ITC judge says 3 companies didn’t violate Rambus’ patents
Things arent looking good for Rambus Inc. at the moment. The technology licensing giant looks to be losing the early rounds of its patent infringement litigation against a litany of companies.
March 05, 2012 at 05:30 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Things aren't looking good for Rambus Inc. at the moment. The technology licensing giant looks to be losing the early rounds of its patent infringement litigation against a litany of companies.
International Trade Commission (ITC) Judge Theodore Essex said Friday that chipmakers LSI Corp. and MediaTek Inc., and chip design company STMicroelectronics NV, did not violate Rambus' chip technology patents. Rambus is accusing a number of companies of infringing six of its patents for memory controllers and high-speed, chip-to-chip communications, among other things.
Rambus has settled similar litigation with Nvidia Corp., Broadcom Corp. and Freescale Semiconductor Holdings I Ltd. in the past year. Additionally, one of the six patents at issue was dropped from the case against LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics.
“We have yet to receive the decision, but are disappointed with the initial determination of no violation,” Rambus Senior Vice President and General Counsel Thomas Lavelle told Reuters. “We believe in the strength of our portfolio and remain committed to protecting our patented inventions from unlicensed use.”
Complicating matters for Rambus is the fact that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office appeals board has declared three of the remaining five patents at issue in the case invalid. Two of the three patents, which are collectively known as the Barth patents, were declared invalid in September 2011. The third patent's invalidation was announced in January. The patents remain valid, however, during the appeals process, which is ongoing.
The full ITC is expected to make its ruling in July.
This case aside, Rambus may best be remembered for the FTC's 2006 decision in In re Rambus Inc., which once was widely hailed as a landmark ruling that created powerful legal protections for the integrity of standard-setting processes,before the D.C. Circuit reversed the decision in 2008.
For more, read Reuters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSo You Want to Be a Tech Lawyer? Consider Product Counseling
How Qualcomm’s General Counsel Is Championing Diversity in Innovation
6 minute readRepublican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
4 minute readFTC Lauds Withdrawal of Proposed Indiana Hospitals Merger After Leaning on State Regulators
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250