Crucial 2011 Annual Report Download - page 23

Three purported class action cases alleging price-fixing of DRAM products have been filed against us in the following Canadian courts:
Superior Court, District of Montreal, Province of Quebec; Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Ontario; and Supreme Court of British Columbia,
Vancouver Registry, British Columbia. The substantive allegations in these cases are similar to those asserted in the DRAM antitrust cases filed in
the United States. Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was denied in the British Columbia and Quebec cases in May and June 2008,
respectively. Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of each of those decisions. On November 12, 2009, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the
denial of class certification and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appeal of the Quebec case is still pending.
On February 28, 2007, February 28, 2007 and March 8, 2007, cases were filed against us and other manufacturers of DRAM in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by All American Semiconductor, Inc., Jaco Electronics, Inc. and DRAM Claims Liquidation
Trust, respectively, that opted-out of a direct purchaser class action suit that was settled. The complaints allege, among other things, violations of
federal and state antitrust and competition laws in the DRAM industry, and seek joint and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution,
attorneys' fees, costs, and injunctive relief. On July 11, 2011, we made a collective payment to the three plaintiffs to settle all claims of an amount
that was not significant to our business, results of operations or financial condition.
On June 21, 2010, the Brazil Secretariat of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice ("SDE") announced that it had initiated an investigation
relating to alleged anticompetitive activities within the DRAM industry. The SDE's Notice of Investigation names various DRAM manufacturers
and certain executives, including ours, and focuses on the period from July 1998 to June 2002.
On September 24, 2010, Oracle America Inc. ("Oracle"), successor to Sun Microsystems, a DRAM purchaser that opted-out of a direct
purchaser class action suit that was settled, filed suit against us in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges
DRAM price-fixing and other violations of federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws based on purported conduct for the period from
August 1, 1998 through at least June 15, 2002. Oracle is seeking joint and several damages, trebled, as well as restitution, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, costs and injunctive relief.
We are unable to predict the outcome of these lawsuits, except as noted in the U.S. indirect purchasers cases above. The final resolution of
these alleged violations of antitrust laws could result in significant liability and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of
operations or financial condition.
Patent Matters
On August 28, 2000, we filed a complaint against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. Among other things, our complaint (as amended) alleges violation of federal antitrust laws, breach of contract, fraud, deceptive
trade practices, and negligent misrepresentation. The complaint also seeks a declaratory judgment (1) that we did not infringe on certain of
Rambus' patents or that such patents are invalid and/or are unenforceable, (2) that we have an implied license to those patents, and (3) that
Rambus is estopped from enforcing those patents against us. On February 15, 2001, Rambus filed an answer and counterclaim in Delaware
denying that we are entitled to relief, alleging infringement of the eight Rambus patents (later amended to add four additional patents) named in
our declaratory judgment claim, and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. In the Delaware action, we subsequently added claims and
defenses based on Rambus' alleged spoliation of evidence and litigation misconduct. The spoliation and litigation misconduct claims and defenses
were heard in a bench trial before Judge Robinson in October 2007. On January 9, 2009, Judge Robinson entered an opinion in favor of us holding
that Rambus had engaged in spoliation and that the twelve Rambus patents in the suit were unenforceable against us. Rambus subsequently
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit affirmed Judge Robinson's
finding of spoliation, but vacated the dismissal sanction and remanded the case to the Delaware District Court for further analysis of the
appropriate remedy.
22