AMD 2010 Annual Report Download - page 42

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 42 of the 2010 AMD annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 152

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100
  • 101
  • 102
  • 103
  • 104
  • 105
  • 106
  • 107
  • 108
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 114
  • 115
  • 116
  • 117
  • 118
  • 119
  • 120
  • 121
  • 122
  • 123
  • 124
  • 125
  • 126
  • 127
  • 128
  • 129
  • 130
  • 131
  • 132
  • 133
  • 134
  • 135
  • 136
  • 137
  • 138
  • 139
  • 140
  • 141
  • 142
  • 143
  • 144
  • 145
  • 146
  • 147
  • 148
  • 149
  • 150
  • 151
  • 152

SGI (Graphics Properties Holding, Inc.) v. ATI and AMD, Case No.06-C-0611 in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
On October 23, 2006, Silicon Graphics Inc. (SGI) filed a patent infringement lawsuit against ATI and AMD
in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the original SGI v. ATI suit. SGI
alleged that certain ATI products infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,650,327 (the ‘327 patent) and later amended its
complaint to add two additional patents. AMD asserted counterclaims against SGI. SGI later abandoned its
claims as to one patent, the District Court granted AMD’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as
to a second patent, and the District Court also granted in part AMD’s motion for summary judgment of
non-infringement on the ‘327 patent. Immediately following the District Court’s entry of partial summary
judgment, SGI moved to dismiss its remaining infringement claims, and those claims were dismissed. The
District Court granted AMD’s request to proceed with the trial on AMD’s counterclaims of invalidity and
inequitable conduct. The jury verdict on February 8, 2008, found that certain claims of one of SGI’s patents were
not invalid, and the District Court subsequently dismissed an inequitable conduct claim raised by AMD. AMD
and SGI both appealed various aspects of the District Court’s rulings to the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.
On April 1, 2009, SGI filed for bankruptcy, and through the bankruptcy proceeding changed its name to
Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (“GPHI”). The Court of Appeals postponed the oral argument based on the
automatic stay provisions of the bankruptcy code and the intertwined nature of AMD and SGI/GPHI’s appeals.
On August 12, 2009, the bankruptcy court overseeing the SGI/GPHI matter issued an order lifting the stay, and
SGI/GPHI requested that the Court of Appeals reschedule the oral argument. Oral argument took place on
November 3, 2009. On June 4, 2010, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion in which it reversed portions of the
Wisconsin District Court’s decision. The case was subsequently remanded to the Wisconsin District Court. On
November 10, 2010, a Preliminary Pretrial Conference Order was filed to set the schedule for the case. The trial
has been set for May 9, 2011. On January 31, 2011, the District Court entered an order on threshold issues,
which, among other things, permits AMD to pursue its invalidity affirmative defense at trial and does not permit
SGI to accuse AMD’s R7xx series of graphics products of infringement in this case. Pursuant to this order, SGI,
which had asked to change its damages expert, may substitute its experts, but new experts are bound by the
opinions already expressed by the former experts to the same extent the original experts would be. SGI served its
damages report on February 7, 2011; however, the report is subject to the protective order entered by the District
Court.
Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (GPHI) v. Nintendo, Acer, Sony, Apple, and Toshiba, Cause
No. 10-CV-08655 in the Southern District of New York
On November 16, 2010, GPHI (see SGI v ATI, above) filed suit against several AMD customers alleging
infringement of the ‘327 patent identified in the original SGI v. ATI suit. All defendants except Nintendo are also
accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,518,615 (the ‘615 patent). Both patents relate to three-dimensional
graphics. AMD has received requests for indemnification from some of the defendants in this lawsuit and is
evaluating these requests.
Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. (GPHI) v. Dell, Alienware, Lenovo, Gateway, and Hewlett-Packard, Cause
No. 10-CV-00992 in the District of Delaware
On November 18, 2010, GPHI (see SGI v ATI above) filed suit against several AMD customers alleging
infringement of two patents: the ‘327 patent identified in the original SGI v. ATI suit and the ‘615 patent. Both
patents relate to three-dimensional graphics. AMD has received requests for indemnification from some of the
defendants in this lawsuit and is evaluating these requests.
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
34