Seagate 2008 Annual Report Download - page 125

Table of Contents
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS—(Continued)
13. Legal, Environmental, and Other Contingencies (Continued)
asserted claims were confirmed as patentable and three asserted claims were finally rejected. The '635 patent expired on September 12, 2008. No
specific trial date has been set in the litigation, although the court indicated that the parties should be ready for trial in January 2010. The
Company believes the claims are without merit, and intends to defend against them vigorously.
Siemens, AG v. Seagate Technology —On August 23, 2006, Siemens, AG, a German corporation, filed a complaint against Seagate
Technology in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,686,838 (the '838 patent)
entitled "Magnetoresistive Sensor Having at Least a Layer System and a Plurality of Measuring Contacts Disposed Thereon, and a Method of
Producing the Sensor." The suit alleged that Seagate drives incorporating Giant Magnetic Resistive (GMR) sensors infringe the '838 patent. The
complaint sought damages in an unstated amount, an accounting, preliminary and permanent injunctions, prejudgment interest, enhanced
damages for alleged willful infringement and attorney fees and costs. The lawsuit was served on Seagate on September 6, 2006. The Company
served an answer to the complaint on November 27, 2006, denying all material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. Siemens amended
its complaint to add Tunnel Magnetic Resistive (TMR) sensors to the case. On May 9, 2008, the court entered summary judgment that TMR
sensors are not covered by the '838 patent, thus eliminating TMR products from the case. On September 23, 2008, the court entered summary
judgment that Seagate drives incorporating GMR sensors are covered by the '838 patent. Trial began on November 12, 2008, and a jury returned
a verdict in favor of Seagate on December 23, 2008, finding the '838 patent invalid on grounds of both anticipation and obviousness. Judgment
was entered by the court in Seagate's favor on January 30, 2009, and Siemens' post-trial motions were all denied. Siemens served notice of
appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.
Siemens, AG v. Seagate Technology (Ireland) —On December 2, 2008, Siemens served Seagate Technology (Ireland) with a writ of
summons alleging infringement of European Patent (UK) No. 0 674 769 (the EU '769 patent), which is the European counterpart to US Patent
No. 5,686,838 upon which Siemens had sued Seagate Technology in the United States. The suit was filed in the High Court of Justice in
Northern Ireland, Chancery Division. Siemens alleges that giant magnetoresistive (GMR), tunnel magnetoresistive (TMR), and tunnel giant
magnetoresistive (TGMR) products designed and manufactured by Seagate Technology (Ireland) infringe the EU'769 patent. The Company
believes the claims are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.
Magsil Corporation and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Seagate Technology, et al. —
On December 12, 2008, Magsil Corporation
and Massachusetts Institute of Technology filed a complaint in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against three Seagate entities,
Maxtor Corporation, and twelve other hard disk drive and recording head manufacturing companies. The complaint alleged that unspecified hard
disk drives and components thereof infringe two US patents: 5,629,922, entitled "Electron Tunneling Device Using Ferromagnetic Thin Films,"
and 5,835,314, entitled "Tunnel Junction Device For Storage and Switching of Signals." The complaint sought judgment of infringement, an
injunction, damages in an unstated amount, interest, and costs. On February 2, 2009, the Seagate entities answered the complaint, denying all
material allegations and asserting affirmative defenses. As of July 1, 2009, the litigation between MagSil and MIT, on the one hand, and Seagate
and Maxtor, on the other hand, has been satisfactorily resolved by an out of court settlement, and the Seagate and Maxtor entities have received
licenses to the patents at issue.
123