Appeals court throws out Rambus patent ruling

The court vacated a $397 million ruling against Hynix Semiconductor and ordered reconsideration in a Micron case

A U.S. appeals court has ruled on two patent lawsuits that pit Rambus against two competing DRAM makers, sending both cases back to district courts for reconsideration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a lower court ruling requiring Hynix Semiconductor to pay Rambus damages and fees totaling US$397 million for the use of its patents in DRAM chips. That ruling, from the District Court for the Northern District of California, came in March 2009, nearly nine years after Hynix first filed an antitrust and fraud lawsuit against Rambus.

In the second case, the appeals court upheld a District Court ruling from Delaware that Rambus had destroyed evidence in a patent case brought by Micron Technology in 2000.

However, the appeals court vacated another ruling, also from Delaware, that 12 DRAM-related patents claimed by Rambus were unenforceable against Micron.

"We are very disappointed with the decisions in these cases," Thomas Lavelle, senior vice president and general counsel at Rambus, said in a statement. "We are hopeful when the district courts reconsider these decisions, they will find, as we believe, there was no bad faith and no prejudice."

Rambus officials said they weren't sure whether they would appeal the cases to the U.S. Supreme Court. Rambus is "unwavering" in its decision to pursue patent claims against the companies, Harold Hughes, Rambus' president and CEO, said during a conference call.

Micron applauded the appeal's court decision. Rambus acted in "bad faith" in the case, said Rod Lewis, Micron's vice president of legal affairs.

"We are pleased that the Federal Circuit panel unanimously agreed ... that Rambus wrongfully destroyed evidence," Lewis said in a statement.

A primary question in both cases is whether Rambus reasonably foresaw litigation when it deleted documents and e-mail messages related to the company's DRAM marketing, patent and litigation strategies back in 1998 and 1999, when the company was looking at ways to get competitors to adopt its DRAM technologies or face lawsuits for patent infringement.

The cases stem from a disagreement over DRAM standards set in the 1990s. Rambus was a member of the standards-setting group the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) from February 1992 to June 1996, according to court documents.

Rambus had developed and patented technology to improve the performance of DRAM, and the company was concerned that competitors were violating its patents when making their own DRAM products. Rambus attempted to get other companies to license its technology, but the company suffered a setback when Intel, formerly a Rambus customer, announced in October 1998 that it was investing US$500 million in Micron's DRAM efforts.

Other DRAM makers and the U.S. Federal Trade Commission accused Rambus of convincing JEDEC to declare a standard for the memory used in PCs, servers, printers and cameras without admitting that it owned the patents to those technologies.

Tags rambusU.S. Federal Trade Commissionmicron technologyintellectual propertylegalpatentComponentsmemoryU.S. District Court for the Northern District of CaliforniaU.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Grant Gross

IDG News Service

Comments

Comments are now closed.

Most Popular Reviews

Follow Us

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Latest News Articles

Resources

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?