Somore:
Samsung responded: "We will actively respond to the litigation," said Samsung spokesman James Chung, without elaborating. reuters.com
Asked why he thought he would have any more success than Rambus in extracting royalties from memory companies, Cambou replied: “I think the issue is that Spansion is a memory company, it’s not just writing IPs in the corner. We have all the basic intellectual property (IP) for NAND floating gate which is what Samsung is doing. Samsung is now citing its own inventions as prior art.”
Isn’t it going to be difficult trying to get royalties from such an unprofitable sector as flash memory? “Samsung say their NAND business is very profitable,” replied Cambou.
Asked why it is seen as necessary to litigate, Cambou replied: “We have tried to talk to them. They have no interest in talking to us in a friendly way. Twelve months ago we were talking to them about charge-trapping technology because floating point is not lasting forever, and we said: ‘We can help you go to charge trapping’. Samsung said they didn’t want to talk about licensing.”
The patents all came to Spansion from AMD which, with Fujitsu, formed Spansion as a joint venture comprising the two companies’ flash manufacturing operations. The AMD patents ‘on average’ expire in 2020. “We’re asking for six years compensation for the last six years,” said Cambou, “take your number - $200m a year, $300m a year, it comes to a big sum.”
Isn’t it counter-productive to cite in its lawsuit customers or potential customers of Spansion such as Apple, Sony RIM, Asus, and Sony-Ericsson? “We deeply regret that they have to be cited," responded Cambou, “all of them will be unhappy that they are on the list. We will do all we can to make sure they are not affected.”
Cambou is hoping for a quick resolution of the dispute when Samsung realises it has no option but to settle. “ITC can make a decision in nine months,” said Cambou, “we estimate the worst case will be 16 months. The quality and strength of our patents should make it much faster. Our patents are so powerful, and so basic, they’ll realise that at the end of the day they will come to an agreement. It puts tremendous pressure on Samsung.”
What is Spansion hoping to achieve with this lawsuit? “Our ultimate objective is two-fold we want to establish a licensing business,” replied Cambou, “we are one of the flash pioneers in floating gate and, with charge-trapping coming, we want to be a major licensing house.”
electronicsweekly.com
Ethan Horwitz, a partner in the intellectual property practice in the New York office of Atlanta-based King & Spalding, which represents Spansion, said the federal court suit seeks treble damages on what Spansion claims is at least $30 billion in sales garnered by Samsung since 2003 on six infringed patents. The International Trade Commission filing seeks to block importation of products containing chips that allegedly infringe four other patents.
"We want a quick stop to Samsung using our technology, which we can get through the ITC with an exclusion order, and to recover damages, which we can get through the district court," Horwitz said. "There is overlap in the nature of the technology but they are two distinct cases."
Robert Melendres, general counsel for Spansion, said the company is one of the last American competitors in the global market for flash drive dominated by Samsung of Korea, and Toshiba of Japan.
"We are an American company competing on the basis of innovation in a low-margin business," Melendres said. "There will be no U.S. players in this market if we don't protect our intellectual property. That is fundamental."
law.com
Regards,
Rink |
