SK Hynix Demands New Rambus Patent Trial
Orange County – SK Hynix Inc. asked a California federal judge Wednesday to scrap a nearly $400 million patent infringement judgment in favor of Rambus Inc. or alternatively hold a new trial in the long-running case over dynamic random access memory technology.
In recent patent reexamination proceedings, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences has directly held that two of the 10 patent claims in suit are invalid, Hynix said in motions for summary judgment and a new trial. The board’s decisions on two other claims in suit are pending.
The board has also rejected other Rambus patent claims that were not at issue in the current lawsuit but contain the same DRAM features that were key to the patents in suit, Hynix said.
Because the claims that have been rejected by the BPAI do not differ in any patentably significant way from the claims in suit, Hynix is ao entitled to summary judgment of invalidity on the non-adjudicated claims in suit based on the collateral estoppel effect of the BPAI decisions, the summary judgment motion said.
“After a thorough reexamination by the PTO and a final rejection by the BPAI, Rambus’ patent claims are now revealed for what they have been since their inception: invalid,” the motion said. “In light of this exceptional circumstance, this litigation should not proceed.”
If the court does not grant Hynix summary judgment, it should still grant a new trial so that Hynix can introduce new evidence related to the BPAI rulings and an August Federal Circuit ruling holding that one of Rambus’ patent claims was invalid, Hynix said.
Rambus’ spoilation of evidence in the case would also have to be addressed in a new trial, the company said.
In September the court capped the royalties Hynix owes Rambus for the infringement, based in large part on its finding that Rambus spoiled evidence in bad faith or at least willfully.
The court concluded that the sanction most commensurate with Rambus’s was is to strike from the record evidence supporting a royalty in excess of a reasonable, non-discriminatory royalty.
Posted in: Patent Infringement