Read our latest coverage of patent law and intellectual property issues, from Silicon Valley to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Rambus has felt irreparable harm by not getting licensing revenue from Hynix, Lavelle contends, one of the four factors now weighed by courts considering injunctions. He also argues that Rambus is more like semiconductor companies that outsource manufacturing and less like so-called “patent trolls” whose only business is asserting patents.
“Would you say that the whole fabless semiconductor industry is not allowed to get an injunction?” Lavelle asked rhetorically. “That would seem a little a strange.”
Kenneth Nissly, a Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner lawyer representing Hynix, wouldn’t comment on the merits of a possible injunction, saying only that “The law, as is widely recognized, has changed since eBay.”
Of course, none of this may come to pass. Lavelle said his company is interested in a good settlement. On the other side, Nissly said Hynix would consider an appeal, as is Nanya, and Micron said it plans to appeal.
The manufacturers have reason to fight. The outcome of the jury trial in San Jose allows Rambus to go after Micron and Nanya for infringement. It also allows the company to collect more than the $133 million from Hynix because the company continued to ship its products and because of accrued interest, Lavelle said.
Cases are still pending against Hynix, Nanya, Micron and Samsung in the Northern District of California, and with Micron in the District of Delaware.
