Micron, Rambus end 13-year legal feud
December 10 marks the end of their legal pursuit of one another in a deal that will deliver $280 million to Rambus over the next seven years.
December 11, 2013 at 03:23 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The disputes between semiconductor maker Micron and technology licensing company Rambus have extended well beyond the last decade and largely surround antitrust and patent battles. Dating back to legal proceedings concerning antitrust charges brought against Micron, the rivals in the memory market have spent 13 years in the courtroom. December 10 marks the end of their legal pursuit of one another in a deal that will deliver $280 million to Rambus over the next seven years.
Micron will now have the rights to use Rambus' patents in its memory chip technology in exchange for quarterly royalty payments capped at $10 million.
Part of the history behind the two companies' legal disputes is marked by Rambus' DRAM technology, which it once claimed was being edged out of the market by Micron's price fixing. Since then, the litigation has centered on how broad Rambus' intellectual property extends within the scope of the DRAM market. The December 10 decision between the two companies gives Micron access to Rambus' patents for the manufacturing of integrated circuit products and memory products. After the seven-year term expires, Micron will have the option to renew its licensing agreement.
Rambus has not gotten through 13 years of IP litigation unscathed; many in the industry consider it a patent troll. But, regardless, the company boasts an impressive roster of semiconductor manufacturer licensees to which it now adds Micron. Additional chipmakers include NVIDIA, Broadcom, Fujitsu, and MediaTek.
Dropping that extended of a legal battle will, if anything, be good for the bankrolls of both tech companies.
For further reading:
This content has been archived.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 AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
- 1Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 2On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 3Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
- 4‘Not A Kindergarten Teacher’: Judge Blasts Keller Postman, Jenner & Block, in Mass Arb Dispute
- 5A&O Shearman, Hogan Lovells and the Stories That Shaped Africa This Year
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