AMD 2009 Annual Report Download - page 44

July 31, 2006, that case was also consolidated into the consolidated action pending in the Northern District of
California. ATI filed an answer to the consolidated complaint on August 7, 2006. On January 30, 2009, ATI, on
behalf of itself, AMD, and, ATI Technologies Systems Corp., ATI Research Silicon Valley Inc., and ATI
Research, Inc. (all former indirect-subsidiaries of AMD) (collectively “ATI”), executed a settlement agreement
relating to the claims of a proposed settlement class of all persons who, while residing in the United States,
purchased, for their own personal use and not for resale, certain graphics cards specified in the settlement
agreement, during the period from January 1, 2003 to March 31, 2006. The settlement agreement was approved
by the court. The case was dismissed with prejudice. In exchange for a dismissal of all claims related to the
lawsuit, the settlement agreement required ATI to pay $4,000,000 in cash and to make available for distribution
to class members certain new graphics cards, based on the number of authorized claims. ATI is not obligated
under the settlement agreement to pay attorneys’ fees, costs, or make any other payments in connection with the
settlement. The Court held a final approval hearing on August 31, 2009, and entered its order granting final
approval of the settlement on September 11, 2009, disposing of all claims raised by the putative class in the
lawsuit against ATI. AMD has made all required cash payments, including a final payment of approximately
$1.8 million to charitable organizations approved by the court based on the number of authorized claims, and has
delivered graphics cards as required to the class administrator, fulfilling all requirements under the settlement
agreement.
AMD v. Samsung Electronics Co. et al
On February 19, 2008, AMD and ATI filed a complaint against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Samsung)
and related Samsung entities alleging infringement of six AMD patents. The complaint was amended in May
2008 to add a seventh patent and also to add two additional Samsung entities as defendants to the suit. The case
is filed in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The AMD patents generally relate to
semiconductors, semiconductor memory, and related products. We are seeking damages and injunctive
relief. Samsung filed an answer and counterclaims on May 15, 2008, alleging infringement by AMD and/or ATI
of six Samsung patents. The Samsung patents generally relate to semiconductor fabrication and design. Samsung
is seeking damages and injunctive relief. We filed our answer to Samsung’s counterclaims on August 1, 2008.
On March 19, 2009, Samsung filed a motion for partial summary judgment, arguing that one of the seven
patents asserted by AMD was invalid. On June 24, 2009 the Court denied Samsung’s motion for partial summary
judgment. The Court issued its claims construction order on September 17, 2009. The scheduled trial date is
January 24, 2011.
OPTi v. AMD.
On November 16, 2006, OPTi filed a complaint against AMD in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging
infringement of three patents. The patents relate to predictive snooping. AMD filed its answer and asserted
counterclaims on December 7, 2006. OPTi has dropped its claims relating to two of the patents. The trial relating
to the third patent is currently in process. OPTi is seeking damages and injunctive relief. We intend to vigorously
defend ourselves in this matter, but can give no assurances as to the outcome.
OPTi v. AMD et al.
On July 6, 2007, AMD was served with a complaint filed by OPTi against AMD and several additional
defendants in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging infringement of two patents. The patents relate to bus
technology. The trial is set for August 2, 2010. OPTi is seeking damages and injunctive relief. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves in this matter, but can give no assurances as to the outcome.
36