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.

Join the newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.
Rocket to Success - Your 10 Tips for Smarter ERP System Selection

Tags legalmemoryintellectual propertypatentmicron technologyrambusComponentsU.S. Federal Trade CommissionU.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitU.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

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

Grant Gross

IDG News Service
Show Comments

Cool Tech

Breitling Superocean Heritage Chronographe 44

Learn more >

SanDisk MicroSDXC™ for Nintendo® Switch™

Learn more >

Toys for Boys

Family Friendly

Panasonic 4K UHD Blu-Ray Player and Full HD Recorder with Netflix - UBT1GL-K

Learn more >

Stocking Stuffer

Razer DeathAdder Expert Ergonomic Gaming Mouse

Learn more >

Christmas Gift Guide

Click for more ›

Most Popular Reviews

Latest Articles

Resources

PCW Evaluation Team

Edwina Hargreaves

WD My Cloud Home

I would recommend this device for families and small businesses who want one safe place to store all their important digital content and a way to easily share it with friends, family, business partners, or customers.

Walid Mikhael

Brother QL-820NWB Professional Label Printer

It’s easy to set up, it’s compact and quiet when printing and to top if off, the print quality is excellent. This is hands down the best printer I’ve used for printing labels.

Ben Ramsden

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

Brainstorming, innovation, problem solving, and negotiation have all become much more productive and valuable if people can easily collaborate in real time with minimal friction.

Sarah Ieroianni

Brother QL-820NWB Professional Label Printer

The print quality also does not disappoint, it’s clear, bold, doesn’t smudge and the text is perfectly sized.

Ratchada Dunn

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

The Huddle Board’s built in program; Sharp Touch Viewing software allows us to easily manipulate and edit our documents (jpegs and PDFs) all at the same time on the dashboard.

George Khoury

Sharp PN-40TC1 Huddle Board

The biggest perks for me would be that it comes with easy to use and comprehensive programs that make the collaboration process a whole lot more intuitive and organic

Featured Content

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?