Rambus-Infineon ain't over yet

Jack Robertson of EBNews seems to be doing darn near the only coverage of the Rambus-Infineon trial, but that's not a problem, because he's doing a fine job of it. Have a look at his latest analysis of the case, focusing on the three remaining Rambus legal claims. These last three stragglers have to do with whether SDRAM uses a multiplex bus covered by Rambus patents. These claims are important because they bear on other pending cases involving Micron and, ahem, Hynix (formerly Hyundai), and because this trial could still produce a ruling on those claims:
That almost makes Monday's dramatic dismissal of 54 Rambus patent claims a sideshow. The dismissed claims all involved synchronous DRAM features detailed in four Rambus patents. Judge Payne didn't rule on the validity of the patents or the 54 invention claims covered by them, but simply that Rambus attorneys had failed to produce any evidence that Infineon had infringed any of these claims.

Indeed, Infineon's counterclaim that the 54 dismissed Rambus patent inventions were invalid became moot and will be dropped from the trial as well.

So, in the end, Judge Payne's decision to throw out a lot of Rambus's claims may not decide much. If the trial produces a ruling on the muliplexed bus issue, though, it still could matter a great deal.

Robertson's analysis also explains further the issue of the fraud charges Infineon has leveled against Rambus under U.S. RICO (racketeering) law:

No final trial decision would come on the Rambus JEDEC issues, if the Richmond case ends before it goes to the jury. One industry antagonist to Rambus, who was closely involved in the JEDEC SDRAM activities, said he hoped Judge Payne would not throw out the three remaining Rambus patent claims -- just to take the JEDEC issue to the jury.
So for Rambus to get really smoked here, the trial must produce a jury verdict. Against Rambus.
Tip: You can use the A/Z keys to walk threads.
View options

This discussion is now closed.