Crucial 2011 Annual Report Download - page 67

Three putative class action lawsuits alleging price-fixing of DRAM products also have been filed against us in Quebec, Ontario, and British
Columbia, Canada, on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, asserting violations of the Canadian Competition Act and other common law
claims. The claims were initiated between December 2004 (British Columbia) and June 2006 (Quebec). The plaintiffs seek monetary damages,
restitution, costs, and attorneys' fees. 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 subsequently 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.
In February and March 2007, All American Semiconductor, Inc., Jaco Electronics, Inc., and the DRAM Claims Liquidation Trust each filed
suit against us and other DRAM suppliers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after opting-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 us, 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 and therefore cannot estimate the range of possible loss, 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
As is typical in the semiconductor and other high technology industries, from time to time, others have asserted, and may in the future assert,
that our products or manufacturing processes infringe their intellectual property rights. In this regard, we are engaged in litigation with Rambus
relating to certain of Rambus' patents and certain of our claims and defenses. Our lawsuits with Rambus are pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Delaware, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Germany, France, and Italy.
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. The complaint alleges, among other things, various anticompetitive activities and also seeks a declaratory judgment that certain
Rambus patents or that such patents are invalid and/or unenforceable. Rambus subsequently filed an answer and counterclaim in Delaware
alleging, among other things, infringement of twelve Rambus patents and seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. 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 our
favor 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 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.
64