1 made to IBM and repeated, communicated and/or in some fashion authoritatively conveyed to them.
2 103. Defendant Manufacturers and Suppliers IBM, Hoechst Celanese and Shipley Company,
3 through their respective hazard communication specialists including T. Blakesiee and Angela Boggs
4 of Shipley, the members of the Product Safety Committee of American Hoechst, and the IBM Chemical:
5 Precaution document staff and through the various business affiliations established and maintained
6 jointly by IBM and Shipley including the IBM/Shipley Deep UV Resist Alliance, made the following
7 affirmative misrepresentations about these photo resists and their constituents to customers and users:
8 (i) That the novolak resins and photoactive compounds in 1350 J photo resist 1375 J
9 photo resist and Microposit SJR 1440 Photo resists are "non-hazardous" despite the fact
10 that these defendants knew these photo resists contained the known genotoxic and
11 mutagenic chemical, 2,3, 4 trihydroxybenzophenone ["TOB"] and despite the further
12 fact that the significant genotoxicity and mutagenicity of TOB had in fact been
13 experimentally determined by Linda Li and other scientists at IBM's Toxicology Unit
14 in San Jose, California as early as 1983.
15 (ii) Said Defendants' Material Safety Data Sheets and other product literature on photo
16 resists also withheld and failed to disclose the presence of mutagenic and genotoxic
17 2,1,5 diazonaphthoquinone sulfonic acid esters in these photo resists even though
18 defendants IBM, Hoechst Celanese and Shipley have known at all times relevant that
19 those agents are constituents of these photo resists.
20 (iii) Said Defendants' Material Safety Data Sheets and other product literature on photo
21 resists also withheld and failed to disclose even the presence in the formula of 2,3,4
22 trihydroxybenzophenone, a photo additive whose mutagenicity and genotoxicity had
23 been affirmed by Shipley's manufacturing partner, IBM, in August 1983 when IBM San
24 Jose's Materials Toxicology Department established these facts through use of the
25 Chinese Hamster Ovary Test and the Sister Chromatid Exchange test.
26 (iv) Well before 1983, the protocol for these tests was well-recognized and accepted and
27 hence the chemical supplier defendants including Hoechst and Shipley have no excuse
28 for their failure to conduct such tests on their products before placing them on the
Page 21

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, PERSONAL INJURY AND WRONGFUL DEATH

MM 006982