Business Tech

Rambus has asked the International Trade Commission to terminate an investigation of Nvidia relating to four patents as part of a November 2008 complaint.

Rambus provides high-speed memory interface technology, though in recent years the company has become better-known for intellectual property litigation practices. Rambus has sued many of the world's largest chip manufacturers.

Nvidia's David Shannon

(Credit: Nvidia)

The Los Altos, Calif.-based company conceded before the ITC that Nvidia products do not infringe on its four patents, and also asked for termination of several claims from a fifth patent in the ITC action, according to an Nvidia statement.

"We are pleased Rambus has recognized the weakness of these patents and claims," said David Shannon, Nvidia executive vice president and general counsel in a statement. "These withdrawals represent essentially half of the patents and one third of the claims asserted against us, and we look forward to addressing the remainder of the case."

The current ITC litigation originally included nine patents involving memory controllers related to graphics processors.

In June, Nvidia announced that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had rejected 41 claims, in seven patents, which Rambus had asserted in the ITC action against NVIDIA.

Rambus has a checkered track record on lawsuits. The European Commission launched antitrust investigations against Rambus in 2007, alleging intentional deceptive conduct in the context of the standard-setting process, citing its behavior as "patent ambush."

In January, a Delaware federal judge ruled that Rambus could not enforce patents against Micron Technology. Judge Sue L. Robinson, in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, ruled on January 9 that evidence "spoliation" occurred when Rambus allegedly destroyed important information related to the case that could be used against it. Robinson's decision rendered Rambus' patents unenforceable.

The U.S. Supreme Court handed chip designer Rambus a victory Monday, when it refused to hear an appeal by the Federal Trade Commission that alleged the chip designer violated antitrust laws under the Sherman Act.

For Rambus, it ends a seven-year battle with the Federal Trade Commission over its Sherman Act litigation, which alleged in 2002 that the chipmaker intentionally withheld its patent plans from a standards body, which later gave the green light to some of its technology that is now found in the vast majority of PCs and servers around the world.

"It's a good day for us," said Thomas Lavelle, Rambus general counsel. "The Sherman II claims are dead and over."

Lavelle, however, noted it may not be the last that the chipmaker will see of the FTC.

Over the years, the FTC has periodically told Rambus it may bring a case against the chipmaker under Section 5 of the FTC Act, Lavelle said. But he noted the underlying facts in that type of case would be the same as what was used for its failed Sherman Act II antitrust case. Section 5 cases allege deceptive and unfair practices in commerce.

Lavelle, in fact, may indeed get a repeat visit from the FTC.

David Wales, the FTC's Bureau of Competition director, said in a statement:

This is not the decision we were hoping for, and we are reviewing our options.

In the meantime, Rambus' patent infringement lawsuits against memory chip makers Samsung Electronics, Micron Technology, Hynix Semiconductor, and Nanya Technology are still ongoing.

These cases, which could potentially yield Rambus millions of dollars should a jury find its patents are good and valid, were put on hold earlier this month after a U.S. District Court judge ordered them postponed indefinitely, pending appeals of earlier court decisions.

Prior to the postponement, those cases were set for trial this month.

The Supreme Court victory does little to give Rambus an added edge in its patent infringement case against the chipmakers. Last March, Rambus deflected similar allegations brought on by the chipmakers in its patent infringement case.

The Supreme Court decision, at most, continues to keep the memory chip makers from using that argument as a defense.

A U.S. federal judge on Tuesday postponed indefinitely the coordinated patent infringement cases filed by Rambus against a collection of rival memory chipmakers.

The cases were scheduled to go to trial later this month.

Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order indefinitely postponing the long-running cases against Hynix Semiconductor, Micron Technology, Nanya Technology, and Samsung Electronics, pending appeals of earlier court decisions.

Shares of Los Altos, Calif.-based Rambus, which licenses technology for high-speed memory architectures, plunged 22 percent in after-hours trading, or $2, to $6.95.

The defendants had argued for the delay after Judge Sue L. Robinson, in the U.S. District Court in Delaware, ruled on January 9 that evidence "spoilation" occurred when Rambus allegedly destroyed important information related to the case that could be used against it. Robinson's decision rendered Rambus' patents unenforceable.

The lawsuits, which were filed in 2000 and scheduled to go to trial on February 17, allege that the defendants infringed Rambus patents in producing DDR DRAM--the most common type of memory in PCs today--as well as in making SDRAM and DDR2 DRAM. The vast majority of PCs and servers produced in the past several years use one of these types of memory, and variants of DDR are expected to be incorporated into PCs for the next several years.

The defendants had previously argued that Rambus' patents were invalid because the company failed to disclose that it held patents on memory technology while it was a member of a standards-setting organization that was developing SDRAM standards in the 1990s. Rambus claimed that the rules of that group didn't specifically require the company to disclose its patents and that it never proposed that the standard incorporate its technology.

In a statement, Micron general counsel Rod Lewis applauded the ruling. "We are pleased that Judge Whyte recognized that the Delaware Court's unenforceability ruling impacts the patents asserted by Rambus in the California matter, and that he stayed Rambus' patent case against Micron," Lewis said. "We believe that Judge Robinson's thorough decision will be upheld on appeal."

Rambus, which has argued that Robinson's ruling conflicted with an earlier ruling by Whyte that found Rambus had not destroyed evidence, expressed optimism that its case would be well received on appeal.

"While we are disappointed with the stay of the coordinated cases, it is our expectation that the conflicting opinions of the district courts regarding document spoilation will go up together on appeal," Tom Lavelle, Rambus general counsel, said in a statement.

Rambus is suing Nvidia, accusing the company of violating 17 Rambus-held patents on memory controllers. The suit was filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Los Altos, Calif.-based company says that chipsets, graphics processers, and media communication processors across six different Nvidia product lines are illegally infringing. The patents held concern memory controllers for SDR, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR, and GDDR3 SDRAM.

Rambus is asking the court for an injunction (which would stop Nvidia from selling the products at issue), as well as monetary damages.

In a prepared statement, Rambus' head legal counsel, Tom Lavelle, said that Rambus has been attempting to get Nvidia to purchase a license for the patents, and the suit was the last resort. However, he said, Rambus hopes to settle the issue out of court.

CNET News is waiting to hear back from Nvidia for comment.