Commission Issues Opinion Granting LEO and Cease and Desist Order in Inv. No. 337-TA-661
The Commission has issued an opinion affirming ALJ Essex’s finding that a section 337 violation occurred, and provided further findings on invalidity, in Inv. No. 337-TA-661, Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers And Products Containing Same. As described in our July 26, 2010 entry, ALJ Essex found that the respondents violated Section 337 by infringing three of the five remaining patents asserted by complainant Rambus, Inc. (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405; 6,591,353; 7,287,109; 7,117,998; and 7,210,016). The Commission reviewed four issues: the obviousness and anticipation rulings on the '016 and '998 patents; the obviousness-type double patenting ruling on the '405, '353 and '109 patents; the obviousness analysis of the '405, '353 and '109 patents; and the issue of patent exhaustion. The Commission's ruling upholds ALJ Essex's January 22, 2010 initial determination that Rambus Inc.’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,117,998 and 7,210,016 are invalid, and additionally finds that the respondents failed to demonstrate the invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405, 6,591,353 and 7,287,109. The Commission also determined that Respondents' arguments regarding patent exhaustion failed because there was no showing that the relevant sales of memory controllers occurred in the United States.
On remedy, the Commission rejected Rambus' request for a general exclusion order, finding instead that a limited exclusion order was sufficient. The Commission also issued a cease and desist order against Respondents NVIDIA, Hewlett-Packard, ASUS Computer International, Palit Multimedia, MSI Computer Corp., Microstar International, EVGA Corp., DiabloTek, Inc., Biostar Microtech and BFG Technologies, following the ALJ's determination on this issue. Finally, the Commission declined to issue a stay of the limited exclusion order and cease and desist order pending reexamination of the asserted patents, and entered a bond of 2.65 percent of the value of the accused products.
