AMD 2008 Annual Report Download - page 51

only to a limited class of individuals and entities who purchased graphics processing card products online from
defendants’ websites in the United States during the period from December 4, 2002 to November 7, 2007.
On September 16, 2008, we and certain indirect subsidiaries and NVIDIA executed a settlement agreement
relating to the claims of the certified class of direct purchaser plaintiffs previously approved by the District Court
for the Northern District of California. The settlement agreement requires us to make a payment of $850,000 into a
fund for the benefit of the certified class in exchange for a dismissal of all claims related to the lawsuit. We are not
obligated under the settlement agreement to pay attorneys’ fees, costs, or make any other payments in connection
with the settlement. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval and, if approved, would dispose of all
claims raised by the certified class. On October 2, 2008, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued an order staying the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ petition for permission to appeal the District Court’s order
regarding class certification. On December 18, 2008, the District Court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the direct purchaser settlement. The final approval hearing is scheduled for March 26, 2009.
On September 9, 2008, we and certain indirect subsidiaries and NVIDIA also reached a settlement
agreement with the remaining individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs in the lawsuit under which we paid
$112,500 in exchange for a dismissal of all claims and appeals related to the lawsuit raised by the individual
indirect purchaser plaintiffs. This settlement was not subject to the approval of the District Court. Pursuant to the
settlement, the individual indirect purchaser plaintiffs dismissed their claims and withdrew their petition for
permission to appeal the District Court’s order denying their motion for class certification.
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. The majority of the Samsung entities answered on May 15, 2008; two Samsung entities answered on
July 16, 2008. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. 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. The court has scheduled a trial date of September 13, 2010.
Department of Justice Subpoena
On October 10, 2008, U.S. Department of Justice informed us it had closed its investigation into ATI’s
pricing and marketing practices in the sale of GPUs.
Environmental Matters
We are named as a responsible party on Superfund clean-up orders for three sites in Sunnyvale, California
that are on the National Priorities List. Since 1981, we have discovered hazardous material releases to the
groundwater from former underground tanks and proceeded to investigate and conduct remediation at these three
sites. The chemicals released into the groundwater were commonly used in the semiconductor industry in the
United States in the wafer fabrication process prior to 1979.
In 1991, we received Final Site Clean-up Requirements Orders from the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board relating to the three sites. We have entered into settlement agreements with other responsible
parties on two of the orders. During the term of such agreements other parties have agreed to assume most of the
foreseeable costs as well as the primary role in conducting remediation activities under the orders. We remain
responsible for additional costs beyond the scope of the agreements as well as all remaining costs in the event
that the other parties do not fulfill their obligations under the settlement agreements.
41