dick...
Are these accusation against Rambus by Hiatchi just lies? Did Rambus settle with Hitachi because they knew they would lose the suit and perhaps become a worthless company?
dick.... you got some splain'n to do...
theregister.co.uk
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
By reason of Rambus’ misconduct relating to standard-setting activities and organizations, including but not limited to JEDEC, if one or more of the Patents-in-Suit cover the JEDEC standard, Rambus is obligated to license the Patents-in-Suit without charge or under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of unfair discrimination, such that the defendants may make, use, sell, or offer to sell products which implement the JEDEC or other standards.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable due to misuse and/or inequitable conduct and/or violation of the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, due to the actions and concealment of Rambus in connection with standard-setting activities and participation in standards-setting organizations, including but not limited to JEDEC; Rambus’ participation in the creation of industry sanctioned and/or de facto standards for Synchronous DRAMs; and Rambus’ illegal attempts to eliminate or capture any JEDEC-approved standards for Synchronous DRAM technology which might compete with proprietary Rambus Synchronous DRAM technology. Attempts by Rambus to enforce the Patents-in-Suit constitute misuse, monopolization, an attempt to monopolize, and/or an unlawful restraint of trade.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable due to misuse and/or inequitable conduct and/or violation of the antitrust laws, including the Sherman Act, due to the actions of Rambus in licensing the Patents-in-Suit pursuant to Technology Agreements which obligate third parties including Hitachi to manufacture Rambus products under Rambus-dictated specifications and which discriminate against non-Rambus products and alternative technologies, thereby excluding potential competitors from the market and/or raising the costs of entry into the market by competitors. These actions have an anti-competitive effect and improperly attempt to extend the limited rights existing under the Patents-in-Suit, so as to constitute misuse, monopolization, an attempt to monopolize, and/or an unlawful restraint of trade.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable by operation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel, on grounds including but not limited to Rambus’ failure to disclose adequately its intellectual property interests to JEDEC and Rambus’ amending its pending patent claims, if products with Synchronous DRAM technology conforming to the JEDEC-approved industry standards infringe upon Rambus’ patents.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are invalid and/or unenforceable for failure to comply with the patent statute including, but not limited to, 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, 112, 113, 120 and 121.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
By reason of proceedings in the United States Patent and Trademark Office during the prosecutions of the family of applications leading to the Patents-in-Suit, the claims of those patents were limited by prosecution history estoppel, as well as by the prior art, so that Rambus is now estopped from maintaining that the Patents-in-Suit are of such scope as to cover or embrace any of the accused products or processes.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE By reason of Rambus’ conduct, including its participation in standards-setting activities and organizations including but not limited to JEDEC, Rambus has granted the defendants an implied royalty-free license under the Patents-in-Suit to make, use, sell, or offer to sell products containing the alleged inventions.
EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable in law and equity by operation of the doctrine of waiver.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are unenforceable in law and equity due to the unclean hands of Rambus.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The Patents-in-Suit are not infringed.
WHEREFORE, Hitachi prays that this Court enter judgment:
54. Dismissing the Complaint for Patent Infringement;
55. Granting Hitachi its costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
56. Granting Hitachi such other and further relief as is just and appropriate.
|
