Rambus Inc. v. Nvidia

Last updated
Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation
US DC NorCal.svg
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of California
DecidedJuly 26, 2010
Citation(s)C 08-3343 SI;C 08-5500 SI
Holding
ITC ruled NVIDIA has violated three patents belonging to Rambus
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Susan Illston
Keywords
Intellectual Property, Patent

Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation was a patent infringement case between Rambus and Nvidia. The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Contents

Rambus Inc, founded in 1990, is an American technology company that designs, develops and licenses chip interface technologies and architectures that are used in digital electronics products. The company is well known for inventing RDRAM® and for its intellectual property-based litigation following the introduction of DDR-SDRAM memory. [1] [2] [3] NVIDIA, founded in 1993, is an American technology company that manufactures, distributes and designs graphics processing units (GPUs) for the gaming and professional markets, as well as system on a chip units (SoCs) for the mobile computing and automotive market. [4] [ circular reference ]

In 2008, Rambus Inc, initially filed a complaint accusing NVIDIA Corporation of infringing seventeen Rambus patents. [5] Rambus licenses patents covering technologies that it invents and develops to companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Nintendo and Creative Labs. [2] Since its founding in 1990, Rambus has been awarded, by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, over 1,000 patents [6] on many of the components that make up memory controllers and modern computer processor chips.

In this case, starting in July 2008, Rambus argued that NVIDIA's units infringed its patents on SDR, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR and GDDR3 technologies, to name a few. [5] Rambus sought a preliminary injunction and compensation for damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 in addition to an adjudication that NVIDIA has infringed and continues to infringe the Rambus patents. Early on, Rambus dropped two of the seventeen patent infringement claims due to covenant dealings. [7] NVIDIA moved for a stay on the remaining fifteen patents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659 . Judge Susan Illston ordered for a stay on nine patents, pending a ruling from the International Trade Commission (ITC) in which Rambus was filing similar patent infringement suits against NVIDIA as well as other related chip and memory manufacturing companies. The request to stay on the remaining six patents was denied. Later on it was settled that the nine patents presented in another ITC case were unenforceable in the case of Micron v. Rambus. [8] In July, 2010, ITC ruled that NVIDIA violated three patents belonging to Rambus. NVIDIA soon signed a license with Rambus while appealing the ITC ruling.

Background

Rambus Inc. develops new chip technologies, obtains patents for these technologies and subsequently sells licenses on these patents to companies in the memory chip and video card business, such as Intel and Micron Inc. [9] In the past year, 96% of its revenue came from licenses. Rambus licenses its technologies to customers who take these technologies and further develop them and integrate them into systems that are sold to consumers. Examples of such systems are the PS3, laptops, and netbooks. The technologies include memory controllers, memory components, memory modules, and memory systems. NVIDIA sells GPUs and has been doing so since 1990. Rambus filed a complaint that Nvidia's use of chip technology infringed on several patents that Rambus holds.

The complaint, filed on July 10, 2008, charged NVIDIA Corporation with infringing seventeen Rambus patents, though two of these claims were dropped. The fifteen patents considered in this case fall into one of two groups: those filed by Michael Farmwald and Mark Horowitz, the founders of Rambus (described in the case as the six 'FH' patents), and nine patents claiming technology invented by Richard Barth and/or Frederick Ware, (the "Barth/Ware" patents). The complaint alleges, for each of the patents-insuit, that NVIDIA has directly infringed the patents "and/or has contributed and continues to contribute to the literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents . . . and/or has actively induced and continues to actively induce others to infringe [the patents-in-suit]." Rambus sought monetary and injunctive relief, including treble damages and attorneys' fees due to defendant's willful infringement and the "exceptional nature of this case."

The day after Rambus filed the patent lawsuit, NVIDIA filed an antitrust lawsuit against Rambus in the middle District of North Carolina. In December, 2008, the North Carolina court transferred NVIDIA's antitrust action to United States District Court for the Northern District of California on the grounds that NVIDIA's antitrust claims properly belonged as counterclaims to Rambus's patent infringement claims in this case. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered consolidation of the two cases.

On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint against NVIDIA in the United States International Trade Commission alleging infringement of the nine Barth/Ware patents. On December 4, 2008, NVIDIA moved to stay litigation on all of Rambus' infringement claims, on the ground that the ITC proceeding automatically stayed litigation on the Barth/Ware patents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659, and that, inter alia, the FH patents involved many of the same products involved in the ITC proceedings.

Procedural history

On November 13, 2008, the court denied the defendant's motion to strike and to dismiss. Rambus was required to provide additional factual information and legal contentions pursuant to the Local Patent Rules and discovery. [10]

On March 11, 2009, NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for partial summary judgment, the court found it premature to rule on the case, their decision having been bound in preclusion due to the ITC case. The court therefore directed the parties to discuss the propriety of a stay of all proceedings in all the consolidated cases pending the Federal Circuit's resolution of the enforceability of Rambus' patents in Micron and Hynix I. NVIDIA's both motions seek issue preclusion based on Judge Robinson's ruling in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 255 F.R.D.135(D. Del. 2009), [11] that Rambus spoliated evidence and had a reputation of destroying relevant documents as part of its patent litigation strategy. Judge Robinson held that Rambus' patents were unenforceable as a sanction for spoliation of documents. NVIDIA contends that issue preclusion is appropriate because FH patents are from the same patent family as the patents litigated in Judge Robinson's case. NVIDIA also argued issue preclusion also applies to the Barth/Ware patents because Rambus had a policy of regularly destroying documents related to any patent prosecution. [12]

However, the Court found it premature to rule on the preclusive effect of either Judge Robinson's or Judge Whyte's decisions, and that a stay of all proceedings would be appropriate. The patents in suit are related to the Rambus patents held unenforceable by Judge Robinson in Micron. The Federal Circuit's resolution of Judge Robinson's decision in Micron and Judge Whyte's conflicting decision in Hynix I will be relevant – and potentially dispositive – to these proceedings. The court believes "A stay will thus promote judicial economy and conserve the parties' and the judiciary's resources. In addition, the harm resulting from a stay will be minimal". [12]

On June 8, 2009, NVIDIA announced that Rambus had asked an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to terminate the investigation of NVIDIA relating to four patents stemming from a complaint filed in November 2008 because they "conceded that NVIDIA products do not infringe on its four patents before the ITC". [13]

On January 22, 2010, U.S. International Trade Commission judge ruled in an initial determination that NVIDIA has violated three patents belonging to Rambus. [14] ITC also cleared NVIDIA from two other patents infringement. Due to this ruling Nvidia is facing a US import ban on some of its chips. [15] The chips facing the US import ban are used in the nForce, Quadro, GeForce, Tesla and Tegra series graphics products, nearly every video card type manufactured by NVIDIA. However, David Shannon, executive of NVIDIA dismissed Rambus's victory on the other three patents because they will continue to be subject to reexamination proceedings in the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). He claimed that the US PTO has consistently found Rambus's asserted claims invalid. [15]

On January 27, 2010, the court ordered the parties to address on the impact of these consolidated cases of the January 22, 2010 ruling by the International Trade Commission, as well as the status of any further proceedings in the ITC and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at the March 12, 2010 case management conference. [16]

On July 26, 2010, U.S. International Trade Commission ruled NVIDIA chips infringed three Rambus patents, and issued an order that would ban imports of certain products containing the chips. NVIDIA said it can continue sales by taking advantage of a licensing arrangement Rambus reached with European regulators as part of an unrelated antitrust case. [17] [18]

January 24, 2012 - The last of three patents that tech licensing company Rambus used to win infringement lawsuits against Nvidia Corp has been declared invalid. The three patents - collectively known as the Barth patents - pertain to memory chips used in personal computers and are considered to be among Rambus' most valuable intellectual property.

On June 28, 2013 the invalidity contentions of the Barth patents were reversed by the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit:

In conclusion, the Board’s determination that all 25 claims of the ’109 Patent are invalid as anticipated by Farmwald is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, this court reverses. [19]

Related Research Articles

Micron Technology American company producing semiconductor devices

Micron Technology, Inc. is an American producer of computer memory and computer data storage including dynamic random-access memory, flash memory, and USB flash drives. It is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Its consumer products are marketed under the brands Crucial and Ballistix. Micron and Intel together created IM Flash Technologies, which produces NAND flash memory. It owned Lexar between 2006 and 2017.

Rambus Incorporated, founded in 1990, is an American technology company that designs, develops and licenses chip interface technologies and architectures that are used in digital electronics products. The company is well known for inventing RDRAM and for its intellectual property-based litigation following the introduction of DDR-SDRAM memory.

The SCO–Linux disputes were a series of legal and public disputes between the software company SCO Group (SCO) and various Linux vendors and users. The SCO Group alleged that its license agreements with IBM meant that source code IBM wrote and donated to be incorporated into Linux was added in violation of SCO's contractual rights. Members of the Linux community disagreed with SCO's claims; IBM, Novell and Red Hat filed claims against SCO.

<i>SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc.</i>

SCO v. Novell was a United States lawsuit in which The SCO Group (SCO), a Linux and Unix vendor, claimed ownership of the source code for the Unix operating system. SCO sought to have the court declare that SCO owned the rights to the Unix code, including the copyrights, and that Novell had committed slander of title by asserting a rival claim to ownership of the Unix copyrights. Separately, SCO was attempting to collect license fees from Linux end-users for Unix code through their SCOsource division, and Novell's rival ownership claim was a direct challenge to this initiative.

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i>

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

<i>Jacobsen v. Katzer</i>

Jacobsen v. Katzer was a lawsuit between Robert Jacobsen (plaintiff) and Matthew Katzer (defendant), filed March 13, 2006 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The case addressed claims on copyright, patent invalidity, cybersquatting, and Digital Millennium Copyright Act issues arising from Jacobsen under an open source license developing control software for model trains.

Vringo

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

Fujifilm Corp v. Benun, 605 F.3d 1366 was a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment made by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey that the defendants infringed patents owned by Fujifilm Corporation.

<i>British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy</i>

British Telecommunications plc v. Prodigy Communications Corp. was a patent infringement case which determined whether a patent related to communications between central computers and their clients was infringed by Internet service providers through hyperlinks. Judge Colleen McMahon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that Prodigy Communications Corporation had not infringed the patent held by British Telecommunications plc through its use of hyperlinks. On summary judgment, McMahon held that there were substantial differences between British Telecommunications' patent and the method of operation of the Internet. The decision limited patent protection for Internet service providers' use of hyperlinks, protecting the providers from licensing fees related to this integral part of Internet technology.

TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp. is a case stretching from 2004 to 2011, which took place in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. TiVo Inc. sued EchoStar Corp. claiming patent infringement of a DVR technology. The issues addressed during litigation included patent infringement, wording of injunctions, infringing product redesign, contempt of court orders, and contempt sanctions. Ultimately, the court held that EchoStar Corp. had indeed infringed TiVo Inc's patent and was in contempt of court for noncompliance of an injunction. The parties reached a settlement wherein EchoStar Corp. paid TiVo Inc. a licensing fee. Further, the court replaced the established contempt test with a single step test. The simplified test makes it more difficult for patent holders to prove contempt as a result of repeat infringement.

The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations. The patent wars occurred because a finished smartphone might involve hundreds of thousands of patents.

Motorola Mobility v. Apple Inc. was one of a series of lawsuits between technology companies Motorola Mobility and Apple Inc. In the year before Apple and Samsung began suing each other on most continents, and while Apple and High Tech Computer Corp. (HTC) were already embroiled in a patent fight, Motorola Mobility and Apple started a period of intense patent litigation. The Motorola-Apple patent imbroglio commenced with claims and cross-claims between the companies for patent infringement, and encompassed multiple venues in multiple countries as each party sought friendly forums for litigating its respective claims; the fight also included administrative law rulings as well as United States International Trade Commission (ITC) and European Commission involvement. In April 2012, the controversy centered on whether a FRAND license to a components manufacturer carries over to an equipment manufacturer incorporating the component into equipment, an issue not addressed in the Supreme Court's default analysis using the exhaustion doctrine in Quanta v. LG Electronics. In June 2012, appellate judge Richard Posner dismissed the U.S. case with prejudice and the parties appealed the decision a month later.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. was the first of a series of ongoing lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers; between them, the companies made more than half of smartphones sold worldwide as of July 2012. In the spring of 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, while Apple and Motorola Mobility were already engaged in a patent war on several fronts. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the mobile device "smartphone patent wars": extensive litigation in fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications. By August 2011, Apple and Samsung were litigating 19 ongoing cases in nine countries; by October, the legal disputes expanded to ten countries. By July 2012, the two companies were still embroiled in more than 50 lawsuits around the globe, with billions of dollars in damages claimed between them. While Apple won a ruling in its favor in the U.S., Samsung won rulings in South Korea, Japan, and the UK. On June 4, 2013, Samsung won a limited ban from the U.S. International Trade Commission on sales of certain Apple products after the commission found Apple had violated a Samsung patent, but this was vetoed by U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.

Princo Corp. v. ITC, 616 F.3d 1318 was a 2010 decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, that sought to narrow the defense of patent misuse to claims for patent infringement. Princo held that a party asserting the defense of patent misuse, absent a case of so-called per se misuse, must prove both "leveraging" of the patent being enforced against it and a substantial anticompetitive effect outside the legitimate scope of that patent right. In so ruling, the court emphasized that the misuse alleged must involve the patent in suit, not another patent.

References

  1. ↑ "List of Patent Cases Involving Rambus". Docket Alarm, Inc. Retrieved August 22, 2013.
  2. 1 2 "Archive.org - Rambus Inc". Archived from the original on 1997-06-29. Retrieved 2021-02-12.
  3. ↑ United States Patent Office - RDRAM, Rambus Inc
  4. ↑ Wikipedia - NVIDIA
  5. 1 2 Rambus v. Nvidia, No. C 08-3343 SI (N.D. Cal.July 10, 2008).
  6. ↑ USPTO Patent Assignment Database - Rambus Inc
  7. ↑ Rambus v. Nvidia, C-08-03343 SI (N.D. CalJanuary 9, 2009).
  8. ↑ Rambus v. Nvidia, 00-CV-792 (Fed. Cir.May 13, 2011).
  9. ↑ "Description of Rambus, Inc (reuters)"https://www.reuters.com/finance/stocks/companyProfile?symbol=RMBS.O
  10. ↑ Rambus v. Nvidia, No. C 08-3343 SI (N.D. Cal.2008).
  11. ↑ Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 255135 (Federal Circuit2009).
  12. 1 2 Rambus v. Nvidia, No. C 08-3343 SI; C 08-5500 SI (N.D. Cal.19 March 2009).
  13. ↑ "Rambus moves to withdraw Patents from ITC Proceedings Against NVIDIA", 8 June 2009. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
  14. ↑ "Judge: Nvidia infringed on three Rambus patents", "CNET", 22 January 2010. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
  15. 1 2 Farrel, Nick. "Nvidia faces a US import ban", "The Inquirer", London, 25 January 2010. Retrieved 19 October 2011.
  16. ↑ Rambus v. Nvidia, No. C 08-3343 SI, C 08-5500 SI (N.D. Cal.27 Jan 2010).
  17. ↑ "Nvidia to Pay Rambus Fees While Appealing ITC Ruling", "Bloomberg", 27 July 2010. Retrieved on 19 October 2011.
  18. ↑ "NVIDIA signs Rambus licensing deal, lawsuits continue", Electronista , 13 August 2010. Retrieved on 19 October 2011.
  19. ↑ http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/12-1480.Opinion.6-26-2013.1.PDF [ bare URL PDF ]
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.