A jury decided in April 2006 that Hynix did indeed infringe on Rambus’ patents, but final resolution of the case has yet to be achieved.

In a court document filed June 6, Rambus said it “strongly believes that Hynix should be enjoined from continuing to infringe Rambus’ patents,” and if the request for injunction is denied, would like the court to order Hynix to pay ongoing royalties to Rambus at a royalty rate that the court identifies, and reminded, “Hynix concedes that such an order would be appropriate if an injunction is not issued.”

In addition, Rambus is requesting supplemental damages and prejudgment interest. “Regardless of the resolution of Rambus’s request for equitable relief, the court should award Rambus supplemental damages for Hynix’s infringing sales between the date of the verdict and the date on which a final judgment is entered,” Rambus also said in its June 6 filing.

At this time, Rambus believes the court needs to resolve first whether the royalty based should included DDR2 and DDR3 sales; second, whether the royalty base should include foreign sales of US-made products; and third, the appropriate royalty rate.

Rambus’ filing came in response to an earlier filing by Hynix on May 23, in which Hynix said, “To win an injunction, Rambus must prove that: (1) it has been irreparably injured, (2) its remedies at law are inadequate, (3) the balance of the hardships tips in Rambus’ favor, and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by an injunction,” and that it believes Rambus wants an injunction not to prevent irreparable harm but, “as a hammer to improve its position in licensing negotiations.”

Further, Hynix points out in its filing, referring on the royalty point to a previous case, that found a critical factor is whether a patent holder seeking injunctive relief itself sells product incorporating its patented inventions. “Rambus tries to rewrite its own history and ignores the reality of the commodity DRAM market by insisting it is a product company that competes with Hynix. This effort fails because, despite its revisionist history, Rambus is a licensing company, not a producer of DRAM. Rambus’s own economist expert David Teece correctly characterizes Rambus as a “’pure play’ technology company [that] does not manufacture or sell products” but that “makes its money primarily by licensing its intellectual property to other in exchange for royalties.”

By: DocMemory
Copyright © 2023 CST, Inc. All Rights Reserved