Pomp,
3. ITC may rule that every DDR product violates Rambus patents. (or some variation thereof).
I was going to post a reply to my own message, but you brought up the subject nicely. I haven't read the entire document in this link (http://dockets.usitc.gov/eol/public/showpage.cgi?room=public&invtype=337&invno=431&invphase=violation&seqno=200005240014), but on page 2, I believe it begins to address the issue of whether or not Hitachi can have the other memory manufacturers included in the lawsuit. Specifically, it says:
On May 10, 2000, the Commission Investigative Staff ("Staff") filed a response opposing the motion to amend. As an initial matter, the Staff criticizes the Hitachi Respondents' assertion that they seek to protect the proposed additional respondents' rights and interests, noting that the proposed additional respondents are in the best position to raise such an issue, and that they had informed the Staff that they do not wish to participate as respondents in this investigation. Furthermore, the Staff counters the Hitachi Respondents' policy arguments about including all possible respondents, pointing out that Rambus seeks a limited rather than a general exclusion order as a remedy in this investigation, and that Rambus has not alleged infringement by the proposed additional respondents. As to the "industry-side" resolution argument, the Staff reasons that the Hitachi Respondents have failed to establish that such a resolution could be reached by this investigation, even if the amendment were allowed. Also, the Staff asserts that considering the nature of the limited exclusion order sought, the Hitachi Respondents fail to show that "this investigation will not be as final and conclusive as possible" with regard to the relevant issues. Staff Response at 5. As to the Hitachi Respondents argument that the additional proposed respondents possess relevant information, the Staff contends that the Hitachi Respondents have made an insufficient showing in this regard, and further have not demonstrated the impossibility of obtaining any such information without the inclusion of the additional proposed respondents as parties.
So, while it may not have been decided yet, it sounds as if the ITC is saying that they do not believe the suit needs to be expanded to include the other manufacturers.
Have we heard anything definitive about this?
Dave
<edit: Page 3 continues...
"Each of the proposed additional respondents, Toshiba Corporation, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., NEC Corporation, Fujitsu Limited and Hyundai Electronics Industries Co., Ltd., filed oppositions to the motion to amend. They echo the arguments of Rambus and the Staff, and maintain that the motion to amend endeavors to create disputes that do not exist.">
<edit more: Page 4 ends with...
"Based on the foregoing, the motion to amend is denied.
Signed by Debra Morriss, Administrative Law Judge"
And it's dated May 24th.
I don't remember seeing this on the board before.
Dave> |
