US 10126237

I'll search for this specific patent number across the requested sources.

Let me refine the searches for litigation/docket records and the actual claim text.

Let me get the exact independent claim text.

Search results and scope

I searched for the literal identifiers US 10,126,237 / US10126237B2 / application 14/850,917 and for any CAFC 2026 docket involving that patent number. Here is what the searches did and did not turn up.

CAFC / litigation: I found no 2026 Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket, appeal, or opinion involving U.S. Patent No. 10,126,237, and no active U.S. district-court or ITC case naming this patent. The ASML-related litigation hits that surfaced were the older Nikon v. ASML/Carl Zeiss disputes (European/ITC proceedings, settled by the January 2019 Nikon–ASML–Zeiss cross-license), which concern different, non-U.S.-'237 patents (e.g., EP 003 in the Dutch Rechtbank Den Haag judgment ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2018:8777). I am flagging this explicitly: absence of a docket hit is not proof that no proceeding exists, but nothing authoritative connected patent 10,126,237 to a 2026 CAFC docket. I also did not find any post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR) for this number.

Patent record (from the authoritative full text you supplied plus the Google Patents/Justia/patents.google listing):

Abstract (verbatim)

"An inspection apparatus comprises an illumination system (12) for illuminating a target structure with illuminating radiation and a collection system for collecting the illuminating radiation after it has been scattered by the target structure. A programmable spatial light modulator (713) comprises an array of movable mirror elements (742) in a conjugate pupil plane (P″) of the illumination system. Between the array of mirror elements and the target a common optical path is defined forming part of the illumination system and the collection system. Each mirror element is movable between a first position where it reflects illuminating radiation into the common optical path and a second position where it reflects radiation from the common optical path toward a detector (19, 23). Various combinations of illumination aperture and collection aperture can be defined without the light losses associated with beam splitters and transmissive spatial light modulators."

Plain-language overview of the invention

The patent addresses a known efficiency problem in scatterometry/metrology tools (the "inspection apparatus" of US 2006/033921, US 2010/201963, US 2006/066855, etc.): conventional tools use partially-reflecting beam splitters (e.g., element 15 in Fig. 4/5) to route illumination to the wafer and scattered light to the detector, and each encounter with a splitter wastes roughly half the light. Transmissive LC spatial light modulators waste more and restrict polarization.

The invention replaces the aperture/beam-splitter arrangement with a single programmable array of movable reflective elements (e.g., a DMD) placed in a pupil-conjugate plane P″ that serves both the illumination and the collection paths. Each mirror element tilts one way to send source radiation down a common optical path through the objective to the target, and tilts the other way to pick up the scattered radiation returning from the target and send it to the detector. The same physical device therefore defines the illumination pupil and the collection pupil at the same time, and a given mirror element is used in illumination or collection, not both. Variants add third/fourth mirror positions to dump unwanted light, to send light to an auxiliary sensor, or to create a "straight-through" reference path that bypasses the objective and target. Embodiments place the detector in a pupil-conjugate plane (angle-resolved scatterometry) or a field-conjugate plane (dark-field imaging), and a further embodiment combines both branches with a beam splitter. The disclosed benefit is up to ~4× more usable radiation at the detector, faster recipe switching without moving aperture wheels, and improved signal-to-noise / throughput; a Fig. 12 flow shows using measured target properties to correct a lithographic process.

Independent claims

⚠️ Uncertainty note: the "Definitions/claims" text you supplied from Google Patents for this number is the pre-grant (A1) clause set, not the issued claim set — it is numbered in ~30 clauses and does not match the granted 19-claim structure. The granted claim text below comes from the Justia and Google Patents listings. I have verbatim text for granted independent claims 10, 18 and 19, but I could not retrieve a fully verified verbatim copy of granted claim 1; what follows for claim 1 is the closest authoritative wording I found (the published claim 1). Treat claim 1's exact wording as needing confirmation against the USPTO PatentCenter/Patent Full-Text record.

Claim 1 — Inspection apparatus (independent). An apparatus comprising:

• an illumination system configured to illuminate a target structure with illuminating radiation;
• a collection system configured to collect the illuminating radiation after it has been scattered by the target structure; and
• a programmable spatial light modulator that forms part of both the illumination system and the collection system, the SLM comprising an array of movable reflective elements and being operable to define simultaneously a spatial profile of the illuminating radiation and a spatial profile of collection of the scattered radiation.
• (Plain language: one shared programmable mirror array both shapes the light going to the wafer and selects which scattered light reaches the sensor.)
• Note: the granted claims add the negative limitation that an element used for illumination is "not substantially simultaneously used" for collection (expressly recited in granted claims 10, 18 and 19, and evidently carried into claim 1 during prosecution).

Claim 10 — Method of inspection (independent). A method comprising:

• illuminating a target structure with the illuminating radiation, where illuminating includes reflecting, using the programmable SLM, the illuminating radiation toward the target structure; and
• collecting the radiation after scattering, where collecting includes reflecting, using the programmable SLM, the scattered radiation toward an image detector;
• wherein an element in the array of movable mirror elements that is used in illuminating is not substantially simultaneously used in collecting.
• (Plain language: tilt-mirrors-this-way to illuminate, tilt-them-that-way to catch the scattered light, and never dedicate one mirror to both roles at once.)

Claim 18 — Method of manufacturing devices (independent). Applying a device pattern to a series of substrates by lithography, the method comprising:

• calculating a property of at least one structure of interest on at least one substrate, the calculating comprising: using a programmable SLM with an array of movable mirror elements to define simultaneously an illumination spatial profile and a collection spatial profile; illuminating the structure (reflecting via the SLM toward the target); collecting the scattered radiation (reflecting via the SLM toward an image detector) with the "not substantially simultaneously used" element limitation; receiving the collected radiation at the image detector and generating measurement data; and calculating, with a processor, the property based on the measurement data; and
• controlling the lithographic process for subsequent substrates based on the calculated property.
• (Plain language: use the dual-purpose mirror-array metrology tool to measure a printed structure, then feed the result back to correct later lots.)

Claim 19 — Non-transitory computer program product (independent). Machine-readable instructions causing a processor to:

• control a programmable SLM that forms part of both the illumination system and the collection system, comprises an array of movable reflective elements, is configured to define simultaneously the illumination and collection spatial profiles, and where an element used in the illumination system is not substantially simultaneously used in the collection system — the controlling implementing multiple illumination profiles and associated collection profiles;
• receive measurement data generated from the collected scattered radiation; and
• calculate a property of the target structure from the measurement data.

Dependent claims 2–9 (apparatus) and 11–17 (method) add, inter alia: an objective lens shared by illumination and collection with the mirror array in a pupil-conjugate plane; the detector in a further pupil-conjugate plane and/or a field-conjugate plane; two-position (first/second) mirror elements defining illumination-active vs. collection-active portions; illumination-path and collection-path folding mirrors; a controller setting element positions per a specified profile; a beam dump or auxiliary sensor for light from second-position elements; and a processor that generates lithography corrections. Method claim 17 recites measurement using two complementary combinations of illumination/collection profiles (corresponding to the Fig. 10 switching mode for full-pupil zero-order capture).

If you need the exact issued claim 1 wording and the file-wrapper/prosecution history (to confirm when the "not substantially simultaneously used" limitation was added and whether any terminal disclaimer applies), the authoritative source would be USPTO PatentCenter for application 14/850,917 — my searches did not retrieve that document verbatim, and I won't reconstruct it from memory.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10126237.

Let me search additional litigation-specific sources.

Let me try more targeted searches for litigation records on this specific patent.

Summary of Findings: US Patent 10,126,237

No litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,126,237 was found in the searches conducted.

What I searched

I searched for litigation records referencing the specific patent number 10,126,237 across general web sources, patent litigation aggregators, federal court dockets, and news reporting, using multiple query formulations (bare number, "10,126,237," "US 10,126,237," combined with terms like "litigation," "lawsuit," "infringement," "complaint," and "docket"). None returned any case asserting, challenging, or otherwise involving this patent.

Key context about the patent

• Patent: US 10,126,237 B2 — "Inspection apparatus and device manufacturing method"
• Assignee: ASML Netherlands B.V.
• Inventor: Gerbrand Van Der Zouw
• Application: 14/850,917; filed 2015-09-10
• Priority date: 2014-09-26
• Granted: 2018-11-13
• Subject matter: An inspection/metrology apparatus (e.g., a scatterometer) using a programmable spatial light modulator comprising an array of movable mirror elements (e.g., a DMD) shared between the illumination and collection paths.

Important disambiguation note

My searches surfaced numerous cases involving different patents that also carry a "237" shorthand. These are not the patent at issue and should not be attributed to US 10,126,237:

• Network-1 Technologies, Inc. v. Google, LLC — involves a different '237 patent (S.D.N.Y., 1:14-cv-02396 / 1:14-cv-09558; Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-1893, 2024-1948).
• Barco v. Yealink — a different '237 patent (E.D. Tex.).
• Banhazl v. American Ceramic Society — a different '237 patent (D. Mass.).
• U.S. Appl. No. 10/126,237 — this is an application number (a 2002 filing), not a patent number, and is unrelated.

These matches are coincidental and do not constitute litigation involving US 10,126,237.

ASML-related litigation (adjacent, but NOT this patent)

For completeness, ASML has been a party to notable patent disputes, but none identified involve US 10,126,237:

• Nikon v. ASML / Carl Zeiss SMT (asserted in the Netherlands, Germany, and Japan; asserted European patents EP 1,881,521 and EP 2,157,480) — concerning immersion lithography.
• In re Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems and Components Thereof, USITC Section 337 investigation (instituted October 2018), filed by ASML Netherlands B.V. et al., asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 7,295,283; 7,403,264; and 9,188,880 — not the '237 patent.
• ASML v. XTAL (trade-secret litigation).

Caveats

The following limitations apply to this conclusion:

1. No affirmative absence is provable by search alone. I could not directly query PACER or the Unified Patents litigation portal's underlying database fields in a way confirmed to enumerate every case citing this exact patent. My searches were run on public web indexes.
2. Non-U.S. proceedings. I did not exhaustively search foreign court records (e.g., Netherlands, Germany, Japan, UPC) for counterpart patents or this patent.
3. Recent filings. Any litigation filed very recently (relative to my search window) may not yet be indexed.

If you need a definitive answer, I recommend a direct PACER docket search on the patent number, a Westlaw/LexisNexis "Patent Litigation" database query, or the Unified Patents litigation dashboard filtered to patent 10,126,237. I cannot confirm any litigation exists based on the information available to me.

I'll verify the canonical "no proceedings" signal against live sources before writing anything up.

Proceedings overview

There are zero AIA trial proceedings on US 10,126,237 — the USPTO Open Data Portal structured block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM petitions (0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials), and independent web searches surfaced no PTAB proceeding, no Federal Circuit appeal, and no ex parte reexamination against this patent. The bottom line for a defendant is unusual and cuts both ways: no claim of the '237 patent has ever been canceled or even construed by the Board, so there is no PTAB roadmap and no § 315(e)(2) estoppel wall — but it also means the patent has never been tested at the Board, so every invalidity theory you have is still on the table and unencumbered.

There is therefore no per-proceeding breakdown to populate. Rather than invent proceeding numbers, here is what was checked and what was found instead.

Proceeding list — empty

What I checked (and the negative result):

• USPTO ODP / PTAB structured data (canonical): no AIA trial proceedings for patent 10,126,237 as of the most recent ingest.
• Web search for PTAB activity: queries combining US10126237 / 10,126,237 with "IPR," "PTAB," "PGR," "inter partes review," and "Federal Circuit" returned no petition, institution decision, FWD, or CAFC docket for this patent. Hits for "10126237" were unrelated (a GM/ NHTSA service bulletin ID, a Brazilian exam score list, a Greek subsidy register).
• Litigation / assertion context: the only ASML enforcement action in the same technology space I could locate is ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1137 (instituted 2018-10-09, ASML Netherlands B.V. v. Nikon), which asserts U.S. 7,295,283, U.S. 7,403,264, and U.S. 9,188,880 — not the '237 patent. The '237 patent does not appear among the patents-in-suit in that investigation.
• Family note (not a proceeding): the '237 patent (Van Der Zouw, "Inspection apparatus and device manufacturing method," App. No. 14/850,917, filed 2015-09-10, priority 2014-09-26, granted 2018-11-13) is a distinct family from ASML's US 9,753,296 and US 10,338,401 ("Illumination system, inspection apparatus…", liquid-crystal SLM line). Neither of those has a PTAB proceeding I could locate either. Do not conflate them.

Caveat on completeness: a defensible answer here requires a direct PTAB E2E / Patent Trial and Appeal Board End-to-End docket query and a Docket Alarm / CourtListener sweep under the patent number and the "10,126,237" and "10126237" formats. My web-search pass was not a substitute for that, and I could not complete an exhaustive E2E query before running out of search budget. You can verify directly at the Board's system: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/ (Patent Trial and Appeal Board E2E) and https://patents.google.com/patent/US10126237B2/en.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. No claim of the '237 patent has been canceled, confirmed, or narrowed by the Board. Based on the published application's claim listing, the asserted-style claim set runs claims 1–18 and 20 — claim 1 is the apparatus claim (illumination system + collection system + a programmable SLM "that forms part of both," defining illumination and collection spatial profiles simultaneously), claim 10 is the method-of-inspection counterpart, claim 18 is the method-of-manufacturing-devices claim, and claim 20 is the computer-program-product claim. Claim 19 appears as "(canceled)" in the published claim set, i.e., canceled during prosecution, not by the Board. (Treat the granted-patent numbering as a point to confirm against the printed patent — I could not verify the granted claim set line-by-line from the sources retrieved.)

Because nothing was canceled, there is no narrowed "surviving claim set" to work around and no claim that is presumptively safe. Reciprocally, there is no claim you can write off as dead, and no FWD findings (constructions, prior-art teachings, motivation-to-combine findings) that bind anyone.

Estoppel landscape is clean. With no IPR/PGR/CBM filed, 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estoppel is a non-issue for every party — no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is barred from raising any prior-art ground in district court. Practically, that means a defendant today can run any § 102/§ 103 combination, including art that a prior petitioner "raised or reasonably could have raised," without estoppel exposure. The only timing trap is prospective: if you have already been served with a complaint alleging infringement of the '237 patent, 35 U.S.C. § 315(b)'s one-year clock governs whether you can still petition. That clock is claim-specific in practice but runs from service of the complaint, and I have no evidence such service has occurred.

Pattern signals are all negative. No petitioner has ever filed against this patent (so no repeat-petitioner or "second-bite" pattern), ASML has not had to defend a PTAB appeal here, and there is no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) challenge in the chain. The absence of any IPR over roughly eight years of enforceability (granted 2018-11-13) is best read as a licensing/cross-license and operating-company dynamic, not as proof of invalidity or of bulletproof validity: ASML is a large operating company whose metrology portfolio is broadly cross-licensed in the semiconductor capital-equipment space, so its patents tend to be resolved commercially or in ITC/§ 337 actions against direct competitors rather than in AIA trials. The patent remains active with an adjusted expiration of 2035-09-16, so there is no imminent-expiry defense either.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant: there is nothing to "link to" — no FWD exists to quote. The correct first move is to confirm the negative yourself with a hard query to PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptabweb/) and a CourtListener docket sweep, then treat the pre-grant/co-pending and family art (including US20070279630 (KLA) "order selected" microscope, US2010/0201963, US2013/0141730, and the DMD/SLM art cited in the specification) as the starting point for your own § 102/§ 103 grounds. The '237 patent's own specification is unusually candid about the prior art: it concedes that "it is said that a spatial light modulator (SLM) device can be provided in one or both of an illumination path and an imaging path" and that "a liquid crystal transmissive or reflective pixellated element or a DMD (digital micro-mirror device) may be used" in the imaging path in the KLA reference — that admission is useful ammunition for an obviousness theory on the "same SLM in both paths" limitation.
• Check your § 315(b) window now. If any complaint (district court or ITC) alleging infringement of the '237 patent has been served on you or a privy, the one-year bar may already be running.
• Because there is no estoppel, sequence your invalidity case deliberately. You can preserve PTAB and district-court options in parallel with no estoppel cost from a prior petitioner; consider a discretionary-denial stipulation (à la Fintiv/Sotera) only if you actually file.
• If no PTAB activity exists, say so plainly — and it does. The absence is itself a signal: well-asserted patents in this space (e.g., ASML's '283/'264/'880 patents asserted in Inv. No. 337-TA-1137) do eventually attract validity challenges, and this one has not. That suggests the '237 patent has not been a primary assertion weapon — but confirm against a current litigation docket before relying on that inference, since a recently filed action may not yet be indexed.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10,126,237.

Inventors

Gerbrand van der Zouw — sole named inventor. Listed residence Eindhoven, NL (a later ASML listing shows Waalre, NL). Employer at time of filing: ASML Netherlands B.V. (Veldhoven, NL), the original assignee named on the face of the patent; the recording filed with USPTO is a standard "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST" from van der Zouw to ASML Netherlands B.V. (Google Patents legal events, reassignment entry dated 2016‑01‑15).

Unusual-pattern check — not present. This is a single-inventor patent, so there is no co-inventor cohort to disperse. Van der Zouw does not appear to have left ASML: he continues to be named on ASML‑assigned US patents well after this filing (e.g., US 10,215,954, 2019‑02‑26; US 10,338,401, 2019‑07‑02; US 12,460,971, 2025‑11‑04, per PatentLeaderboard's inventor page). No departure-within-12-months signal.

Original assignee

ASML Netherlands B.V. — the entity named on the issued patent (front page "(73) Assignee"). Still the recorded owner; no post-issuance transfer is on record.

• Primary business: ASML is the world's dominant supplier of photolithographic exposure systems (DUV and EUV scanners) for semiconductor manufacturing. It is a publicly traded operating company (Euronext/Nasdaq: ASML), not a licensing vehicle.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. The patent is directed to the inspection/metrology side of ASML's business — a scatterometer/dark‑field metrology tool in which a programmable mirror-array (DMD‑type) spatial light modulator is shared between illumination and collection paths. ASML's YieldStar and HMI metrology product lines are the commercial embodiment space, and the apparatus is designed to be integrated into the lithocell/Lithographic Apparatus of the very systems ASML ships. Contrast this with the NPE question below: ASML is a manufacturer whose revenue is tools, not licenses.
• Current status: Operating, listed, no bankruptcy. Note (per the prior litigation section of this analysis) ASML has been an active enforcer on other patents — ITC Section 337, In re Certain Semiconductor Lithography Systems (Oct. 2018), asserting U.S. 7,295,283 / 7,403,264 / 9,188,880, and the Nikon and XTAL disputes — but not on the '237 patent.

Assignment timeline

Important sourcing caveat — read before relying on reel/frame numbers. The USPTO Assignment Center / legacy assignment index for this patent could not be enumerated field-by-field from the public web indexes available to me. What I can confirm from Google Patents' "Legal Events" tab for US 10,126,237 (which mirrors the assignment record) is the existence, conveyance type, parties, and recording date of exactly one post-filing assignment. I could not retrieve the specific reel/frame, the assignor's execution date, or the correspondent of record for that entry. That is a genuine gap, flagged rather than filled — verify directly at Assignment Center or the Patent Assignment Search by patent number.

• Executed date: not confirmed (filing date is 2015‑09‑10; the assignment was almost certainly executed on or about that date) / recorded 2016‑01‑15 — Reel not confirmed/Frame not confirmed
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)" — the standard USPTO EPAS caption for an inventor-to-corporate assignment)
  • Assignor: Gerbrand van der Zouw (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: ASML Netherlands B.V., Veldhoven, NL
  • Correspondent: not retrieved. For general context only — and not a finding about this reel — ASML's US assignment recordings that surface in the legacy index (e.g., reel 049643/0605 for a different ASML case) name Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, P.O. Box 10500, McLean, VA 22102 (submitter Cathy M. FitzGerald) as correspondent, and older ASML/ASM recordings used ASML's De Run 6501, Veldhoven address. I cannot state that either appears on this patent's record.
  • Context: ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment at filing. No reorg, no securitization, no transfer.

No further assignments are recorded. Critically, there is no post-issuance assignment of any kind — no Change of Name, no Security Agreement, no License recordation, no transfer to any third party. That is itself the finding: ASML has held this patent continuously since the application was filed.

Disambiguation warning (do not merge into this chain)

A chain-of-title document surfaced during research (PTO/AIA/96 for application 14/147,021, "CMOS Image Sensor with Shared Sensing Node") shows ASML accepting title through a long NPE path: Kwon → MagnaChip Semiconductor → Crosstek Capital LLC → Intellectual Ventures II LLC → Intellectual Ventures Fund 99 LLC → Tarsium B.V. → ASML Netherlands B.V. & Carl Zeiss SMT GmbH (reels 032684/0131, 032684/0335, 032684/0621, 033039/0775, 042172/0466, 042172/0767). That is a different patent, a different technology, and a different transaction. It must not be attributed to US 10,126,237. It is noted here only because it demonstrates that ASML has bought patents out of NPE portfolios in other deals — which makes the absence of any such link in the '237 chain a meaningful, positively-evidenced fact rather than a research artifact.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10126237
    2014 : Priority date 26 Sep 2014
    2015 : Application filed 10 Sep 2015
         : Inventor assigns to ASML Netherlands BV
    2016 : Assignment recorded at USPTO 15 Jan 2016
    2018 : Patent granted 13 Nov 2018
    2026 : Still held by ASML Netherlands BV

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No assignment to any entity with an "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings / Ventures" suffix exists on this record. The only recorded transfer runs from an individual inventor to a named operating corporation (ASML Netherlands B.V., De Run, Veldhoven). There is no single-member Delaware or Texas LLC anywhere in the chain, and no registered-agent-service address to point to.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither the assignor (an individual) nor the assignee (ASML Netherlands B.V.) appears on the Acacia / Marathon / Intellectual Ventures / Wi‑LAN‑Conversant / Pendrell / Vringo / Round Rock / MPHJ lists. To be precise about what I checked: I looked for any recorded transfer to a listed asserter, and there is none. (See the disambiguation note above — the IV→Tarsium→ASML chain exists elsewhere in ASML's portfolio but not here.)

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (nothing to recur on). With a single recorded link, recurrence is mathematically impossible to establish, and I was unable to retrieve even that one correspondent name. Expressly unclear / insufficient data rather than a negative. If the record shows Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman as correspondent, that would be unremarkable — it is ASML's ordinary outside prosecution/recording counsel and does substantial operating-company work, so a single appearance is not a troll signal under the stated rule.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. One link, 2016‑01‑15, and then nothing for the following decade. There is no chain of LLCs, no common-principal cluster, no rapid succession of assignees. This is the single strongest anti-NPE datum in the file: troll chains characteristically show three-to-six recordings inside 24 months, and this shows one.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming this patent was identified (consistent with the earlier litigation section). There is therefore no suit to be within six months of, and the only transfer predates issuance by nearly three years — the opposite of a venue/standing-engineering transfer. Note as context that the unrelated ASML ITC action of Oct. 2018 asserted a different set of patents.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. ASML has not filed for bankruptcy, and there is no record of a §363 sale or a receiver's conveyance touching this patent. Neither Kodak/Nortel/Polaroid-type proceeding nor any bankruptcy court transfer appears in the chain.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no transfer from ASML to any third-party NPE, and correspondingly no third-party assertion on ASML's behalf. ASML instead runs enforcement in its own name — again, on other patents.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. The patent is held by a practising entity, so this inverse signal does not apply.

Verdict

Insufficient data (per the taxonomy: "no records, or only the original assignment").

Justification. The only recorded assignment is the original inventor-to-employer conveyance — van der Zouw to ASML Netherlands B.V., recorded 2016‑01‑15 — with no post-issuance transfer of any kind on record (no reel/frame beyond that single entry is retrievable from the public index I could reach; verification at the USPTO Assignment Center is required to pin the reel/frame and correspondent). Because the chain contains exactly one operating-company link, there is no NPE structure to grade: every one of the eight pattern signals is unsupported, and the two that could plausibly have arisen — repeat correspondent and cascading transfers — are affirmatively negated by the fact that ten years of post-issuance history contain zero additional recordings. This patent is best characterised as clean, non-NPE ownership by a practising manufacturer; the "insufficient data" verdict reflects the unverified reel/frame metadata, not any suspicion about title.

Verification links: Assignment Center search · USPTO Patent Assignment Search · Google Patents legal events for US10126237B2

I'll research the prior art citations for US 10,126,237. Let me search for the patent's citation records.

Let me get the full citation records from the patent pages.

I have the full citation list now. Let me verify details of the most relevant references and get the independent claims.

I've now assembled the verified citation record. Before giving the analysis, one important note on my research budget: I retrieved the complete "Referenced Cited" list from the patent's own record, but I was only able to independently verify the subject matter of a subset of the references. I flag clearly below what I could confirm versus what I could not, rather than guessing titles.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,126,237 B2

Patent: US 10,126,237 B2 — "Inspection apparatus and device manufacturing method"
Assignee: ASML Netherlands B.V. | Inventor: Gerbrand Van Der Zouw
App. No.: 14/850,917 | Filed: 2015-09-10 | Priority: 2014-09-26 | Granted: 2018-11-13

Scope and method note

• This analysis concerns US 10,126,237 only. Per the operating rules, I have not conflated it with the similarly numbered U.S. Application No. 10/126,237 (a 2002 filing) or any other "237" patent referenced in the earlier litigation section. No contradiction with the earlier section was found.
• The references below are the U.S. patent documents, foreign patent documents, and other documents cited on the face of the patent (front-page "References Cited"), as listed in the patent's record. Being cited on the face of a patent does not mean the examiner used the reference to reject a claim — most of these are the applicant's own background citations.
• I could not retrieve the International Search Report / Written Opinion for PCT/EP2015/070287 (dated 2015-11-26; IPRP 2017-03-28), which is the document that would carry an examiner's category ratings (X/Y/A) and is the most probative source for what was considered anticipatory. I did not guess its contents.

The claims a § 102 reference must meet

To anticipate, a single reference must disclose every element of a given claim. The independent claims are:

• Claim 1 (apparatus): (a) an illumination system for illuminating a target structure with illuminating radiation; (b) a collection system for collecting the radiation after scattering; (c) a programmable spatial light modulator that forms part of both the illumination system and the collection system; (d) the SLM comprising an array of movable reflective/mirror elements; (e) operable to define simultaneously a spatial profile of the illuminating radiation and a spatial profile of collection.
• Claim 10 (method): the mirror-image method, including the added limitation that an element used to illuminate is "not substantially simultaneously used" to collect.
• Claim 18 (device-manufacturing method) and claim 19 (computer-program product) — analogues of the above.
• Dependent claims add the conjugate-pupil-plane placement, first/second mirror positions, beam dump / auxiliary sensor for the "off" reflection, and complementary-profile double capture.

Key observation: Claim 1(c)/(e) — a single, shared programmable mirror array simultaneously defining both the illumination profile and the collection profile — is the point of novelty. Almost none of the cited art discloses a single array doing both jobs.

A. The strongest anticipatory candidates (verified)

A1. US 2007/0279630 A1 — Kandel et al. (KLA-Tencor) — pub. 2007-12-06

• Description (verified): The "order-selected" microscope for overlay metrology. Discloses that a spatial light modulator can be provided in one or both of an illumination path and an imaging path; SLM examples include chrome-on-glass patterns and transmissive/reflective LC elements or a DMD in the imaging path.
• § 102 assessment: This is the closest cited art and is expressly discussed and distinguished in the patent's own background. It does not anticipate claim 1, because it discloses SLMs separately in the illumination path and the imaging path (not a single array forming part of both systems and defining both profiles simultaneously), and it does not address polarization as an illumination parameter. Potential § 102/§ 103 citation against the broad concept of claims 1/10, but short of anticipation.

A2. US 6,060,224 — Sweatt & Stulen — granted 2000-05-09 (filed 1996-06-19)

• Description (verified): "Method for maskless lithography." A two-dimensional array of individually addressable, rotatable micromirrors replaces the mask; each micromirror is rotated so reflected light is directed either into or away from the imaging means entrance pupil ("on"/"off" positions).
• § 102 assessment: Discloses elements (d) and the on/off reflective-array concept, and the idea of steering light into/out of a pupil. It does not disclose an inspection apparatus, nor a single array shared between an illumination system and a collection system. No anticipation of claims 1/10; relevant only as background to the movable-mirror-array element.

A3. US 6,504,943 — Sweatt — granted 2003-01-07

• Confidence: Low on my part as to exact subject matter (Sandia/DOE SLM-optics lineage). I did not independently verify the disclosure and will not characterize it beyond noting it is a Sweatt SLM/microlithography-family reference. Recommend verifying against the patent front page before relying on it.

A4. The ASML scatterometry/metrology background family (verified as to provenance)

These were cited by the applicant as background for the known inspection techniques the invention builds on. None discloses the shared-SLM architecture:

§ 102 assessment: These describe the conventional scatterometer/dark-field apparatus (moving apertures, beam splitters, separate paths). They do not disclose a programmable mirror array shared between illumination and collection. They anticipate nothing; they are the "negative" backdrop against which claim 1 was allowed.

B. Remaining cited U.S. patent documents — descriptive confidence flagged

I could not independently verify the subject matter/disclosure of the references in this group within my research budget. I list them with their verified citation data but decline to invent descriptions. The inventor surnames suggest several are SLM / optical-imaging / projector-lineage references, but I will not assert that without verification.

Published applications (verified numbers/dates, descriptions not verified):

Foreign / other documents:

C. Bottom line on § 102

1. No cited U.S. patent document on the face of US 10,126,237 appears to anticipate claim 1 or claim 10. Anticipation requires one reference disclosing a single programmable mirror array that forms part of both the illumination and collection systems and defines both spatial profiles simultaneously (and, for claim 10, with elements not used simultaneously for both). The closest art — Kandel (US 2007/0279630) and Sweatt (US 6,060,224) — discloses SLMs/micromirror arrays only in single roles or in separate paths, not the shared-array architecture.
2. The ASML background family (Den Boef, Cramer, Smilde, Van der Kerkhof, Quintanilha, El Gawhary) discloses conventional scatterometry/dark-field hardware and anticipates none of the claims; it defines the prior art the claim deliberately departs from.
3. Most likely to be pressed as § 102/§ 103 art in any future validity challenge: Kandel (US 2007/0279630) and Sweatt (US 6,060,224), plus the specific sweep of movable-mirror-array and SLM references (Suzuki 5,796,508; Reuter 6,788,416 and 7,154,660; Gui 7,116,402; Fiolka 9,013,680) if their disclosures turn out to teach on/off reflective arrays in an optical metrology path. I could not verify those disclosures and therefore cannot responsibly assign them to specific claims at this time.

D. Explicit limitations of this analysis

• The descriptions for Group A (Kandel; Sweatt '224) and the ASML background family are grounded and I stand behind them. For Group B, the numbers, dates, and inventor surnames are verified but the disclosures are not — do not treat any of those as anticipatory without opening the documents.
• I did not retrieve the ISR/Written Opinion for PCT/EP2015/070287, which would show precisely which references the examiner rated X (anticipatory) or Y (obviousness). That is the single highest-value document to obtain next.
• No affirmative claim of "no anticipation" is provable by search alone; this is a screening-level reading of the cited art, not an invalidity opinion.

If you want, I can next attempt to pull the individual front-page citations (with full titles and exact subject matter) for any of the Group B references, or try again for the PCT/EP2015/070287 search report.

I'll ground the obviousness analysis in the prior art actually cited on the face of this patent, then check the key references.

Two additional highly material references surfaced. Let me verify their identity and scope.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,126,237 B2

"Inspection apparatus and device manufacturing method" (ASML Netherlands B.V.)

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Scope note and caveats before I begin

1. Claim-text caveat (carried forward). As flagged in the summary section, the "clause set" on the Google Patents page for this number is the pre-grant A1 clause set, and I could not verify the exact issued wording of claim 1. The analysis below treats claim 1 as the apparatus claim recited in the A1/granted structure (illumination system + collection system + one programmable SLM forming part of both, operable to define simultaneously an illumination spatial profile and a collection spatial profile), and expressly notes the granted negative limitation "not substantially simultaneously used" that appears in independent claims 10, 18 and 19 of the record. Every point touching claim 1's precise language should be confirmed against USPTO PatentCenter for application 14/850,917.

2. What "prior art section" means here. I built the primary combinations from the references appearing on the face/Background of this patent (the "Prior art keywords: radiation, illuminating, illumination, collection, array" listing and the cited publications). I also located, through search, two additional references not on the face of the patent that are squarely material: US 2007/0188856 A1 (MacAulay) and US 8,681,413 B2 (KLA-Tencor, "Illumination control"). I label each combination by which art it draws on so you can see the distinction.

3. Legal framing. I apply the Graham v. John Deere factors as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): a combination of known elements is obvious where the elements are arranged as taught by the prior art, the combination is of a type previously known, and the result is predictable; a motivation to combine may be found in the references themselves, in the nature of the problem, or in the ordinary creativity of a skilled artisan, and a reasonable expectation of success is required, not certainty. This is a predictable, combinatorial optical-instrument art, which weighs heavily toward obviousness under KSR.

A. Person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

An optical engineer or applied physicist with at least a bachelor's degree (more typically an M.S. or Ph.D.) in optics/physics and 3–5 years of experience designing semiconductor scatterometry/overlay metrology tools, or equivalent experience. The PHOSITA would be familiar with: angle-resolved and dark-field scatterometer architectures; pupil-plane and field-plane (field-stop) imaging; the use of programmable spatial light modulators, and specifically DMD/micromirror arrays, as programmable apertures; and the light-budget consequences of beam splitters. This is a narrow, well-populated art: several of the operative references are ASML's own publications, and the metrology competitors named in the patent (KLA) work in the same field.

B. The problem the patent itself admits was known

The patent's own Background is a virtual admission that the problem and its solution space were known:

• Beam-splitter loss: "Up to half of the available radiation may be lost at each beam splitter. Therefore measurements are taken with low light intensity, from which it is difficult to obtain low-noise measurements with high throughput." The specification quantifies the conventional arrangement as only ~25% usable radiation (two passes through partially reflecting surface 15).
• SLM losses: "Liquid crystal-type SLMs additionally block at least half of the usable light."
• Known SLM-in-metrology teaching: the patent admits that US 2007/0279630 (KLA) "discloses an 'order selected' microscope for overlay metrology in semiconductor manufacturing," and that "a spatial light modulator (SLM) device can be provided in one or both of an illumination path and an imaging path," with a "liquid crystal transmissive or reflective pixellated element or a DMD" in the imaging path.
• Known desire for programmable profiles: the patent admits US 2013/0141730 (ASML, Quintanilha) "proposes to generate illumination profiles with customized color and/or polarization distribution" by fiber switching, and that "custom illumination is becoming more and more important."

These admissions map almost one-to-one onto the stated objects of the invention ("improve utilization of radiation," "reduce moving parts," "programmable illumination profile").

C. Key claim constructions

D. The prior-art landscape actually available

D.1 On the face of the patent (primary set)

(a) US 2007/0279630 A1 — Kandel et al., KLA-Tencor, "Order selected overlay metrology" (pub. 2007-12-06). This is the closest cited reference. Its abstract states: "order-selected imaging and/or illumination is performed... In one implementation, tunable spatial modulation is provided only in the imaging path of the system. In other implementations, tunable spatial modulation is provided in both the illumination and imaging paths of the system." Its disclosure includes a "Plane conjugate to pupil with tunable spatial modulation" (Fig. 1, element 70) — i.e., an SLM in a pupil-conjugate plane used to select diffraction orders and/or apodize. It names chrome-on-glass, LC, and DMD devices. It is a semiconductor overlay metrology instrument — the same field of endeavor. Gap: it does not expressly disclose that a single SLM device is shared by both paths; it contemplates separate tunable modulation in each path.

(b) US 2006/0033921 A1 and US 2010/0201963 A1 (Den Boef, ASML) — angle-resolved scatterometers. Supply the basic architecture the '237 claims build upon: source 11 → illumination system 12 → partially reflecting surface 15 → shared objective lens 16 → target T; collection path → detector 19 in a conjugate pupil plane P′; and an aperture device 13 in a pupil-conjugate plane P″ that defines the angular (pupil) illumination profile. US 2010/0201963 in particular supplies the segmented/quadrant pupil aperture the '237 specification reproduces at Fig. 9. Gap: uses the lossy beam splitter 15 and a mechanical aperture wheel.

(c) US 2006/0066855 A1 (Boef et al.) — diffraction-based overlay; and (d) US 2010/0328655 A1 and US 2011/0069292 A1 — dark-field imaging metrology. Supply the measurement modalities (pupil-image asymmetry/overlay and dark-field imaging with a pupil stop), i.e., why one wants independently programmable illumination and collection pupils.

(e) US 2013/0141730 A1 (Quintanilha, ASML) — illumination source with waveguide/fiber switching. Expressly states that "both aperture plates and SLMs reduce the amount of light available by ultimately blocking a portion of the light from the source," and proposes programming illumination profiles while preserving polarization. This is a direct motivation reference: it frames the goal (programmable, polarization-flexible illumination) and identifies the very loss mechanism the '237 patent sets out to cure — all in the same ASML metrology context.

(f) US 2011/0027704, US 2011/0043791, US 2011/102753, US 2012/0044470, US 2012/0123581, US 2013/0258310, US 2013/0271740, WO 2013/178422. Routine metrology improvements; chiefly relevant as evidence that programmable/adjustable illumination and detection apertures, and order-selective collection, were a well-developed and fast-moving design space by the 2014 priority date.

D.2 Additional art located by search (not on the face — still available § 102/§ 103 art)

(g) US 2007/0188856 A1 (MacAulay et al.) — "Apparatus and methods relating to spatially light modulated microscopy" (family: WO 99/22262, EP 1027624 B1, JP 2001521205A; priority 1998-10-27). This reference is potentially devastating to claim 1 and is not cited on the face of the '237 patent. It expressly discloses that "a single digital micromirror device functions as both a first spatial light modulator and a second spatial light modulator, one which is upstream from the sample and one of which is downstream from the sample," with the DMD placed "in a conjugate image plane of the sample in each of the illumination light path and the detection light path." It further teaches complementary patterns between the illumination and detection paths to produce darkfield imaging, and sequential complementary patterns over time (Fig. 4). In other words, MacAulay discloses the core structural concept of claim 1 — one programmable reflective-element array serving as both the illumination SLM and the collection/detection SLM — in an inspection instrument, together with the "not substantially simultaneously used" complementary-pattern operation. The '237 specification itself concedes that its disclosure "applies also to other forms of inspection apparatus, such as microscopes," which weakens any argument that MacAulay is non-analogous art.

(h) US 8,681,413 B2 (KLA-Tencor, "Illumination control," granted 2014-03-25; family WO 2013/002988, US 2012/0327503, EP 2724361). Discloses a scatterometry overlay optical system (claim 28 expressly: "wherein the optical system is a scatterometry overlay system") with DMD arrays at a pupil conjugate plane 202 and a field conjugate plane 204, per-pixel control of intensity and angular distribution, and time-multiplexing over a detector frame ("the controller can individually control the amount of time that each micromirror... spends in a reflecting state or a non-reflecting state"). It names the same DLP/DMD technology the '237 patent calls "readily available." Gap: in 8,681,413 the arrays are primarily illumination-side and the collection path still uses a beam splitter 108. But the reference shows that placing a DMD array in a pupil-conjugate plane of a scatterometry overlay tool was, by the 2011–2014 window, routine.

E. The combinations and why the PHOSITA would have made them

Combination 1 (primary): KLA '0279630 + MacAulay '0188856 + a scatterometer reference ('0033921 / '201963), optionally + ASML '141730

Motivation to combine (KSR). All three references are in the same field (optical inspection/metrology of micropatterned surfaces) and attack the same problem — how to impose an arbitrary, switchable illumination/detection profile. The '237 patent itself concedes each sub-part was known: beam-splitter loss ("up to half... at each beam splitter"), that SLMs "can be provided in one or both of an illumination path and an imaging path" ('0279630), and that DMDs "with thousands of pixels and high switching speeds are readily available." The only step left — collapsing two SLMs into one shared DMD — is precisely the step MacAulay teaches for a microscope and which a PHOSITA would apply to the scatterometer of '0033921 because the shared device removes a beam splitter (each removed splitter recovers ~50% throughput) and eliminates moving aperture wheels. That is an improvement in a known device by a known technique yielding predictable results — the paradigm case under KSR.

Reasonable expectation of success. High. MacAulay had already demonstrated the single-DMD-both-paths structure; '0279630 had already placed an SLM in a pupil-conjugate plane of a metrology instrument; DMD addressing/control was off-the-shelf. Success is a matter of routine optical layout, not of unproven science.

"Not substantially simultaneously used." Rather than defeating obviousness, this limitation is met by the art. MacAulay's complementary-pattern darkfield mode (and its sequential complementary patterns over time) explicitly causes an element to serve illumination at one moment and detection at another. KLA '0279630's order-selected operation likewise dedicates illumination-side modulation and imaging-side modulation. So the granted negative limitation is not a saving distinction over MacAulay + '0279630.

Combination 2: KLA '0279630 + KLA '8681413 (+ MacAulay for the single-shared-device aspect)

Both KLA references are same-assignee, same-field, and directed to programmable pupil/field control in overlay metrology. '8681413 expressly situates DMD arrays in pupil-conjugate and field-conjugate planes of a scatterometry overlay tool; '0279630 expressly situates tunable spatial modulation in both the illumination and imaging paths. A PHOSITA reading them together would foresee placing programmable DMD arrays in the collection path as well as the illumination path of a scatterometer — the collection-side pupil selection being the very capability the metrology art desired (order selection, dark-field). The residual step, using one array shared by both paths, is again supplied by MacAulay (or is an obvious economy given the '8681413 beam-splitter loss the reference is trying to mitigate). KSR's "familiar elements according to known methods... a predictable result" applies.

Combination 3: MacAulay '0188856 + scatterometer '0033921/'201963 + Quintanilha '141730

For claim 1 as an apparatus claim, MacAulay alone supplies the "one array serving as both SLMs" core. The scatterometer references supply the "inspection apparatus... illuminate/collect after scattering... target structure" environment and the field/pupil-conjugate detector placements. '141730 supplies an independent, ASML-authored motivation statement (SLMs and aperture plates block light; program the profile instead). Because MacAulay teaches the technique in a microscope and the '237 patent itself declares microscopes to be within its scope, MacAulay is analogous art either by field of endeavor or by being reasonably pertinent to the light-budget problem.

F. The dependent limitations are individually known or conventional

• Objective lens shared by both paths; array in a pupil-conjugate plane: admitted in '0033921/'201963 (shared objective 16, aperture device 13 at P″) and '0279630 ("plane conjugate to pupil").
• Detector in a further pupil-conjugate plane and/or a field-conjugate plane: admitted in '201963 (P′) and the dark-field references ('0328655/'069292) (field plane).
• Two mirror positions defining illumination-active vs. collection-active regions: inherent in a DMD (±12° tilt, as the '237 specification acknowledges for commercial DMDs) and in MacAulay's complementary patterns.
• Beam dump / auxiliary sensor for light from second-position elements: routine light-dump practice; scatterometers already use a "reference path RP" detector for intensity normalization, so an auxiliary sensor for otherwise-dumped light is an obvious substitution.
• Folding mirrors (illumination and collection paths): the specification itself says mirror 712 "is not essential"; folding mirrors are conventional layout expedients.
• Controller setting element positions; processor computing target properties and generating litho corrections: the specification admits processor PU performs these functions, and closed-loop lithographic process control from metrology results is the express subject of many of the cited ASML publications. The two-complementary-profile calculation (Fig. 10 / claim 16-equivalent) is taught by MacAulay's complementary patterns and '8681413's time-multiplexed frames.

G. Rebuttal considerations and residual non-obviousness hooks

An applicant could argue:

1. Different conjugate planes. MacAulay's shared DMD sits in a field/image conjugate plane, whereas '237 requires the array in a pupil conjugate plane. → Answer: '0279630 and '8681413 supply the pupil-conjugate DMD placement in the relevant art; combining a known pupil-plane SLM with the known single-shared-array concept is a predictable substitution of location.

2. "Simultaneously"/"not substantially simultaneously." An applicant may argue that a single element cannot both define illumination and collect without one mirror being used for both. → Answer: the granted limitation is non-simultaneity, which the complementary/time-multiplexed operation of MacAulay and '0279630 (and '8681413's frame-timed DMD states) satisfies; and the split-pupil configuration (one half illuminating, the other half collecting) is a straightforward partition that a PHOSITA would adopt.

3. Microscope vs. scatterometer (analogous art). → Answer: the '237 patent itself declares microscopes within the term "inspection apparatus," and the problem addressed (light budget / programmable pupil) is reasonably pertinent to both.

Secondary considerations: I found no evidence of record of unexpected results, long-felt-but-unmet need, failure of others, or industry praise specific to this improvement, and the ~4× throughput advantage is the predicted consequence of removing two beam-splitter passes, not an unexpected one. Absent such evidence, they do not rebut the primе facie case.

H. Conclusion

U.S. 10,126,237 sits at the intersection of several well-developed lines of prior art, and its Background admits the constituent problem (beam-splitter and LC-SLM light loss) and the constituent building blocks (SLMs in the illumination and/or imaging paths, DMDs, pupil-conjugate aperture devices, programmable illumination profiles). On the record available to me, the independent apparatus and method claims would be prima facie obvious under § 103 over:

• Primary: KLA US 2007/0279630 in view of US 2006/0033921 / US 2010/0201963 (scatterometer architecture), further in view of US 2007/0188856 (MacAulay) for the single shared array, and optionally US 2013/0141730 for motivation to avoid SLM/aperture light loss; or
• Alternative: KLA US 2007/0279630 in view of KLA US 8,681,413, in view of MacAulay US 2007/0188856.

The strongest combination is the one that pairs a scatterometer/overlay-metrology reference (KLA '0279630) with the single-DMD-as-both-SLMs microscope reference (MacAulay '0188856): the first supplies the apparatus context and the pupil-conjugate programmable aperture, the second supplies the exact "one reflective array forms part of both the illumination and collection systems" concept (plus the complementary-pattern operation meeting the "not substantially simultaneously used" limitation), and the ASML/patent-admitted problems supply an unusually clean, on-the-record motivation to combine with a reasonable expectation of success. Dependent limitations are individually disclosed or conventional.

Confidence flags: (i) The exact issued wording of claim 1 is unverified here — confirm via USPTO PatentCenter before relying on any claim-1-specific conclusion. (ii) MacAulay '0188856 and KLA '8681413 are not cited on the face of '237; confirm their availability dates (both precede the 2014-09-26 priority date) and verify their full disclosures against the primary documents before formalizing a rejection. (iii) I could not rule out an as-yet-unindexed post-grant challenge or a foreign counterpart prosecution that reached a different result; nothing in the US record I retrieved contradicts the analysis above.