Sou Hu Cai Jing·2025-08-19 04:05Core Viewpoint - The lawsuit initiated by Yitang Co., a leading domestic semiconductor equipment manufacturer, against American giant Applied Materials (AMAT) for 99.99 million yuan is seen as a significant event reflecting the awakening of technological sovereignty awareness among Chinese chip companies [2][8]. Group 1: Lawsuit Details - The lawsuit focuses on allegations that Applied Materials illegally obtained Yitang's plasma wafer surface treatment technology secrets by hiring former employees of its subsidiary, Mattson, who had signed confidentiality agreements [2]. - The compensation amount of 99.99 million yuan, just one yuan short of one hundred million, has sparked widespread discussion and adds a dramatic element to the case [2][7]. - The core accusation involves a critical process in wafer processing that generates high-concentration and stable plasma, which is essential for chip yield and production consistency, particularly for 12-inch wafers [2]. Group 2: Industry Context - This lawsuit is not an isolated incident; Applied Materials previously sued Mattson for allegedly poaching 17 senior engineers and attempting to steal confidential information [3]. - The semiconductor industry has a history of intellectual property disputes, with notable cases including TSMC's accusations against SMIC in 2009, which resulted in significant financial penalties [5]. Group 3: Company Performance - Despite being established only nine years ago, Yitang Co. has achieved a global market share of 34.6% in dry stripping equipment and 13.05% in rapid thermal processing equipment, ranking second worldwide [5]. - In the first three quarters of 2024, Yitang reported a net profit of 420 million yuan, a year-on-year increase of 102.29%, with domestic customer revenue share rising from 38.6% in 2021 to 68.1% in the first half of 2024 [5]. Group 4: Strategic Implications - The lawsuit is interpreted by some industry experts as a strategic move to demonstrate that Chinese companies are ready to challenge American giants, signaling a shift towards a more localized market focus [5][8]. - Legal experts suggest that while employee mobility is common, taking confidential documents could constitute a violation, which may strengthen Yitang's case if evidence is presented [5][7].