of light were not subject to
`
`improvement. This situation eventually led to an ever-growing pent-up demand for a
`
`fundamentally new light source in the deep ultra-violet (DUV), visible and infrared ranges of
`
`wavelengths. Such a demand existed in the market for at least five years before Energetiq’s
`
`inventions that are the subject of this lawsuit ~ the Laser Driven Light Source technology.
`
`9.
`
`Energetiq’s patented Laser Driven Light Source technology provides a light
`
`source for these applications that provides brightness that is greater by an order of magnitude.
`
`Thus, Energetiq’s technology has increased the productivity of the inspection and metrology
`
`tools in the industry greatly. In addition, the lifetime of Energetiq’s light sources is about ten
`
`times longer than the previously used are lamps.
`
`l0.
`
`No competitor technology can mimic these results. These results are both
`
`unexpectedly good and solve a long-felt need in the industry.
`
`ll.
`
`Energetiq’s Laser Driven Light Source technology, including inventions covered
`
`by the ‘982, ‘455, ‘943, and ‘l38 patents, have received much industry praise and many
`
`accolades, including the R&D l00 Award and the Prism Award. See “Winners of 2010 Prism
`
`Awards Announced,” a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit K; see also Letter
`
`
`
`zmnexmcing the 2011 R811‘) 180 Award? a true amti coxtreet copy of whicih is atmcized as Exhibit L.
`
`Eae;‘ge£_i;fs laserdsziven fight 30111128 prociucts have also generated tens ofmiilioxxs of tiaiiarg in
`
`revenue si1ica*<3£}{}9,
`
`V.
`
`
`
`
`
`I.—IIIIIII.—IIIIII
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`—II III—II III
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`51 51
`
`
`
`.1.1
`
`
`
`IX.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`I, Demald K. Smith, hzreby deciare umier the pexmities sf perjury undez: the iaws of the
`
`Uniteé States that the above state:m§:nis, and (hi: siatem-ants in Appendix A atiaezimci her**ém, are to
`
`the: "best x)fn1y k.2:c>w¥x«:::ige ‘firm: anti wrrect.
`
`Dmed: Fcbmary g 2015
`
`.0...-............»....."
`
`I}0na.1<3. K. Smith, Phi}.
`
`17