Regardless, patent experts who have read
Rambus' patents say that at face value they
look solid.
Richard Belgard, an independent
consultant in Silicon Valley noted for his
chip-architecture expertise, says he spent
about three hours trying to dig up prior art
but came up empty. "I couldn't find any
semblance of possibilities of ideas that
people had come out with," he says.
If Rambus wins, it won't be the first time
the courts force the memory industry to
pay royalties. In the late '80s, Texas
Instruments sued memory makers Micron
Technologies, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba,
Sharp, Oki and Samsung and won
settlements that netted TI more than $1
billion over the six years that followed.
For their part, Rambus executives say they
would not have filed suit if they weren't
certain their patents would hold up in
court.
"At the end of the day, Rambus is in the IP
business, and we have to protect our IP,"
says Avo Kanadjian, vice president of
worldwide marketing for Rambus. The
company would prefer to settle out of
court with Hitachi and the other
memory-chip makers, he says.
Peter Clark, CEO of Hitachi
Semiconductor America, declined to
comment on the suit, saying the company
will argue in the courts and not in the
press.
"Hitachi and Hitachi Semiconductor
America are very confident in our
position," he says.
Alexander Rogers, a partner at Gray Cary
Ware & Freidenrich, lead counsel for
Rambus, declined to comment.
In the suit, Rambus argues that Hitachi
violates four of its patents by importing
into the U.S. and making, using, selling or
offering for sale chips and microprocessor
products based on technology features first
described in those patents. The suit does
not specify the particular features of the
products that violate Rambus' patents, nor
does it specify what parts of the patent are
at issue. Hitachi has yet to file a response.
Semiconductor patent suits are notoriously
difficult to try. Memory chip design is
extremely complex, involving millions of
transistors packed on a piece of silicon the
size of a fingernail and as thick as a piece
of paper. The judge or jury -- who will
likely have little engineering knowledge --
will be the ones to second-guess the
engineers who designed such chips. Two
things must be decided: whether the
product infringes and whether the patents
are valid.
"In the case of infringement, the burden is
on the patent owners," says William
Anthony Jr., a patent litigator at Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe. And that is pretty
cut-and-dried, "matching the design in the
patent to the design of the product at
issue."
But proving a patent invalid is a different
story altogether. "That's an uphill battle for
the defendant," Anthony says. "The jury
doesn't like to substitute their judgment for
the patent examiner."
As with most cases, in front of a confused
jury the most persuasive lawyer will win,
says Gregory Brummett, a partner
specializing in patent-related litigation at
Pillsbury Madison & Sutro in Washington,
D.C. But the odds are on the side of the
plaintiffs in such patent cases. "They win
more than they lose," he says. "[The
plaintiffs] have a lot of leverage."
callaw.com |
