User:Konglk/sandbox

The case Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation is a Northern District of California case in which Rambus Inc. initially filed complaint charging NVIDIA Corporation with infringing fifteen Rambus patents in 2008. Nine of the patents were unenforced in the case of Micron v. Rambus. Judge Susan Illston denied summary judgment in court while waiting for the ruling from ITC. In July, 2010, ITC ruled NVIDIA violated three patents belonging to Rambus. NVIDIA signed license with Rambus while appealing ITC ruling.

Background
Rambus Inc. is a corporation that develops “memory interface solutions that enable higher performance and system bandwidth for a broad range of electronic, computing and networking applications for consumers and businesses.” Rambus alleges that it “licenses its technologies to various customers, who then incorporate them into various products.“ The technologies include memory controllers, memory components, memory modules, and memory systems. The complaint alleges that defendant’s infringement “has been and is willful, deliberate and in disregard of Rambus’ patent rights. . . .”

On July 10, 2008, Rambus Inc. filed complaint charging NVIDIA Corporation with infringing fifteen Rambus patents. The fifteen patents consist of two groups: six patents claiming technology invented by Rambus founders Michael Farmwald and Mark Horowitz (the “Farmwald/Horowitz” or “FH” patents), and nine patents claiming technology invented by Richard Barth and/or Frederick Ware, with others (the “Barth/Ware” patents). The complaint alleges, for each of the patents-insuit, that Nvidia has directly infringed the patents “and/or has contributed and continues to contribute to the literal infringement and/or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. . . and/or has actively induced and continues to actively induce others to infringe [the patents-in-suit].” Rambus seeks monetary and injunctive relief, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees due to defendant’s willful infringement and the “exceptional nature of this case.”

The day after Rambus filed the patent lawsuit, NVIDIA filed an antitrust lawsuit against Rambus in the middle District of North Carolina. In December, 2008, the North Carolina court transferred NVIDIA's antitrust action to United States District Court for the Northern District of California on the ground that NVIDIA's antitrust claims properly belonged as counterclaims to Rambus's patent infringement claims in this case. District Court for the Northern District of California ordered consolidation of the two cases.

On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint against NVIDIA in the United States International Trade Commission alleging infringement of the nine Barth/Ware patents. On December 4, 2008, NVIDIA moved to stay litigation on all of Rambus' infringement claims, on the ground that the ITC proceeding automatically stayed litigation on the Barth/Ware patents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659, and that, inter alia, the FH patents involved many of the same products involved in the ITC proceedings.

Procedural History
On November 13, 2008, the court denies defendant's motion to strike and to dismiss. Plaintiff is required to provide the additional factual information and legal contentions pursuant to the Local Patent Rules and in discovery. .

On March 11, 2009, regarding to that NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss and a motion for partial summary judgment, the court finds it premature to rule on the preclusive effect and therefore directed the parties to discuss the propriety of a stay of all proceedings in all the consolidated cases pending the Federal Circuit's resolution of the enforceability of Rambus' patents in Micron and Hynix I. NVIDIA's both motions seek issue preclusion based on Judge Robinson's ruling in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 255 F.R.D.135(D. Del. 2009), that Rambus spoliated evidence and had a widespread of destroying relevant documents as part of its patent litigation strategy. Judge Robinson held that Rambus' patents were unenforceable as a sanction for spoliation of documents. NVIDIA contends that issue preclusion is appropriate because FH patents are from the same patent family as the patents litigated in Judge Robinson's case. NVIDIA also argues issue preclusion also applies to the Barth/Ware patents because Rambus had a policy of regularly destroying documents related to any patent prosecution.

However, the Court finds it premature to rule on the preclusive effect of either Judge Robinson’s or Judge Whyte’s decisions, and that a stay of all proceedings is appropriate. The patents in suit are related to the Rambus patents held unenforceable by Judge Robinson in Micron. The Federal Circuit’s resolution of Judge Robinson’s decision in Micron and Judge Whyte’s conflicting decision in Hynix I will be relevant – and potentially dispositive – to these proceedings. The court believes "A stay will thus promote judicial economy and conserve the parties’ and the judiciary’s resources. In addition, the harm resulting from a stay will be minimal".

On June 8, 2009, NVIDIA announced that Rambus has asked an administrative law judge at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to terminate the investigation of NVIDIA relating to four patents stemming from a complaint filed in November 2008 because they "conceded that NVIDIA products do not infringe on its four patents before the ITC".

On January 22, 2010, U.S. International Trade Commission judge ruled in an initial determination that NVIDIA has violated three patents belonging to Rambus. ITC also cleared NVIDIA from two other patents infringement. Due to this ruling Nvidia is facing a US import ban on some of its chips. The chips facing the US import ban are used in the nForce, Quadro, GeForce, Tesla and Tegra series graphics products, nearly every video card type manufactured by NVIDIA. However, David Shannon, executive of NVIDIA dismissed Rambus's victory on the other three patents because they will continue to be subject to reexamination proceedings in the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). He claimed that the US PTO has consistently found Rambus's asserted claims invalid.

On January 27, 2010, the court ordered the parties to address on the impact of these consolidated cases of the January 22, 2010 ruling by the International Trade Commission, as well as the status of any further proceedings in the ITC and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at the March 12, 2010 case management conference.

On July 26, 2010, U.S. International Trade Commission ruled NVIDIA chips infringed three Rambus patents, and issued an order that would ban imports of certain products containing the chips. NVIDIA said it can continue sales by taking advantage of a licensing arrangement Rambus reached with European regulators as part of an unrelated antitrust case.