NVIDIA Files Complaints Against Samsung and Qualcomm for Infringing Its GPU Patents

Maybe, but until Samsung actually starts manufacturing those hypothetical GPUs and selling them, it's not relevant to the suit.
 
Maybe, but until Samsung actually starts manufacturing those hypothetical GPUs and selling them, it's not relevant to the suit.

It is relevant in that if Nvidia got wind of Samsung developing GPUs which would more than likely infringe on Nvidia's patents along with all the other GPUs Samsung is using (which Nvidia claims infringe) then it sure would seem to put Samsung first in line to be sued.
 
Samsung has released an in-house developed OpenGL ES 2.0 GPU in their S5PC100 SoC from 2009 or so. Section 9.6 of the user manual describes it in pretty extensive detail:

http://www.boardcon.com/download/S5PC100_UM_REV101.pdf

But it wasn't named by nVidia either.

I don't think any other reason needs to be found for why nVidia is targeting Samsung, they're simply the most obvious target who can net them the most revenue.
 
Samsung has released an in-house developed OpenGL ES 2.0 GPU in their S5PC100 SoC from 2009 or so. Section 9.6 of the user manual describes it in pretty extensive detail:

http://www.boardcon.com/download/S5PC100_UM_REV101.pdf

But it wasn't named by nVidia either.

I don't think any other reason needs to be found for why nVidia is targeting Samsung, they're simply the most obvious target who can net them the most revenue.

That along with Qualcomm being targetted. A quite obvious attempt to not just generate revenue, but to either scare away companies from using Qualcomm SOCs in an attempt to make their Tegra solutions more appealing or scare other smaller companies into paying royalties that they may or may not have to pay.

IE - pay us these claimed royalties now. Or we'll sue you next and those royalty payments will go up.

Regards,
SB
 
U.S. International Trade Commission Opens Investigation Into Samsung

SANTA CLARA, CA--(Marketwired - Oct 6, 2014) - The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has voted today to investigate whether certain Samsung products should be blocked from entering the country because they infringe GPU patents owned by NVIDIA.

The decision follows a complaint filed last month in the ITC by NVIDIA. NVIDIA has also filed a lawsuit in the Delaware District Court seeking damages for infringement.

The products at issue include the Galaxy Note Edge, Galaxy Note 4, Galaxy S5, Galaxy Note 3 and Galaxy S4 mobile phones; and the Galaxy Tab S, Galaxy Note Pro and Galaxy Tab 2 computer tablets. Most of these devices incorporate Qualcomm mobile processors -- including the Snapdragon S4, 400, 600, 800, 801 and 805. Others are powered by Samsung's own Exynos mobile processors.

"We are pleased with the ITC decision today to open an investigation and look forward to presenting our case on how NVIDIA GPU patents are being used without a license," said David Shannon, executive vice president and chief administrative officer.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/u-international-trade-commission-opens-225037320.html
 
Actual ITC Release

October 6, 2014
News Release 14-100
Inv. No. 337-TA-932
Contact: Peg O'Laughlin, 202-205-1819


USITC INSTITUTES SECTION 337 INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN CONSUMER ELECTRONICS AND DISPLAY DEVICES WITH GRAPHICS PROCESSING AND GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNITS THEREIN

The U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) has voted to institute an investigation of certain consumer electronics and display devices with graphics processing and graphics processing units therein. The products at issue in this investigation are mobile phones, tablet computers and certain processors contained in those devices.

The investigation is based on a complaint filed by NVIDIA Corporation of Santa Clara, CA, on September 4, 2014. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 in the importation into the United States and sale of certain consumer electronics and display devices with graphics processing and graphics processing units therein that infringe patents asserted by the complainant. The complainant requests that the USITC issue an exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The USITC has identified the following as respondents in this investigation:

  • Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., of Seoul, Republic of Korea;
    Samsung Electronics America, Inc., of Ridgefield Park, NJ;
    Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, of Richardson, TX;
    Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., San Jose, CA; and
    Qualcomm, Inc., of San Diego, CA.
By instituting this investigation (337-TA-932), the USITC has not yet made any decision on the merits of the case. The USITC's Chief Administrative Law Judge will assign the case to one of the USITC's administrative law judges (ALJ), who will schedule and hold an evidentiary hearing. The ALJ will make an initial determination as to whether there is a violation of section 337; that initial determination is subject to review by the Commission

The USITC will make a final determination in the investigation at the earliest practicable time. Within 45 days after institution of the investigation, the USITC will set a target date for completing the investigation. USITC remedial orders in section 337 cases are effective when issued and become final 60 days after issuance unless disapproved for policy reasons by the U.S. Trade Representative within that 60-day period.
http://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2014/er1006mm2.htm
 
But the point is that the ITC rarely makes such a judgement.

They have a high bar on banning products with so much money at stake. If they banned imports of big products, it could blow up to trade disputes between countries.
 
But the point is that the ITC rarely makes such a judgement.

They have a high bar on banning products with so much money at stake. If they banned imports of big products, it could blow up to trade disputes between countries.


Specially on a situation like that.... And specailly ITC will need ban nearly every company who dont use Tegra chips or dont pay fees to Nvidia.

This said, looking at the nature of the patents, it could even backfire to Nvidia by locking them with Frand agreement then with this... basically you can too ban every other graphics processor unit in the world.

( but we know the technic who consist to put the much possible patents in the case, offtly impossible to obtain as involved, but just for get at least the hope to get one who pass the ramp. ( something ITC judges tend to use as a consensus )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FRAND requirements apply to cases where members of a consortium who develop a standard agree up front to license necessary patents.

If DX and OpenGL don't have FRAND requirements (as I suspect is the case), then they are irrelevant here.
 
...just curious.
Intel doesn't have to worry as they have cross license, but won't be this something a bit worrisome for ATI/AMD?

Probably nothing will happen as both companies have much to lose from fighting each other, yet having a court order from NVIDIA might be a solid start point... or not?
 
but won't be this something a bit worrisome for ATI/AMD?

Probably not. ATI and NV are likely to be in a Mutually Assured Destruction situation if they were to go thermonuclear via patents i.e. they're at a stalemate in what regards IP.
 
...just curious.
Intel doesn't have to worry as they have cross license, but won't be this something a bit worrisome for ATI/AMD?

Probably nothing will happen as both companies have much to lose from fighting each other, yet having a court order from NVIDIA might be a solid start point... or not?


I think AMD and Nvidia already have a cross license agreement.
 
As expected Samsung counter sues.

Law360, San Francisco (November 10, 2014, 6:04 PM ET) -- Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.has slapped Nvidia Corp. and Velocity Micro Inc. with claims that the electronics manufacturers infringed several Samsung patents on semiconductor and computer innovations and that Nvidia falsely touted its processor speeds, according to a suit filed in Virginia federal court.

Samsung asserts eight of its patents in the suit, accusing Nvidia of infringing six and Velocity of infringing all eight.

Patents
http://www.law360.com/ip/articles/595098?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=section

These seem to be related to the Shield Tablet, 6,282,938 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6282938) - Method for rolling a metal strip and 5,777,854 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5777854) - Integrate flexible contacts grounding system for a computer system chassis.

Nvidia is fabless and and these 6,287,902 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6287902) - Methods of forming etch inhibiting structures on field isolation regions, 8,252,675 (http://www.google.com/patents/US8252675) - Methods of forming CMOS transistors with high conductivity gate electrodes seem to be fab related so isn't that TSMC's problem?

These seem to be related to the Shield Tablet, 7,073,054 (http://www.google.com/patents/US7073054) - Computer system and method for booting up the same and 6,804,724 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6804724) - Analog/digital display adapter and a computer system having the same.

That leaves these two 5,860,158 (http://www.google.com/patents/US5860158) - Cache control unit with a cache request transaction-oriented protocol and 6,819,602 (http://www.google.com/patents/US6819602) - Multimode data buffer and method for controlling propagation delay time.

What is the take here on the validity and strength of these patents?

Nvidia will fight any of these patents that they believe can be overturned and remember that Nvidia defeated the Rambus patents then negotiated an agreement with Rambus in Nvidia's favor when those patents were invalidated (no financial impact was ever seem in any earnings report). Rambus signed the agreement to save face.

As usual the counter suit was expected. If some or all of these Samsung patents are validated (in court) and Nvidia's patent claims are also validated (in court) then a negotiated license agreement will happen. But with the volumes of products that Samsung sells vs what Nvidia sells that would seem to tip the balance to Nvidia.
 
Last edited:
Velocity's CEO responds ( http://www.velocitymicro.com/blog/message-ceo-velocity-micro-responds-samsungs-lawsuit/ ):

"Velocity Micro has been served a lawsuit which was filed last week in Federal District Court here in Richmond, Virginia by Samsung Electronics Co., alleging that we violate eight of their patents. Additionally, Samsung also filed suit against Nvidia Corporation, apparently as a counter to lawsuits by Nvidia against Samsung and Qualcomm for patent infringement currently before the International Trade Commission and in Delaware District Court. We have never been contacted by Samsung about these claims, and are caught off guard by the lawsuit, which seems completely out of the blue. We know nothing about the previous issues between Samsung and Nvidia, and we don’t care.

Velocity Micro is proud to be an independent American boutique builder of higher caliber computers systems based in Richmond, Virginia. Our customers appreciate the craftsmanship and tuning that goes into each system we individually build by hand. While we’re not the smallest company in Virginia, we are also not a large multinational technology powerhouse, and that’s somewhat on purpose. Samsung has decided to drag us in to its legal battle with Nvidia purely for the purpose of claiming that the Federal District Court for Virginia’s Eastern District here in Richmond, also informally known as “the rocket docket” by some, is a reasonable jurisdiction for their litigation. They tactically need Velocity, a Richmond company, to be part of this new suit so they can have a faster time to trial to counter their lawsuits with Nvidia that are pending in those other courts. They are trying to beat Nvidia to the punch on other fronts, but they are all too willing to throw a private company under the proverbial bus for their own strategic reasons. It’s simply wrong, and a shining example of what’s broken in big corporate America.

We can and will vigorously defend against the claims made in this lawsuit. Regretfully, precious company resources and energy will be diverted from our core business and wasted to fight one of the world’s largest companies, just so they can play legal games with Nvidia and the court system. Comparatively, we are a small private business, and have absolutely nothing to do with the disputes between these business giants. This is not our fight, and it’s unconscionable that Samsung is willing to completely disregard the effects and financial fallout this legal tactic will have on the undeserving employees of Velocity Micro and our local community. We genuinely appreciate the outpouring of support from our customers and partners around the country, and we promise not to allow this lawsuit to alter our focus on serving them.

If this is how Samsung operates, we want no part of it, and we hope others agree and consider this during this upcoming holiday shopping season."
 
Back
Top