Crucial 2011 Annual Report Download - page 24

A number of other suits involving Rambus are currently pending in Europe alleging that certain of our SDRAM and DDR SDRAM products
infringe various of Rambus' country counterparts to its European patent 525 068, including: on September 1, 2000, Rambus filed suit against
Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH in the District Court of Mannheim, Germany; on September 22, 2000, Rambus filed a complaint
against us and Reptronic (a distributor of our products) in the Court of First Instance of Paris, France; on September 29, 2000, we filed suit against
Rambus in the Civil Court of Milan, Italy, alleging invalidity and non-infringement. In addition, on December 29, 2000, we filed suit against
Rambus in the Civil Court of Avezzano, Italy, alleging invalidity and non-infringement of the Italian counterpart to European patent 1 004 956.
Additionally, on August 14, 2001, Rambus filed suit against Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH in the District Court of Mannheim,
Germany alleging that certain of our DDR SDRAM products infringe Rambus' country counterparts to its European patent 1 022 642. In the
European suits against us, Rambus is seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. Subsequent to the filing of the various European suits, the
European Patent Office (the "EPO") declared Rambus' 525 068, 1 022 642, and 1 004 956 European patents invalid and revoked the patents. The
declaration of invalidity with respect to the '068 and '642 patents was upheld on appeal. The original claims of the '956 patent also were declared
invalid on appeal, but the EPO ultimately granted a Rambus request to amend the claims by adding a number of limitations.
On January 13, 2006, Rambus filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Rambus alleges that
certain of our DDR2, DDR3, RLDRAM, and RLDRAM II products infringe as many as fourteen Rambus patents and seeks monetary damages,
treble damages, and injunctive relief. The accused products account for a significant portion of our net sales. On June 2, 2006, we filed an answer
and counterclaim against Rambus alleging, among other things, antitrust and fraud claims. On January 9, 2009, in another lawsuit involving us
and Rambus and involving allegations by Rambus of patent infringement against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, 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 Delaware Court's 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 analysis of the remedy based on the Federal Circuit's decision. The Northern District of California Court stayed a
trial of the patent phase of the Northern District of California case upon appeal of the spoliation issue to the Federal Circuit.
On March 6, 2009, Panavision Imaging, LLC filed suit against us and Aptina Imaging Corporation, then a wholly-owned subsidiary
("Aptina"), in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged that certain of our and Aptina's image sensor
products infringed four Panavision Imaging U.S. patents and sought injunctive relief, damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. On February 7, 2011, the
Court ruled that one of the four patents in suit was invalid for indefiniteness. On March 10, 2011, claims relating to the remaining three patents in
suit were dismissed with prejudice. Panavision subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's decision regarding invalidity of the
first patent, and we filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of such patent. On July 8, 2011, the Court issued an order that
rescinded its prior indefiniteness decision, and held that the disputed term does not render the claims in suit indefinite. A hearing on motions for
summary judgment regarding infringement and validity is scheduled for April 2, 2012.
On September 1, 2011, HSM Portfolio LLC and Technology Properties Limited LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Delaware against us and seventeen other defendants. The complaint alleges that certain Company DRAM and image
sensor products infringe two U.S. patents.
On September 9, 2011, Advanced Data Access LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas against the Company and seven other defendants. The complaint alleges that certain Company DRAM products infringe a single U.S.
patent.
On September 14, 2011, Smart Memory Solutions LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware against the Company and Winbond Electronics Corporation of America. The complaint alleges that certain NOR Flash products
infringe a single U.S. patent.
We are unable to predict the outcome of these suits. A court determination that our products or manufacturing processes infringe the product
or process intellectual property rights of others could result in significant liability and/or require us to make material changes to our products
and/or manufacturing processes. Any of the foregoing results could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or
financial condition.
23