UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

(Rule 14a-101)

INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT

SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a)

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(Amendment No.    )

Filed by the Registrant  x

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant  ¨

Check the appropriate box:

Ultratech, Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON JULY 21, 2015

TO THE STOCKHOLDERS OF ULTRATECH, INC.:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Annual Meeting of Stockholders (the “Annual Meeting”) of Ultratech, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), will be held on July 21, 2015, at 2:00 p.m. local time, at the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara, 5101 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California 95054, for the following purposes, as more fully described in the Proxy Statement accompanying this Notice:

Only stockholders of record at the close of business on May 27, 2015 are entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting. The stock transfer books will not be closed between the record date and the date of the meeting. A list of stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting will be available for inspection at the executive offices of the Company for a period of ten (10) days before the Annual Meeting.

All stockholders are cordially invited to attend the meeting in person. Whether or not you plan to attend, please submit your proxy over the Internet, by telephone or by mail as promptly as possible. For specific voting instructions, please refer to the instructions on the Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials or on the proxy. Should you receive more than one Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials because your shares are registered in different names and addresses, each proxy should be submitted over the Internet, by telephone or by mail to ensure that all your shares will be voted. You may revoke your proxy at any time prior to the Annual Meeting. If you attend the Annual Meeting and vote by ballot, your proxy will be revoked automatically and only your vote at the Annual Meeting will be counted.

Sincerely,

Arthur W. Zafiropoulo

Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer

June 8, 2015

ULTRATECH, INC.

3050 Zanker Road

San Jose, California 95134

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR THE ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS

TO BE HELD ON JULY 21, 2015

General

The enclosed proxy (“Proxy”) is solicited on behalf of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Ultratech, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), for use at the Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held on July 21, 2015 (the “Annual Meeting”), or at any adjournment or postponement thereof. The Annual Meeting will be held at 2:00 p.m. at the Hyatt Regency Santa Clara, 5101 Great America Parkway, Santa Clara, California 95054. These proxy solicitation materials were made available on or about June 8, 2015 to all stockholders entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting.

Internet Availability of Proxy Materials

Pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), the Company is allowed to furnish its Proxy Statement and the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (as amended by the Company’s first amendment thereto on Form 10-K/A) (the “Proxy Materials”) over the Internet. Accordingly, the Company is sending a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Availability Notice”) to its stockholders of record and beneficial owners. All stockholders will have the ability to access the Proxy Materials on a website referred to in the Availability Notice or request to receive a printed set of the Proxy Materials at no charge. Instructions on how to access the Proxy Materials over the Internet or to request a printed copy may be found on the Availability Notice. In addition, stockholders may request to receive the Proxy Materials in printed form by mail or electronically by email on an ongoing basis.

The Availability Notice will provide stockholders with instructions regarding how to:

Choosing to receive the future Proxy Materials by email will save the Company the cost of printing and mailing documents to its stockholders and will reduce the impact of the Company’s annual stockholders’ meetings on the environment. If a stockholder chooses to receive future Proxy Materials by email, the stockholder will receive an email next year with instructions containing a link to those materials and a link to the proxy voting site. Any stockholder’s election to receive the Proxy Materials by email will remain in effect until such stockholder terminates the request.

Voting

The specific proposals to be considered and acted upon at the Annual Meeting are summarized in the accompanying Notice and are described in more detail in this Proxy Statement. On May 27, 2015, the record date for determination of stockholders entitled to notice of and to vote at the Annual Meeting, approximately 27,612,550 shares of the Company’s common stock, $0.001 par value (“Common Stock”), were issued and outstanding, and there were approximately 194 holders of record of the Common Stock. No shares of the Company’s preferred stock were outstanding. Each stockholder is entitled to one vote for each share of Common Stock held by such stockholder on May 27, 2015. Stockholders may not cumulate votes in the election of directors.

All votes will be tabulated by the inspector of elections appointed for the meeting who will separately tabulate affirmative and negative votes, abstentions and broker non-votes. Broker non-votes are shares which are

1

not voted by the broker who is the record holder of the shares because the broker does not receive voting instructions from the beneficial owners of those shares or does not vote the shares in other circumstances in which proxy authority is defective or has been withheld with respect to any matter. Directors are elected by a plurality vote. With regard to the election of directors, votes may be cast in favor of or withheld from each nominee; votes that are withheld will be excluded entirely from the vote and will have no effect. The affirmative vote of holders of a majority of the shares present or represented by proxy and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting is required to approve all other proposals submitted for stockholder approval at this Annual Meeting. Abstentions and broker non-votes are counted as present for purposes of determining the presence or absence of a quorum for the transaction of business. Abstentions with respect to any matter other than the election of directors will be treated as shares present or represented and entitled to vote on that matter and will thus have the same effect as negative votes. Broker non-votes are deemed not to be entitled to vote on the matter and accordingly are not counted for purposes of determining whether stockholder approval of that matter has been obtained.

Revocability of Proxies

If the form of proxy is properly signed and returned or if you submit your proxy and voting instructions over the Internet or by telephone, the shares represented thereby will be voted at the Annual Meeting in accordance with the instructions specified thereon. Stockholders submitting proxies over the Internet or by telephone should not mail the proxy voting instruction form. If the proxy does not specify how the shares represented thereby are to be voted, the proxy will be voted FOR the election of each director proposed by the Board of Directors (the “Board”) pursuant to Proposal No. 1 unless the authority to vote for the election of any such director is withheld and, if no contrary instructions are given, the proxy will be voted FOR Proposals Nos. 2 and 3, and with respect to any other proposals properly brought before the Annual Meeting, as the Board recommends. If you vote your proxy by mail, you may revoke or change your proxy at any time before the Annual Meeting by filing with the Secretary of the Company at the Company’s principal executive offices, a notice of revocation or another signed proxy with a later date. If you choose to vote your proxy over the Internet or by telephone, you can change your vote by voting again using the same method used for the original vote (i.e., over the Internet or by telephone) so long as you retain the voter control number from your Availability Notice or proxy card. You may also revoke your proxy by attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

Solicitation

The Company will bear the entire cost of solicitation, including the preparation, assembly, Internet hosting, printing and mailing of the Availability Notice, this Proxy Statement, the Proxy and any additional solicitation materials furnished to stockholders. Copies of solicitation materials will be furnished to brokerage houses, fiduciaries, and custodians holding shares in their names that are beneficially owned by others so that they may forward this solicitation material to such beneficial owners. In addition, the Company may reimburse such persons for their costs in forwarding the solicitation materials to such beneficial owners. The original solicitation of proxies by mail may be supplemented by a solicitation by telephone, telegram, or other means by directors, officers or employees. Such individuals, however, will not be compensated by the Company for those services. Except as described herein, the Company does not presently intend to solicit proxies other than by mail. The Company has engaged D.F. King & Co., Inc. to assist in the solicitation of proxies, and the Company currently expects to pay D.F. King & Co., Inc. approximately $3,000 for its services, though D.F. King & Co.’s fees could be significantly more if the Company decides to use its services more extensively.

Deadline for Receipt of Stockholder Proposals

Proposals of stockholders of the Company that are intended to be presented by such stockholders at the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting and to be included in the Company’s proxy statement and form of proxy relating to that meeting must be received no later than March 17, 2016. Any other proposals of stockholders that are intended to be presented by such stockholders at the Company’s 2016 Annual Meeting must be received no later than 90 days prior to the first anniversary of the date of the preceding year’s annual stockholders’ meeting

2

and no sooner than 120 days prior to the first anniversary of the date of the preceding year’s annual stockholders’ meeting. All proposals of stockholders intended to be presented by such stockholders at an Annual Stockholders Meeting, and all notices thereof, must meet the requirements of the Company’s Bylaws and any other applicable legal requirements.

3

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED AT ANNUAL MEETING

PROPOSAL 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

General

The Board currently consists of seven directors, with no vacancies, and the term of all of the directors expires at the Annual Meeting. The directors elected at the Annual Meeting will serve for a term of one year, expiring at the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, or until their successors have been duly elected and qualified. The names and ages of the persons who are nominees for director, the terms of their proposed directorship, and their positions and offices with the Company as of May 21, 2015 are set forth below.

Each person nominated for election has agreed to serve if elected, and management has no reason to believe that any of the nominees will be unavailable to serve. In the event any nominee is unable or declines to serve as a director at the time of the Annual Meeting, the proxies will be voted for any substitute nominee who may be designated by the present Board to fill the vacancy. Unless otherwise instructed, the proxy holders will vote the proxies received by them FOR the nominees named below. The seven candidates receiving the highest number of affirmative votes of the shares represented and voting on this particular matter at the Annual Meeting will be elected directors of the Company, to serve for their one-year terms or until their successors have been elected and qualified. The proxies solicited by this Proxy Statement may not be voted for more than seven nominees.

Nominees for Term Ending Upon the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders

Arthur W. Zafiropoulo, age 76, founded Ultratech in September 1992 to acquire certain assets and liabilities of the Ultratech Stepper Division (the “Predecessor”) of General Signal Technology Corporation (“General Signal”) and, since March 1993, has served as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors. Additionally, Mr. Zafiropoulo served as President of Ultratech from March 1993 to March 1996, from May 1997 until April 1999 and from April 2001 to January 2004. Since October 2006, he resumed the responsibilities of President and Chief Operating Officer. Between September 1990 and March 1993, he was President of the Predecessor. From February 1989 to September 1990, Mr. Zafiropoulo was President of General Signal’s Semiconductor Equipment Group International, a semiconductor equipment company. From August 1980 to February 1989, Mr. Zafiropoulo was President and Chief Executive Officer of Drytek, Inc., a plasma dry-etch company that he founded in August 1980, and which was later sold to General Signal in 1986. From July 1987 to September 1989, Mr. Zafiropoulo was also President of Kayex, a semiconductor equipment manufacturer, which was a unit of General Signal. From July 2001 to July 2002, Mr. Zafiropoulo served as Vice Chairman of Semiconductor Equipment and Materials International (“SEMI”), an international trade association representing the semiconductor, flat panel display equipment and materials industry. From July 2002 to June 2003, Mr. Zafiropoulo served as Chairman of SEMI, and Mr. Zafiropoulo has been on the board of directors of SEMI since July 1995. In December 2007, Mr. Zafiropoulo was elected as Director Emeritus of SEMI. On January 1, 2013, Mr. Zafiropoulo began serving as a member of the Board of Trustees at Northeastern University. Among other qualifications, Mr. Zafiropoulo brings extensive knowledge of and experience in the semiconductor and semiconductor capital equipment industries and businesses and his deep personal knowledge and commitment to the Company as the Company’s founder and Chief Executive Officer, as well as his personal leadership and management skills, to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Michael Child, age 60, was appointed to the Company’s Board of Directors in April 2012. Mr. Child has been employed by TA Associates, Inc., a private equity firm, since 1982 where he currently serves as a Senior Advisor. Mr. Child served as a Managing Director of TA Associates from 1987 through 2010. Since September 2000, Mr. Child has served on the board of directors of IPG Photonics, which designs and manufactures high performance fiber lasers and amplifiers, and he currently serves as a member of its audit committee and as a member of its nominating and corporate governance committee. Since June 2010, Mr. Child has served on the board of directors of Finisar Corporation, a computer network equipment company, and he has served on the

4

audit committee of Finisar since August 2010 and as chairman of the compensation committee since June 2011. He also served on the board of directors of Eagle Test Systems, a manufacturer of high performance automated test equipment for the semiconductor industry, from 2003 until November 2008 when it was acquired by Teradyne, Inc. Mr. Child holds a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of California at Davis and an M.B.A. from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Mr. Child has more than 25 years’ experience investing in and acquiring technology and technology-related companies and has served on the boards of directors of numerous public and private companies, including companies in the semiconductor industries. This broad financial and industry experience enables Mr. Child to make a valuable contribution to the board. He also brings significant knowledge regarding the Company and its operations from his previous years of service on the Company’s Board of Directors between 1993 and 1997.

Joel F. Gemunder, age 75, has been a director of the Company since October 1997. Mr. Gemunder was President and a member of the board of directors of Omnicare, Inc., a pharmacy services provider, between 1981 and July 2010, and was Chief Executive Officer of Omnicare between 2001 and July 2010. Mr. Gemunder has also served as a member of the board of directors of Chemed Corporation since 1997, a company operating in two segments: VITAS Group and the Roto-Rooter Group. VITAS offers hospice services for patients with severe and life-limiting illnesses. Roto-Rooter operates in the sewer, drain and pipe cleaning, HVAC services and plumbing repair business and the HVAC and appliance repair and maintenance business. Among other things, Mr. Gemunder brings extensive experience as a public company chief executive officer and board member, as well as a valuable and different perspective due to his experience outside high-technology industries, to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Nicholas Konidaris, age 70, has served as a director of the Company since July 2000. Since April 2014, Mr. Konidaris has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of OmniGuide, Inc. (“OmniGuide”), a privately held company and a leader in advanced surgical solutions focusing on minimally invasive surgeries. From January 2004 until February 2014, Mr. Konidaris has served as President, Chief Executive Officer and as a director of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc., a global supplier of manufacturing equipment to increase productivity for customers in the consumer electronics, semiconductor, passive components and LED markets. From July 1999 to January 2004, Mr. Konidaris served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Advantest America, Corp., a holding company of Advantest America, Inc., which is a manufacturer of testers and handlers. From July 1997 to January 2004, Mr. Konidaris also served as Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Advantest America, Inc. Mr. Konidaris has served on the board of directors of OmniGuide since 2006, and served as a member of its audit committee until March 2014. Mr. Konidaris also served as a member of the board of directors of AISI, Inc., a privately held company, from 2008 to 2010. Mr. Konidaris serves as the Vice Chairman of the Advisory Board of Healthedge Partners, a private equity firm. Mr. Konidaris holds a diploma in EE from the National Technical University of Athens and a Master of Science in Management from MIT Sloan. Since 2011, Mr. Konidaris has served on the MIT Sloan North American Executive Board. Among other things, Mr. Konidaris brings his extensive experience as a public company chief executive officer and board member in the semiconductor industry to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Dennis R. Raney, 72, has served as a director of the Company since April 2003. Mr. Raney has served as Managing Director of PrimeMark Advisors, a real estate consulting firm, since November 2008. Mr. Raney served as Principal of Liberty-Greenfield, LLP, a company that advised clients on real estate issues that have significant financial or operational consequences to their business, from May 2005 until the company was wound up in November 2008. Mr. Raney served as Chief Financial Officer of eONE Global, LP, a company that identifies, develops and operates emerging electronic payment systems and related technologies that address e-commerce challenges, from July 2001 to June 2003. From March 1998 to July 2001, Mr. Raney served as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of Novell, Inc., a producer of network software. From January 1997 to December 1997, Mr. Raney served as Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice President of QAD, Inc., a provider of enterprise resource planning software. Mr. Raney served as the chief financial officer of Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Group from October 1993 to January 1996. Mr. Raney also served as a director of EasyLink Services Corporation (“EasyLink”), a provider of information exchange services, from

5

March 2003 until August 2007, and served as chair of the audit committee of EasyLink’s board of directors from June 2004 until August 2007. In addition, between February 2004 and October 2008 when it was acquired by DG Fast Channel, Mr. Raney served as a director of Enliven Corporation (formerly ViewPoint Corporation), a provider of visual application development, content assembly and delivery technology, and as chair of the audit committee of Enliven’s board of directors. Mr. Raney served as a director, and as chair of the audit committee of the board of directors, of Infiniti Solutions, a provider of semiconductor testing, assembly and prototyping services, between July 2004 and September 2008. Mr. Raney served as a director of Equinix, a provider of data center and internet exchange services from April 2003 to June 2005, and served as chair of the audit committee of Equinix’s board of directors during that time. From July 2002 to June 2003, Mr. Raney served as a director of ProBusiness Services, Inc., which was acquired by Automatic Data Processing, Inc. in June 2003. Mr. Raney also served as a director and audit committee member of Redleaf, Inc., a technology operating company that provides services and capital for pre-seed state technology companies, from April 1999 to June 2003. Mr. Raney previously served as a director and audit committee member of W.R. Hambrecht & Company, an investment banking firm, from March 1999 to July 2001 and served as a director and audit committee member of ADAC Laboratories, a company that designs, develops, manufactures, sells and services electronic medical imaging and information systems, from March 1999 to March 2001. Mr. Raney holds a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology and an MBA from the University of Chicago. Among other things, Mr. Raney brings extensive finance experience in both high-technology and other industries as well as related international experience, including extensive board and audit committee service and service as a public company chief financial officer, to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Henri Richard, age 57, has served as a director of the Company since April 2006. Since April 2013, Mr. Richard has served as Senior Vice President of Worldwide OEM and Enterprise Sales at SanDisk Corporation. From September 2007 until March 2013, Mr. Richard has served as Senior Vice President, Chief Sales and Marketing Officer at Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (“Freescale”). Prior to joining Freescale in September 2007, Mr. Richard was Executive Vice President, Chief Sales and Marketing Officer at Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”), where his duties included oversight of the company’s global field sales and support organization, corporate marketing, and go-to-market activities for all AMD customer segments, including commercial, consumer and innovative solutions groups, and the company’s 50x15 digital inclusion initiative. Mr. Richard joined AMD in April 2002 as Group Vice President, Worldwide Sales. He was promoted to Senior Vice President in May 2003 and was appointed as Executive Vice President and Chief Sales and Marketing Officer in February 2004. Prior to joining AMD, Mr. Richard was Executive Vice President of Worldwide Field Operations at WebGain, Inc., a privately held provider of Java software for Fortune 500 companies. Before WebGain, he was vice president of Worldwide Sales and Support for IBM’s Technology Group. Mr. Richard has also held senior executive positions with several notable companies in the United States and Europe, including tenures as President of the Computer Products Group at Bell Microproducts, Executive Vice President at Karma International, and Vice President at Seagate Technology/Conner Peripherals. Among other things, Mr. Richard brings extensive experience as an executive officer in the semiconductor industry, in particular in the areas of sales and marketing and market analysis, to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Rick Timmins, age 63, has served as a director of the Company since August 2000. Since April 2009, Mr. Timmins has served as a Venture Partner and investor with G-51 Capital, a seed-stage venture capital firm that invests in the software, hardware, internet, and clean technology sectors. From January 1996 until April 2008, Mr. Timmins served as Vice-President of Finance for Cisco Systems, Inc. From January 2011 to November 2012, Mr. Timmins served as a member of the board of directors of IRIS International, Inc., a company that designs, develops, manufactures and markets in-vitro diagnostic products, consumables and supplies for urinalysis and body fluids. Mr. Timmins serves as a member of the audit committee of IRIS International. Since April, 2010 Mr. Timmins has served as a member of the board of directors of privately held company Socialware, a company that provides a social middleware platform. In January, 2011 Mr. Timmins joined the board of directors of the privately held company, Nexersys, which provides personal fitness exercise equipment. Mr. Timmins served as a member of the board of directors of Transmeta Corporation, a developer of computing, microprocessing and semiconductor technologies, from May 2003 until January 2009, and was the

6

chairman of the audit committee of Transmeta’s board of directors between May 2003 and January 2009. He also served as a member of the board of directors of Treaty Oak Bancorp, Inc., a local community bank in Austin, Texas from December 2008 to February 2011. Mr. Timmins holds a B.S. degree in accounting and finance from the University of Arizona and an M.B.A. degree from St. Edward’s University. Among other things, Mr. Timmins brings extensive finance experience as well as technology industry experience to the Company’s Board of Directors.

Board Committees and Meetings

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the Board held six (6) meetings and did not act by unanimous written consent. The Board has an Audit Committee, a Compensation Committee, a Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and a Business Development Committee. Current copies of the charters of the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee as well as the Corporate Governance Policies of the Board can be found on the Company’s website at www.ultratech.com. During the respective term of his service on the Board and its committees during the past fiscal year, each of the directors attended or participated in 75% or more of the aggregate of (i) the total number of meetings of the Board (held during the period for which he was a director) and (ii) the total number of meetings held by all committees of the Board on which he served during the periods that he served.

Executive Sessions

Executive sessions of independent directors are generally held four times a year, at the end of a regular meeting of the Board. The sessions are chaired by Mr. Rick Timmins, the Lead Outside Director.

Communications with the Board

Any stockholder may communicate with the Board by postal mail. Communications that are intended specifically for non-management directors should be sent to the attention of the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Communications that are intended for a specific director should be sent to the attention of that director. Communications should be sent to: Investor Relations, Attn: Board of Directors, c/o Ultratech, Inc., 3050 Zanker Road, San Jose, California 95134. The Company’s Investor Relations department will screen all communications for offensive or otherwise inappropriate messages, including advertisements and other solicitations unrelated to the Company or the activities of the Board.

Policy Regarding Director Attendance at Annual Meetings of Stockholders

The Company strongly encourages attendance by each incumbent director and each nominee to the Board at its Annual Meetings of Stockholders. All seven (7) then serving members of the Board attended the Company’s 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Compensation Committee

The Compensation Committee currently consists of four (4) directors, Messrs. Gemunder, Richard (Chair), Timmins and Child. The Board has determined that each current member of the Compensation Committee is an “independent director” as that term is defined in Rule 5605 of The NASDAQ Stock Market’s Marketplace Rules. The Compensation Committee has a written charter, which was adopted by the Board in January 2003 and amended in February 2004, April 2013, April 2014 and April 2015. The Compensation Committee is primarily responsible for approving the Company’s general compensation policies and setting compensation levels for the Company’s executive officers. The Compensation Committee also administers the Company’s 1993 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (the “1993 Plan”) and the Company’s 1998 Supplemental Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (which expired in October 2008). During the 2014 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee held seven (7) meetings and did not act by unanimous written consent.

7

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee currently consists of three (3) directors, Messrs. Konidaris, Raney and Timmins (Chair). The Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing the integrity of the Company’s financial statements and the appointment, compensation, qualifications, independence and performance of the Company’s independent auditors, as well as compliance with related legal and regulatory requirements, overseeing the Company’s risk management programs and performance of the Company’s accounting practices and internal controls. During the 2014 fiscal year, the Audit Committee held five (5) meetings and did not act by unanimous written consent.

The Board adopted and approved a written charter for the Audit Committee on June 8, 2000. The Audit Committee’s charter was substantially revised on January 28, 2003 and was further amended on February 2, 2004, April 19, 2011 and on April 21, 2015. The Board has determined that each current member of the Audit Committee is “independent” as that term is defined in Rule 10A-3 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and an “independent director” as that term is defined in Rule 5605 of The NASDAQ Stock Market’s Marketplace Rules. In addition, the Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee, Messrs. Konidaris, Raney and Timmins, is an “Audit Committee Financial Expert” as defined by Item 407 of SEC Regulation S-K.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The Nominating Committee, which was formed in April 2001, and which was changed to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in January 2003, currently consists of three (3) directors, Messrs. Konidaris, Raney (Chair) and Richard. The Board has determined that each current member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee is an “independent director” as defined in Rule 5605 of The NASDAQ Stock Market’s Marketplace Rules. During the 2014 fiscal year, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee held four (4) meetings and did not act by unanimous written consent. In January 2003, the Board substantially revised the written charter for the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee recommends to the Board the individuals to be nominated to stand for election to the Board by stockholders at each annual meeting and to fill vacancies on the Board, implements the Board’s criteria for selecting new directors, develops and recommends or assesses corporate governance policies of the Company and the Board, and oversees the Board’s and Board Committees’ annual Board, Committee and individual director evaluations. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee also oversees and administers a peer evaluation of the individual directors where each individual director is able to provide feedback on the performance of other directors.

Business Development Committee

The Business Development Committee, formed in 2013, currently consists of three (3) directors, Messrs. Child (Chair), Raney and Richard. The primary purposes of the Business Development Committee are: (1) review and recommend strategic investments or strategic investment transactions to the Board and Company management, (2) review and recommend merger and acquisition opportunities to the Board and Company management, (3) review and monitor progress of recent acquisitions, and (4) review and provide guidance to management and the Board with respect to the Company’s development and implementation of its corporate strategy. During the 2014 fiscal year, the Business Development Committee held five (5) meetings and did not act by unanimous written consent.

Consideration of Director Nominees

Stockholder Candidate Recommendations

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will consider candidates for election to the Board recommended by stockholders. In evaluating such candidates, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee seeks to achieve a balance of knowledge, experience and capability on the Board and to address the

8

membership criteria set forth under “Director Qualifications.” The notice of recommendation delivered to the Company must be received within the time permitted for submission of a stockholder proposal for inclusion in the Company’s proxy statement for the relevant Annual Meeting of Stockholders and must set forth as to each proposed nominee who is not an incumbent director (i) all information relating to the individual recommended or nominated that is required to be disclosed pursuant to Regulation 14A under the Exchange Act (including such person’s written consent to be named in the proxy statement as a nominee and to serving as a director if elected), (ii) the name(s) and address(es) of the stockholder(s) making the recommendation and the amount of the Company’s securities which are owned beneficially and of record by such stockholder(s), (iii) appropriate biographical information (including a business address and a telephone number) and a statement as to the individual’s qualifications, with a focus on any criteria publicly stated to be considered by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee in evaluating prospective Board candidates, including those identified below, (iv) a representation that the stockholder is a holder of record of stock of the Company entitled to vote on the date of submission of such written materials, and (v) any material interest of the stockholder in the recommendation. Any stockholder recommendations proposed for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee should be addressed to: Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, Ultratech, Inc., 3050 Zanker Road, San Jose, California 95134.

Director Qualifications

The Board’s policy is to encourage the selection of directors who will contribute to the Company’s overall corporate goals of responsibility to its stockholders, industry leadership, customer success, positive working environment, and integrity in financial reporting and business conduct. The Board and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee review, from time to time, the experience and characteristics appropriate for Board members and Director candidates in light of the Board’s composition at the time and skills and expertise needed at the Board and committee levels. The Company does not have a formal policy with regard to the consideration of diversity in identifying Director candidates, but the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee strives to nominate Directors with a variety of complementary skills so that, as a group, the Board will possess the appropriate talent, skills, and expertise to oversee the Company’s business. The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee considers, among other things, whether a candidate:

9

Identifying and Evaluating Nominees for Directors

The Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee nominates individuals for election as directors at each annual meeting of stockholders and for appointment to fill vacancies on the Board in consultation with the Company’s Chief Executive Officer. The Committee identifies and evaluates candidates who, based on their biographical information and other information available to the Committee, appear to meet any minimum criteria adopted by the Committee and/or have the specific qualities, skills or experience being sought (based on input from the full Board and the Chief Executive Officer).

The Committee operates and chooses nominees or appointees in accordance with its charter.

Leadership Structure

The Board does not have a policy regarding the separation of the roles of Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board as the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company to make that determination from time to time based on the position and direction of the Company and the membership of the Board. The Board has determined that having the Company’s Chief Executive Officer serve as Chairman is in the best interest of the Company’s shareholders at this time. This structure makes the best use of the Chief Executive Officer’s extensive knowledge of the Company and its industries, as well as fostering greater communication between the Company’s management and the Board. The Board has appointed Mr. Timmins to act as the Lead Outside Director, and Mr. Timmins presides over and directs the Board’s independent sessions.

Risk Oversight

The Company faces a variety of risks. The Board believes an effective risk management system will (1) timely identify the material risks that the Company faces, (2) communicate necessary information with respect to material risks to senior executives and, as appropriate, to the Board or relevant Board Committee, (3) implement appropriate and responsive risk management strategies consistent with the Company’s risk profile, and (4) integrate risk management into Company decision-making.

The Board has designated the Audit Committee to take the lead in overseeing risk management and the Audit Committee makes periodic reports to the Board regarding briefings provided by management and advisors as well as the Audit Committee’s own analysis and conclusions regarding the adequacy of the Company’s risk management processes. The Company has a risk management program implemented under the direction of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, who reports to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Audit Committee and Board on such program.

10

In addition to the formal compliance program, the Board encourages management to promote a corporate culture that incorporates risk management into the Company’s corporate strategy and day-to-day business operations. The Board also continually works, with the input of the Company’s executive officers, to assess and analyze the most likely areas of future risk for the Company.

Director Compensation

The following table sets forth certain information regarding the compensation of each non-employee director for service on the Board of Directors during the 2014 fiscal year.

Director Annual Retainer and Meeting Fees. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, the cash compensation paid to the non-employee Board members was as follows: (i) an annual cash retainer fee of $30,000, (ii) an additional cash fee of $20,000 to the Board member serving as “lead director”, (iii) an additional cash fee of $20,000 to the Board member serving as Chair of the Audit Committee, (iv) an additional cash fee of $17,500 to each Board member serving as the Chair of any standing Board committee other than the Audit Committee, (v) a cash fee of $2,000 per Board meeting attended, (vi) a cash fee of $2,000 per standing Board committee meeting attended (except that no fee is paid for any Board committee meeting held on the same day as a Board meeting), and (vii) a cash fee of $1,000 per standing Board committee meeting held on the day before or after a Board meeting at the Company’s headquarters.

1993 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan. Pursuant to the amendment to the automatic grant program in effect under the 1993 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan that was approved by the stockholders at the 2011 Annual Meeting, each non-employee director will, upon his or her initial election or appointment to the Board of Directors, receive a one-time automatic RSU award covering 10,000 shares of the Company’s common stock,

11

provided such individual has not previously been in the Company’s employ. On the date of each Annual Stockholders Meeting, beginning with the 2011 Annual Stockholders Meeting, each non-employee Board member who continues to serve on the Board of Directors, whether or not he or she has been in the prior employ of the Company, will automatically receive an RSU award covering 7,500 shares of the Company’s common stock. There is no limit on the number of such annual RSU awards any one individual may receive over his or her period of continued Board service, but no individual will receive a 7,500-share RSU award for a particular year under the automatic grant program if he or she has received his or her initial RSU award under the automatic grant program within the immediately preceding six (6) months.

Each RSU award granted under the automatic grant program is subject to the following terms and conditions:

Each of the following non-employee Board members received at the 2014 Annual Stockholders Meeting an automatic RSU award covering 7,500 shares of the Company’s common stock: Messrs. Raney, Richard, Gemunder, Konidaris, Timmins and Child.

Non-Employee Director Stock Ownership Guidelines. The Board has adopted stock ownership guidelines for non-employee directors that provide that within three years of becoming a member of the Board of Directors, or three years after the date of approval of the guidelines, whichever is later, each director is expected to accumulate and thereafter continue to hold, a minimum number of shares of the Company’s common stock equal to five times the base annual cash retainer payable to each non-employee director for service on the Board. Unvested stock and shares issuable upon distribution pursuant to unvested restricted stock units granted by the Company, in each case that vest as a result of the Director’s continued service to the Company over time (subject

12

to any applicable vesting acceleration provisions), can be applied toward this goal. However, unvested stock and shares issuable upon distribution pursuant to unvested restricted stock units in each case that vest in connection with the achievement of performance targets, as well as unexercised options (whether vested or unvested) shall not count toward such goal. The shares must be held by the director as an individual or as part of a family trust. It is intended that directors hold, through outright ownership and through the Company’s equity award grants, a meaningful number of shares of the Company’s common stock, but that the foregoing policy be flexible in order to avoid foreclosing the appointment of or continued service by viable candidates for the Board in appropriate circumstances.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

The Board recommends that the stockholders vote FOR the election of each of the above nominees.

13

PROPOSAL 2

RATIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The Audit Committee of the Board has appointed the firm of Ernst & Young LLP, the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm during the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, to serve in the same capacity for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015, and is asking the stockholders to ratify this appointment. The affirmative vote of a majority of the shares represented and entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting is required to ratify the selection of Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm.

In the event the stockholders fail to ratify the appointment, the Audit Committee will reconsider its selection. Even if the selection is ratified, the Audit Committee in its discretion may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if the Audit Committee believes that such a change would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP are expected to be present at the Annual Meeting, will have the opportunity to make a statement if they desire to do so, and will be available to respond to appropriate questions.

Fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP for services rendered for fiscal years 2014 and 2013

Audit Fees

Audit fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP for professional services rendered for the audit of the Company’s 2014 annual financial statements, review of quarterly financial statements, audit services in connection with statutory filings, consents, review of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Section 404 review of internal control over financial reporting, and accounting and financial reporting consultation totaled $1,854,000. Audit fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP for professional services rendered for the audit of the Company’s 2013 annual financial statements, review of quarterly financial statements, audit services in connection with statutory filings, consents, review of documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Section 404 review of internal control over financial reporting, and accounting and financial reporting consultation totaled $1,698,000.

Audit-Related Fees

There were no audit-related fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP during the Company’s 2014 and 2013 fiscal years.

Tax Fees

There were no tax fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP during the Company’s 2014 and 2013 fiscal years.

All Other Fees

Other than as set forth above, there were no other fees billed to the Company by Ernst & Young LLP during the Company’s 2014 and 2013 fiscal years.

All of the 2014 and 2013 audit fees, audit-related fees and tax fees, and all other fees, were pre-approved by the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has delegated to Mr. Timmins the ability to approve, on behalf of the Audit Committee and in accordance with Section 10A under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, services to be performed by the Company’s independent auditors.

14

The Audit Committee considered whether the provision of audit-related services, tax services, financial information systems design and implementation services and other non-audit services is compatible with the independent registered public accounting firm’s independence.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

The Board recommends that the stockholders vote FOR the ratification of the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to serve as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2015 as described in this Proposal No. 2.

15

PROPOSAL 3

ADVISORY VOTE TO APPROVE EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

The Company is providing its stockholders the opportunity to vote on an advisory resolution to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as described below.

The Company’s goal for its executive compensation program is to attract, motivate and retain qualified executives through competitive compensation packages. The Company believes that the compensation paid to its executive officers should be substantially dependent on the Company’s financial performance and the value created for its stockholders, and so has designed its executive compensation program to support a strong pay-for-performance philosophy while maintaining an overall level of compensation that the Company believes is fair, reasonable and responsible. The Compensation Discussion and Analysis, beginning on page 22 of this Proxy Statement, describes the Company’s executive compensation program and the decisions made by the Compensation Committee in 2014 in more detail. Highlights of the program and the principles guiding the Company’s executive compensation decisions include the following:

The Company’s financial performance in terms of the operating income goal taken into account for purposes of the short-term cash incentive component of the 2014 Management Incentive Plan did not meet the minimum level. For the purpose of calculating the payout under this plan, the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries experienced an operating loss of approximately $19,063,000 for the 2014 fiscal year. The Company’s financial performance in terms of the revenue goal exceeded the minimum level. For the purpose of calculating the payout under this plan, revenue for the 2014 fiscal year on a consolidated basis was approximately $150,540,000, which exceeded the minimum established for the metric by approximately $6,540,000. Based on these financial results for the 2014 fiscal year, each of the Company’s executive officers earned a cash bonus for that year equal to approximately 13.8% of his target bonus amount. However, the advisory vote on executive officer compensation is not intended to address any specific item of compensation, but rather the overall compensation provided to the Company’s named executive officers and the executive compensation policies, practices and programs described in this Proxy Statement.

Accordingly, the Company requests the stockholders to approve by advisory vote the following resolution relating to the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers:

“Resolved that the Company’s stockholders hereby approve the compensation paid to the Company’s executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table of this Proxy Statement, as that compensation is disclosed pursuant to the SEC’s compensation disclosure rules, including the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the compensation tables and the narrative disclosures that accompany the compensation tables contained in this Proxy Statement.”

16

As an advisory vote, this proposal is not binding upon the Company. However, the Compensation Committee, which is responsible for designing and administering the Company’s executive compensation program, values the opinions expressed by its stockholders in their vote on this proposal and will consider the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for named executive officers.

Recommendation of the Board of Directors

The Board recommends that the stockholders vote FOR the resolution to approve the compensation of the Company’s named executive officers as described above in this Proposal No. 3.

17

OTHER MATTERS

The Company knows of no other matters that will be presented for consideration at the Annual Meeting. If any other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting, it is the intention of the persons named in the enclosed form of Proxy to vote the shares they represent as the Board recommends. Discretionary authority with respect to such other matters is granted by the execution of the enclosed Proxy.

18

OWNERSHIP OF SECURITIES

The following table sets forth certain information known to the Company with respect to the beneficial ownership of the Company’s common stock as of March 31, 2015 (unless otherwise stated in the footnotes) by (i) all persons known to the Company who are or who may be deemed beneficial owners of five percent (5%) or more of the Company’s common stock based solely on a review of Form 4, Schedule 13G and Schedule 13D filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission since January 1, 2013, (ii) each director of the Company, (iii) the named executive officers and (iv) all current directors and executive officers as a group. Unless otherwise indicated, the principal address of each of the stockholders below is c/o Ultratech, Inc., 3050 Zanker Road, San Jose, CA, 95134. Unless otherwise indicated, each of the security holders has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares beneficially owned, subject to community property laws, where applicable. Except as otherwise indicated in the footnotes to the table or for shares of common stock held in brokerage accounts, which may from time to time, together with other securities held in those accounts, serve as collateral for margin loans made from such accounts, none of the shares reported as beneficially owned are currently pledged as securities for any outstanding loan or indebtedness.

19

20

21

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND RELATED INFORMATION

Compensation Discussion and Analysis

Introduction. This Compensation Discussion and Analysis addresses the policies and objectives underlying the compensation programs in effect for the Company’s executive officers. The discussion begins with an executive summary of the principal elements of the Company’s executive compensation programs. Those programs reflect the fact that the Company is engaged in a very competitive industry, and its success depends upon its ability to attract and retain qualified executives through competitive compensation packages.

The Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) administers the compensation programs for the Company’s executive officers with this competitive environment in mind. However, the Company believes that the compensation paid to its executive officers should also be substantially dependent on the Company’s financial performance and the value created for its stockholders. For this reason, the Compensation Committee also utilizes the Company’s compensation programs to provide meaningful incentives for the attainment of the Company’s short-term and long-term strategic objectives and thereby reward those executive officers who make a substantial contribution to the attainment of those objectives.

Executive Summary

The Company’s overarching compensation goal is to reward executive officers in a manner that supports a strong pay-for-performance philosophy while maintaining an overall level of compensation that the Company believes is fair, reasonable and responsible. The Company believes this objective is accomplished through the following principles and processes that underlie the executive compensation programs:

22

FISCAL YEARS

23

Compensation Policy for Executive Officers. The Compensation Committee has designed the various elements comprising the compensation packages of the Company’s executive officers to achieve the following objectives:

Each executive officer’s compensation package typically consists of three elements: (i) a base salary, (ii) an annual cash bonus opportunity tied solely to the Company’s attainment of pre-established financial objectives, and (iii) long-term, stock-based incentive awards, typically in the form of stock option grants and restricted stock unit awards, designed to align and strengthen the mutuality of interests between the Company’s executive officers and its stockholders. In determining the appropriate level for each element of such compensation, the Compensation Committee takes into account the Company’s financial performance and operating results and the executive officer’s duties and responsibilities, and for a particular year, the Compensation Committee may also engage in a peer group benchmarking process. However, the Compensation Committee may not perform such a peer group benchmarking process for a particular year when it concludes that there have not been any significant changes in the market data for the prior year or years or when the economic circumstances do not otherwise warrant the process. When such a benchmarking process is done, the Compensation Committee will typically only use the benchmarking data for purposes of comparing the compensation of its executive officers against comparable positions at specific compensation levels and financial peer groups of companies to determine whether the Company’s executive compensation programs are generally competitive relative to its peers. The Compensation Committee does not typically target a specific percentile to be achieved for each executive officer as compared with their counterparts at the peer group companies. In setting the compensation levels for Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright for fiscal 2014, the Compensation Committee did not target a specific percentile to be achieved for each executive officer as compared with their counterparts at the peer group companies but took into account the fact that Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright continued to have duties and responsibilities that extended beyond those of their counterparts at peer group companies. Such extended duties and responsibilities were due to the fact that the Company has had only two named executive officers for the last few years, whereas the number of named executive officers at each peer group company has typically been higher.

For 2015, the Compensation Committee has implemented a cash incentive program for executive officers, in lieu of a regular, annual stock-based award, such as options or restricted stock units. As in prior years, one component of the program consists of a Management Incentive Plan that may pay out at a percentage of the executive officer’s annual salary, based on the Company’s performance against established revenue and operating income goals. In addition, the Compensation Committee established a long term cash incentive that ties the payout to the Company’s stock price. This incentive may pay out to an executive officer if the trading price of the Company’s common stock achieves certain levels for fifteen (15) consecutive trading days during the period ending December 31, 2016, or a specified certain change in control transaction occurs at such prices no later than December 31, 2019.

24

Impact of 2014 Say-on-Pay Vote. The most recent stockholder advisory vote on executive officer compensation required under the federal securities laws was held on July 15, 2014, after the Compensation Committee had approved the 2014 compensation of the named executive officers. Approximately 80 percent of the total votes cast on such proposal (including abstentions) were in favor of the compensation of the named executive officers, as that compensation was disclosed in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and the various compensation tables and narrative that appeared in the Company’s proxy statement dated June 2, 2014. Based on that level of stockholder approval, the Compensation Committee decided not to make any material changes to the Company’s compensation philosophies, policies and practices for the remainder of the 2014 fiscal year. Based on the voting preference of the Company’s stockholders, advisory votes on executive officer compensation will be conducted every year, and the Compensation Committee will continue to take into account each such annual advisory vote in order to determine whether any subsequent changes to the Company’s executive compensation programs and policies would be warranted to reflect any stockholder concerns reflected in those advisory votes.

Comparative Framework. For purposes of determining whether the various elements of the Company’s executive officer compensation package remain competitive at their targeted levels, the Compensation Committee historically has engaged an independent compensation consulting firm to provide competitive market data and advice from time to time on the Company’s executive compensation programs and policies. The Compensation Committee uses such data to conduct periodic reviews of the compensation levels in effect for executive officer positions at a peer group of comparable companies that the Compensation Committee identified, with the assistance of its compensation consultant, in the high-tech and precision manufacturing industries. However, such comparative compensation reviews do not occur on a regularly-scheduled basis, but only at such times as the Compensation Committee believes that economic circumstances warrant the process. The companies which have historically comprised the comparative peer group are as follows:

In addition to the peer group of companies listed above, the Compensation Committee may also review competitive market data related to executive officer positions at a group of companies against which the Company compares its financial performance. This group includes a subset of the companies listed above (Advanced Energy Industries, Inc., Brooks Automation, Inc., Mattson Technology, Inc., MKS Instruments, Inc. and Veeco Instruments Inc.) as well as two additional companies: FEI Company and Rudolph Technologies.

Compensation Consultants. For compensation decisions made in 2014 with respect to the compensation of the Company’s non-employee Board members and in setting executive officer compensation for the 2015 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee continued to utilize Compensia as its independent consulting firm. Compensia reports directly to the Compensation Committee and not to management. Compensia is independent from the Company, has not provided any services to the Company other than to the Compensation Committee, and receives compensation from the Company only for services provided to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee assessed the independence of Compensia pursuant to SEC rules and concluded that the work of Compensia has not raised any conflict of interest.

Elements of Compensation. Each of the three major elements comprising the compensation package for executive officers (salary, target annual bonus and long-term equity awards) for the 2014 fiscal year was designed to achieve one or more of the Company’s overall objectives of setting a competitive level of compensation, tying compensation to the attainment of one or more of the Company’s strategic business

25

objectives and subjecting a substantial portion of the executive officer’s compensation to the Company’s financial success as measured in terms of the Company’s stock price performance. The manner in which the Compensation Committee structured each element of compensation may be explained as follows.

Salary. The Compensation Committee reviews the base salary level of each executive officer in January each year, with any salary adjustments for the year to be effective as of January 1st of that year. The base salary for each executive officer named in the Summary Compensation Table is determined on the basis of his level of responsibility and experience. The Compensation Committee believes that this component of compensation should provide a level of economic security and stability from year to year and not be dependent to any material extent on the Company’s financial performance. In addition, Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright have existing employment agreements with the Company which set a minimum level of annual base salary, subject to periodic upward adjustment at the discretion of the Compensation Committee. For the 2014 fiscal year, no adjustments were made to the base salary levels of Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright and their base salary levels remained at $575,000 and $350,000, respectively, which the Compensation Committee determined was competitive based on current market data for their positions in the industry.

Annual Cash Bonus. On March 19, 2014, the Compensation Committee established the Management Incentive Program (the “MIP”) for the 2014 fiscal year for the executive officers. As was the case for the 2013 MIP, the cash bonus opportunity under the 2014 MIP was tied solely to the Company’s operating income and revenue levels for the 2014 fiscal year. The target bonuses set under the 2014 MIP for the Company’s executive officers were as follows: $862,500 for Mr. Zafiropoulo (150% of 2014 fiscal year base salary) and $350,000 for Mr. Wright (100% of 2014 fiscal year base salary).

Half of the potential bonus opportunity for each executive officer was tied to an operating income target, and the other half tied to a revenue target. Four performance levels were established for each goal, and the actual level at which each goal was attained determined the bonus amount payable to the executive officer with respect to that goal. No qualitative performance factors, whether in the terms of Company or individual performance, were established as a condition to the bonus potential set for each executive officer. The potential bonus with respect to each goal, as a multiple or fraction of the fifty percent (50%) component of the target bonus allocated to that goal is set forth below for each specified level of goal attainment. Goal attainment is measured on a consolidated basis with the Company’s consolidated subsidiaries for financial reporting purposes.

If both performance goals were attained at the Tier III target level, then each executive officer would have been awarded his target bonus under the MIP. If the actual level of attainment for either goal had been between any two designated levels up to that target Tier III level, then the bonus potential for that goal would be in a dollar amount interpolated on a straight line basis between those two levels. If the Company’s operating income or revenue goal for the 2014 fiscal year exceeded the target Tier III level, then the bonus potential for that goal would have increased on an extrapolated basis in accordance with the same slope that applies to the interpolation between Tier II and Tier III level performance.

26

For example, the differential between Tier II and Tier III revenue levels for 2014 is $30 million ($266 million—$236 million), and there are 25 basis points of target bonus assigned to that differential (1.00—0.75). If actual revenue for the 2014 fiscal year had been at the $251 million mid-point level ($236 million plus an additional $15 million), then the bonus factor for that component would have been 0.875x—the midpoint between the two tiers, and that factor would have accordingly been applied to the portion of the target bonus tied to the revenue metric. The same process would have been applied for revenue in excess of the $266 million Tier III level. For the next $30 million of revenue in excess of the $266 million Tier III level, an additional 25 basis point of target bonus could have been earned on an extrapolated basis between $266 million and $296 million. Accordingly, if actual revenue for 2014 fiscal year had been at the $281 million mid-point level ($266 million plus an additional $15 million of revenue), the bonus multiple assigned to that excess would have been be 1.125x—the midpoint between 1x and 1.25x, and that factor would have been applied to the portion of the target bonus tied to 2014 fiscal year revenue. The same process would have been repeated for each additional $30 million of revenue in excess of the Tier III level.

In determining the levels at which the net operating income and revenue objectives were met for the 2014 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee primarily relied on the reported financial results in the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements for the 2014 fiscal year, prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Based on the reported financial results, the Compensation Committee determined in February 2015 that the Company’s operating income for the 2014 fiscal year on a consolidated basis with its subsidiaries was less than the minimum level established for that performance metric and that the Company’s revenue for such fiscal year on a consolidated basis exceeded the minimum level established for that particular goal by approximately $6,540,000.

As a result, Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright each earned a bonus amount for the 2014 fiscal year equal to approximately 27.6% of the portion of their target bonus allocated to the revenue objective, but they earned no bonus for such fiscal year for the portion of their target bonus allocated to the operating income objective. Their actual bonus amounts were as follows and represented for each of them an aggregate bonus amount equal to approximately 13.8% of their target bonus amount for the year:

One half of the bonus amount was paid following the close of the 2014 fiscal year, and the remainder has been deferred and is subject to an annual installment vesting schedule tied to the executive officer’s continued service with the Company over an additional two-year period. The deferred portion will be paid as it vests and will earn interest at a designated rate until paid. The deferred portions will immediately vest and become payable in the event the executive officer’s employment terminates under certain defined circumstances during the deferral period. Accelerated payouts will also occur in the event of certain changes in control or ownership of the Company. The 2014 MIP also provided for pro-rata disbursement of the non-deferred portion of the bonus in the event the executive officer terminated employment under certain defined circumstances during the 2014 fiscal year performance period.

Additional Bonus Opportunity. On March 19, 2014, the Compensation Committee approved an additional bonus opportunity for Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright for the 2014 fiscal year. The additional bonus would only be earned if the ratio of the Company’s operating income to its revenue (the “Operating Income Percentage”) for 2014 ranked in the top three relative to the Operating Income Percentage for a peer group of eleven companies selected by the Compensation Committee, the Company’s operating income for the 2014 fiscal year was at least $9,700,000, and the executive continued in the Company’s employ through the end of the 2014 fiscal year (subject in each case to certain exceptions related to certain terminations of employment). If the Company’s Operating Income Percentage ranked in the top three but the Company’s operating income for the 2014 fiscal year was not at least $13,800,000, each executive’s bonus would be subject to reduction. For this purpose, the

27

peer group companies consisted of Advanced Energy Industries, Inc., Axcelis Technologies, Inc., Brooks Automation, Inc., Coherent, Inc., GSI Group, LLC, Kulicke & Soffa Industries, Inc., Mattson Technology, Inc. MKS Instruments, Inc., Nanometrics Incorporated, Rudolph Technologies, Inc., and Veeco Instruments Inc. If the Company’s Operating Income Percentage ranked in the top three and the Company’s operating income for the 2014 fiscal year was at least $13,800,000, the bonus amount for each executive officer would be: $450,000, $250,000 or $100,000 if the Company ranked first, second or third, respectively. Any bonus earned would be paid following the close of the 2014 fiscal year. If the goals were not achieved, no bonus would be payable. As the Company’s operating income threshold was not met, no additional bonus was payable to Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright.

Long-Term Equity Incentives. The Company has structured its long-term incentive program for executive officers in the form of equity awards under its 1993 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan (the “1993 Plan”). For many years, stock option grants were the Company’s sole form of equity award. However, in January 2006, the Compensation Committee began to award restricted stock units (“RSUs”) as part of the Company’s long-term incentive program. The Company believes that RSUs are a valuable addition to its long-term incentive program for several reasons, including ongoing concerns over the dilutive effect of option grants on the Company’s outstanding shares (RSU awards cover a smaller number of shares that an option grant with the same grant-date value), the Company’s desire to have a more direct correlation between the compensation expense it must record for financial accounting purposes and the actual value delivered to executive officers and other employees, and the fact that the incentive and retention value of an RSU award is less affected by market volatility than stock options. As a result, the Company has typically used a combination of stock option grants and RSUs under the 1993 Plan to provide long-term incentives to its executive officers and other key personnel.

Each equity award is designed to align the interests of the executive officer with those of the stockholders and to provide each individual with a significant incentive to manage the Company from the perspective of an owner with an equity stake in the business. In determining the size of the individual equity awards made to each executive officer, the Compensation Committee does not take into account the attainment of any specific Company performance goals or the achievement of any individual goals. Accordingly, no performance metrics or individual goals are established by the Compensation Committee to serve as the measure for sizing the individual equity awards made to the executive officers. Instead, the Compensation Committee works with its independent consultant each year in compiling relevant market data to determine the appropriate sizing of the awards. The Compensation Committee retains complete discretion to size each individual equity award as it thinks appropriate and may depart from the market data percentiles as individual circumstances warrant.

As part of the 2014 MIP, the Compensation Committee authorized RSU and stock option awards for Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright. The number of shares of the Company’s common stock covered by such awards is indicated below. Each award was made in a series of four successive equal quarterly grants over the course of the 2014 fiscal year. Accordingly, awards with respect to one-fourth of the total number of shares of the Company’s common stock indicated in the table below for each executive officer were made on February 3, 2014, April 28, 2014, July 21, 2014 and October 27, 2014.

Each restricted stock unit granted under the 2014 MIP represents the right to receive one share of the Company’s common stock on the designated issuance date following the vesting of that unit. Each installment of an award will vest incrementally over a fifty (50)-month period of service with the Company measured from January 1, 2014, and the shares of the Company’s common stock underlying the units that so vest will be issued on a periodic basis over the vesting schedule. Accelerated vesting of all the units will occur upon a change in control of the Company or upon the individual’s cessation of employment under certain defined circumstances in

28

the absence of a change in control. The shares underlying any units that vest on such an accelerated basis will, in general, be issued concurrently with the vesting acceleration event, subject to any holdback requirements under applicable tax laws.

Each of the quarterly option grants pursuant to the 2014 MIP has an exercise price equal to the closing price per share of the Company’s common stock on the applicable grant date and a maximum term of ten years measured from that grant date, subject to earlier termination upon the executive’s cessation of employment with the Company. Each such option will vest and become exercisable for the option shares incrementally over a fifty (50)-month period of service with the Company measured from January 1, 2014. However, each option will vest in full and become exercisable for all the option shares, on an accelerated basis, upon a change in control of the Company or the individual’s cessation of employment under certain defined circumstances.

The Compensation Committee believes that the equity awards made in the 2014 fiscal year and in prior years under its long-term incentive program provide the Company’s executive officers with a competitive equity compensation package based on market data compiled by its independent consultant and are also in line with the Compensation Committee’s pay-for-performance objectives.

Risk Assessment of Executive Officer Compensation

The Company believes the various components of the total compensation package of the executive officers, as discussed above, are appropriately balanced so as to avoid any excessive risk taking by such individuals. First, the long-term equity awards granted for the 2014 fiscal year and in prior fiscal years, which are tied to the market price of the Company’s common stock, represent the predominant component of executive officer compensation and promote a commonality of interest between the executive officers and the Company’s stockholders in sustaining and increasing stockholder value. In addition, a substantial portion of the equity component in the 2014 fiscal year is in the form of restricted stock units. The use of such restricted stock units mitigates the potential risk that stock options pose in encouraging risk taking in the short term. Restricted stock units provide varying levels of compensation as the market price of the Company’s common stock fluctuates over time and are less likely to contribute to excessive risk taking. The restricted stock unit awards also vest over a period of years, and that vesting element encourages the award recipients to focus on sustaining the Company’s long-term performance. Because equity awards, whether in the form of stock options or restricted stock units, are typically made on an annual basis, the executive officers always have unvested awards outstanding that could decrease significantly in value if the Company’s business is not managed to achieve its long term goals. Secondly, under the Company’s standard annual cash incentive bonus program, an individual target bonus amount is established for each executive officer, and the performance measures upon which the actual bonus amounts are determined are tied to strategic objectives intended to sustain stockholder value. At all levels of performance goal attainment, there are limits in place that tie the potential bonus amount to either a fraction or multiple of the target bonus. If both goals are attained at the Tier I level, the bonus payable to an executive officer will equal half of his target bonus for the year, and for attainment of both goals at the Tier III level, the bonus will be limited to one times his target bonus. For goal attainment above the Tier III level, the actual bonus will continue to be tied to the target bonus amount but will be increased to reflect the higher level of attainment on the same straight-line interpolated basis that applies to the span between Tier II and Tier III levels. For the last three fiscal years, the bonuses earned by Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright as a percentage of their target bonus have been as follows: for the 2012 fiscal year, the actual bonus level of each of them was at approximately 141% of the target; for the 2013 fiscal year, no bonuses were earned as the minimum level required for any bonus payment was not achieved; and for the 2014 fiscal year, the actual bonus level of each of them was at approximately 13.8% of target. Additionally, payments based on performance goal attainment under the annual cash incentive bonus program are subject to an additional service vesting schedule so that a participant must remain with the Company for at least three years from the start of the one-year performance measurement period in order to earn his or her full payment for that performance period, thereby further encouraging long-term focus. The Company’s long-term cash incentive plan, introduced in 2015, is tied to achieving target market prices for the Company’s common stock for a sustained period, which also promotes a commonality of interest between the executive officers and the Company’s stockholders in increasing stockholder value.

29

The Compensation Committee may, from time to time, consider granting supplemental bonuses based on achievement of different performance measures. In 2014, the Compensation Committee approved the grant of supplemental bonuses to Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright subject to achievement of an operating income percentage for 2014 that ranked in the top three operating income percentages among a peer group of eleven companies selected by the Compensation Committee and satisfaction of a minimum Company operating income threshold. No supplemental bonuses were paid for 2014 as the Company did not meet its operating income threshold.

The overall compensation structure is not overly-weighted toward short-term incentives, and the Compensation Committee has taken what it believes are reasonable steps to protect against the potential of disproportionately large short-term incentives that might encourage excessive risk taking.

Market Timing of Equity Awards. The Compensation Committee does not engage in any market timing of the equity awards made to the executive officers or other award recipients. The awards for existing executive officers and employees are typically authorized in connection with the annual performance review process, which generally occurs in the first quarter of the succeeding fiscal year. The authorized RSU and stock option awards are then typically made in equal installments on designated dates during the year in accordance with the established policy of tying the award dates to the second full trading date following the earnings release for the prior quarter.

Officer Employment Agreements. The Company has entered into employment agreements with Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright. A summary of the material terms of those employment agreements, together with a quantification of the severance benefits payable under those agreements under various defined circumstances, may be found below in the section of this Item 11 entitled “Employment Contracts, Termination of Employment and Change in Control Arrangements.”

The severance benefits payable under each employment agreement are primarily in the form of (i) salary continuation payments, (ii) accelerated vesting and payout of the deferred portion of any outstanding cash bonus awards under the Management Incentive Plan for one or more prior fiscal years, (iii) any pro-rata bonus to which such individual may become entitled under the Management Incentive Plan in effect for the year of termination based on actual performance goal attainment for that year, (iv) accelerated vesting of certain outstanding equity awards, (v) reimbursement of the costs such individual incurs to obtain lifetime retiree health care coverage for himself and his spouse and, (vi) for Mr. Zafiropoulo, the continued use of a Company-provided automobile.

The severance benefits will be provided under two basic scenarios: (i) an involuntary termination or resignation for good reason in the absence of a change in control and (ii) a termination for any reason following a change in control of the Company. In the change in control scenario, the level of severance benefits is higher in that:

Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright are entitled to reimbursement of the costs they incur to obtain lifetime retiree health care coverage for themselves and their spouses, whether or not such involuntary termination or resignation for good reason occurs in connection with a change-in-control event. Mr. Zafiropoulo will also be entitled to reimbursement of such lifetime retiree health coverage upon the termination of his employment with the Company for any reason.

30

The Company believes the severance benefits payable under the employment agreement are fair and reasonable in light of the many years of service Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright have rendered the Company and the level of dedication and commitment they have shown over those years. The Company also believes that the higher level of severance benefits payable in connection with a change in control termination event is warranted. The severance benefits payable in that instance offer financial protection against any potential loss of employment that might otherwise occur as a result of an acquisition of the Company and will allow Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright to focus their attention on acquisition proposals that are in the best interests of the stockholders, without undue concern as to their own financial situation. The Company also believes the single trigger vesting acceleration of their equity awards upon a change in control is justified because those awards are designed to serve as the primary vehicle for wealth creation and the accumulation of financial resources for their retirement years, and a change in control event is an appropriate liquidation point for awards intended for such purpose. The Company does not provide the executive officers with any defined benefit pension plan or supplemental executive retirement plan, and the only other opportunities for wealth accumulation and retirement funds is through the limited deferral opportunities provided under the Company’s 401(k) savings plan and the non-qualified deferred compensation plan. Mr. Zafiropoulo has not to date participated in the non-qualified deferred compensation plan, and Mr. Wright has participated only to a modest extent.

Executive Officer Perquisites. It is not the Company’s practice to provide its executive officers with any significant perquisites. The Company does, however, provide Mr. Zafiropoulo with a company automobile for which the Company pays all expenses (including, without limitation, all lease payments or the full purchase price of the vehicle) and which he uses from time to time for personal matters. The dollar value of the perquisite reported in the Summary Compensation Table below was determined based on the Company’s cost for the 2014 fiscal year allocable to such personal use. The Company believes that the provision of a company automobile is a common perquisite for executive officers at Mr. Zafiropoulo’s level and is appropriate in light of his long years of tenure with the Company.

Other Programs. The Company’s executive officers are eligible to participate in the Company’s 401(k) plan on the same basis as all other regular U.S. employees.

Deferred Compensation Programs. In addition to the bonus component subject to mandatory deferral under the Company’s annual Management Incentive Plan described above under the heading “Annual Cash Bonus,” the Company maintains a non-qualified deferred compensation program for its executive officers and other key executives. Under that program, participants may elect to defer all or a portion of their salary or bonus each year, and the deferred sums will be credited with notional earnings (or losses) based on their investment elections. Such deferred compensation (as adjusted for such notional earnings or losses) will become payable following the participant’s termination of employment and may be paid in a lump sum or in installments based on the circumstances under which the termination event occurs and the prior distribution election made by the participant. The program is described in more detail below in the section of this Item 11 entitled “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation.” However, as indicated above, the Company believes that the equity award component of each executive officer’s total direct compensation package should serve as his or her major source of wealth creation, including the accumulation of substantial resources to fund the executive officer’s retirement years.

Compliance with Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m). Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code disallows a tax deduction to publicly held companies for compensation paid to certain of their executive officers to the extent such compensation exceeds $1.0 million per covered officer in any year. The limitation applies only to compensation that is not considered to be performance-based under the terms of Section 162(m). The stock options granted to the Company’s executives have been structured with the intent of qualifying those awards as performance-based compensation as has the management incentive plan. The issuance of vested shares of the Company’s common stock under service-vesting RSU awards will not qualify as such performance-based compensation.

The Company believes that in establishing the cash and equity incentive compensation programs for its executive officers, the potential deductibility of the compensation payable under those programs should be only one of a number of relevant factors taken into consideration, and not the sole governing factor. For that reason,

31

the Company may deem it appropriate to provide one or more executive officers with the opportunity to earn incentive compensation, whether through cash bonus programs tied to its financial performance or through RSUs tied to the executive officer’s continued service, which may, together with other non-performance based compensation paid to those individuals, exceed in the aggregate the amount deductible by reason of Section 162(m) or other provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The Company believes it is important to maintain cash and equity incentive compensation at the levels needed to attract and retain the executive officers essential to its success, even if all or part of that compensation may not be deductible by reason of the Section 162(m) limitation.

Summary Compensation Information

The following table provides certain summary information concerning the compensation earned for services rendered in all capacities to the Company and its subsidiaries for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, respectively, by the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. Each of the listed individuals shall be hereinafter referred to as a “named executive officer.” There were no other executive officers of the Company during the 2014 fiscal year.

32

33

Grants of Plan-Based Awards

The following table provides certain summary information concerning each grant of an award made to a named executive officer in the 2014 fiscal year under a compensation plan.

34

2014 Management Incentive Plan. The performance objectives established under the 2014 Management Incentive Plan for the 2014 fiscal year were tied to separate revenue and operating income goals set at four specified levels. Fifty percent (50%) of the target bonus for each named executive officer was allocated to the revenue performance goal, and the remaining fifty percent (50%) was allocated to the operating income performance goal. For each specified level of performance goal attainment, a designated dollar amount was established as the potential bonus payable with respect to that goal. If the actual level of attainment for a particular performance goal were below the threshold level, then no bonus amount would have been payable with respect to that goal. If the actual level of goal attainment were between any two designated levels up to the Tier III target level, the potential bonus with respect to that goal would be interpolated on a straight line basis between those two levels. If the actual level of goal attainment were above the Tier III target level, then the bonus potential with respect to that goal would increase based on the same slope that existed between that Tier III target level and the immediately preceding level. Following the close of the 2014 fiscal year, the Compensation Committee reviewed the Company’s financial results for such year and determined that the Company’s adjusted operating income for the 2014 fiscal year did not meet the minimum level established for that performance metric that the Company’s revenue for such fiscal year was approximately $150,540,000, thereby falling between the minimum level and Tier I levels established for that particular goal. As a result, Messrs. Zafiropoulo and Wright each earned no bonus amount for the 2014 fiscal year equal for the portion of their target bonus allocated to the operating income objective and a bonus equal to approximately 27.6% of their target bonus allocated to the revenue objective. One half of the bonus amount was paid following the close of the 2014 fiscal year. The remaining portion has been deferred and is subject to an annual installment vesting schedule tied to the named executive officer’s continued service with the Company over an additional two-year period ending December 31, 2016. The deferred portion will be paid as it vests and will earn interest at a designated rate until paid. The deferred portions will immediately vest and become payable in the event the named executive officer’s employment terminates under certain defined circumstances during the deferral period. Accelerated payouts will also occur in the event of certain changes in control or ownership of the Company. For more information regarding the 2014 Management Incentive Plan, please see the section entitled “Incentive Compensation” in the Company’s Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

35

Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End

The following table provides certain summary information concerning outstanding equity awards held by the named executive officers as of December 31, 2014.

36

37

Option Exercises and Stock Vested

The following table sets forth for each of the named executive officers, the number of shares of the Company’s common stock acquired and the value realized on each exercise of stock options during the year ended December 31, 2014, and the number and value of shares of the Company’s common stock subject to each restricted stock unit award that vested during the year ended December 31, 2014. No stock appreciation rights were exercised by the named executive officers during the 2014 fiscal year, and none of those officers held any stock appreciation rights as of December 31, 2014.

38

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

Deferred Cash Compensation

The following table shows the deferred compensation activity for each named executive officer during the 2014 fiscal year. The column labeled “Executive Contributions in Last FY” indicates the amount of compensation voluntarily deferred by the named executive officer under the Company’s Executive Deferred Compensation Plan. The column entitled “Registrant Contributions in Last FY” reflects the portion of the bonus earned by each named executive officer under the 2014 MIP that was deferred pursuant to the terms of that plan.