RMBS,
Zeev,from the RMBS thread,is the following info new to you?
TIA,
Mamny.
To:Mani Ahmadi who started this subject
From: andreas_wonisch Tuesday, Apr 10, 2001 4:13 PM
Respond to of 35375
Rambus may face rough sledding in next week's trial
ebnews.com
Some quotes:
Federal Judge Robert Payne has questioned whether Rambus Inc. will face "a great embarrassment" in having almost no case to present in its SDRAM patent infringement trial against Infineon Technologies AG, according to court transcripts.
The Rambus trial is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. April 17 in the federal district court in Richmond, Va. After ruling last month that Rambus synchronous patents essentially didn't cover Infineon SDRAMs, Judge Payne asked Rambus attorneys in a pretrial hearing whether they could mount an effective case.
"It may be a great embarrassment to Rambus, that after [their] opening statement, they have nothing to say," Judge Payne asserted.
[...]
All parties agreed that Rambus made a single patent disclosure in 1993 on a type of clock frequency, which Infineon and JEDEC witnesses have testified was not related to SDRAM in any way.
In fact, the transcripts quote from depositions of Richard Crisp, the Rambus JEDEC representative, that he made the disclosure on his own volition and was chastised by Mooring and warned to consult with Rambus management in the future.
Judge Payne said, "There is evidence that the [Rambus] disclosure of the [clock frequency] patent was done for the purpose of deflecting attention from what was actually happening in Rambus' patenting process."
Judge Payne concluded, "The evidence establishes a prima facie case...of the components of the fraud that is alleged to support [Infineon's] inequitable conduct defense..."
Judge Payne did agree that Rambus raised a debatable point that was open to a final jury determination whether Infineon knew of the firm's intentions to patent SDRAMs as early as 1991.
Andreas |
