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

[Exophase]

Methods of forming CMOS transistors with high conductivity gate electrodes seem to be fab related so isn't that TSMC's problem?

That's an odd position, I thought it was well established in this thread that any user of an infringing technology can be targeted by an infringement lawsuit. For example here: http://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/n...ing-its-gpu-patents.56049/page-5#post-1802269 Surely if that's your stance you would have been saying that Samsung shouldn't be responsible for what Qualcomm does with the SoCs they purchase.

I'm not even going to bother giving an analysis as to whether or not I think the patents are applicable, every time I do that on a forum a bunch of people get snarky with me for not being a lawyer.

 

[ninelven]

That is a bit misleading. Samsung makes use of patented technology in the product itself. If one buys a Samsung SoC, then the customer benefits directly from that technology. On the other hand, if one purchases an Nvidia SoC, they don't gain any magical fabrication benefits, they merely get a product that was produced using them.

 

[Exophase]

That is a bit misleading. Samsung makes use of patented technology in the product itself. If one buys a Samsung SoC, then the customer benefits directly from that technology. On the other hand, if one purchases an Nvidia SoC, they don't gain any magical fabrication benefits, they merely get a product that was produced using them.

Are you not aware that a major component of the infringement claim lies on Samsung's use of Qualcomm SoCs? The entire attempt at injunction in the US hinges on this since Samsung doesn't even ship their flagship phones with non-Qualcomm SoCs here.

 

[ninelven]

Are you not aware that a major component of the infringement claim lies on Samsung's use of Qualcomm SoCs?

Yes. Am I not allowed to agree with one aspect of the case while disagreeing with another?

Anyway, even in that case it is still not exactly the same, since the patented technology is actually a part of the product and available to subsequent users in the chain. But I digress...

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Some more tidbits ...

One of the curious twists in this legal fight is that Samsung, while countersuing Nvidia, also sued a Richmond, Virginia-based company called Velocity Micro, a user of Nvidia’s graphics chip.

If you recall, Velocity Micro is the firm that rolled out one of the early Android-based e-readers called “Cruz.” That was back in 2010. Velocity Micro today still remains a small boutique company.

Now, Samsung’s countersuit, filed in Virginia, focuses on eight patents. Nvidia is alleged to have violated six. Velocity is alleged to have violated all eight.

Why on earth Samsung is going after Velocity Micro was a mystery to me, because it’s hard to believe Velocity Micro is the only company using Nvidia’s Tegra. When asked, Nvidia spokesman told us that Tegra customers “include many automobile manufacturers, as well as IT companies like Acer, Asus, LG, etc.”

At least, in Nvidia’s mind, the company has played fair in its IP strategy, as it starts with a negotiation.
The company said that with Samsung, “Our licensing team negotiated directly with Samsung on a patent portfolio license.” “We had several meetings where we demonstrated how our patents apply to all of their mobile devices and to all the graphics architectures they use.”
The negotiation stalled, according to Nvidia, with Samsung repeatedly saying that this was mostly their suppliers’ problem.

Nvidia is said to be seeking the courts’ judgment to confirm the validity, infringement, and value of the company’s patents. A legal victory for Nvidia, if it happens, will put the Santa Clara, Calif. company among big boys in the chip industry milking its IP. Nvidia is said to have been in IP talks with several companies, including Samsung, but it has not unveiled any new licensing deals.

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1324605&_mc=RSS_EET_EDT

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

That's an odd position, I thought it was well established in this thread that any user of an infringing technology can be targeted by an infringement lawsuit.

It is ODD because if TSMC has a license to the Samsung patent mentioned then that would mean that Nvidia is also granted that right. If not then TSMC infringes and all of their customers (Apple, QualComm, etc) could also be on the hook.

 

[Exophase]

It is ODD because if TSMC has a license to the Samsung patent mentioned then that would mean that Nvidia is also granted that right. If not then TSMC infringes and all of their customers (Apple, QualComm, etc) could also be on the hook.

Kind of like how the many OEMs who aren't Samsung would be just as much on the hook for infringement for using Qualcomm SoCs as Samsung is? Why is it odd to you that Samsung retaliates against nVidia by doing what nVidia did in the first place?

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Why is it odd to you that Samsung retaliates against nVidia by doing what nVidia did in the first place?

I said no such thing. In fact I posted that it was expected.

As expected Samsung counter sues.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...ing-its-gpu-patents.56049/page-6#post-1807100

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Looks like Samsung's Lawyers are not doing a good job if one of the patents they say Nvidia/Velocity Micro violated 6,282,938 has expired because of "FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES".

PATENTS WHICH EXPIRED ON September 2, 2005
DUE TO FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/2005/week44/patexpi.htm

6,282,938 Method for rolling a metal strip

6,282,938 -was assigned to Scholemann-Siemag Aktiengesellschaft not assigned to Samsung and it expired September 2, 2005 for not paying fee

Patent Application Issue
Number Number Date
6,282,938 09/647,187 09/04/01
Method for rolling a metal strip

Inventors:
Mertens; Werner (Viersen, DE), Kramer; Stephan (Hilchenbach, DE)

Assignee:
SMS Scholemann-Siemag Aktiengesellschaft (Dusseldorf, DE)

 

[pMax]

Looks like Samsungs Lawyer's are not doing a good job if one of the patents they say Nvidia/Velocity Micro violated 6,282,938 has expired because of "FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES".

Oh my God
...but you haven't dealt with lawyers dealing with (possible) patent violations, otherwise you'd know them more

too bad I cant comment more, sorry

 

[homerdog]

Samsung's dragging Velocity Micro into this is absolutely despicable. Wow. I'm starting to believe all the nasty, horrible things I've read about Samsung's Korean executive team.

 

[pMax]

Samsung's dragging Velocity Micro into this is absolutely despicable. Wow. I'm starting to believe all the nasty, horrible things I've read about Samsung's Korean executive team.

I hope you are kidding. US multinationals made much worse -either in US and elsewhere. Or maybe you are a bit too young and don't remember the '90...
What you can say about samsung is that they are incredibly bad at counter-suing. While it is usual to put alot of (irrelevant) patents at start since the judge will cleave them, putting an EXPIRED one makes them look... naive, at least.

 

[homerdog]

Yeah I'm sure other companies do it as well. Doesn't make it any better.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Samsung asks the US government to block NVIDIA's chips

The patent war between NVIDIA and Samsung isn't going to wind down any time soon. Samsung has backed up its countering lawsuit against NVIDIA with a US International Trade Commission complaint asking the agency to block imports of NVIDIA's GeForce graphics chips and Tegra mobile processors. While it's not clear just which parts are under scrutiny, the dispute names a slew of third-party device makers who'd have to stop selling hardware in the US. Most of them are video card designers, such as Biostar and EVGA, but the action would also affect Tegra-based gadgets like OUYA's mini console and the Wikipad gaming tablet.

ITC complaints typically take less time to handle than lawsuits, so there's a greater chance that NVIDIA and partners will have to yank their products from store shelves.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/11/22/samsung-itc-complaint-against-nvidia/?ncid=rss_truncated

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

NVIDIA Receives Favorable Markman Pretrial Ruling from ITC in Patent Dispute with Samsung, Qualcomm

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/06/itc-favorable-ruling

The judge presiding over our patent case against Samsung and Qualcomm in the U.S. International Trade Commission has returned a pretrial claim construction ruling that favors NVIDIA’s preferred construction on nearly all of the claims that were disputed.

This pretrial decision, known as a Markman ruling, is the judge’s determination of the meaning and scope of the patent claims. Markman hearings are used in patent cases to define disputed terms of patents before a case goes to trial. This is an important step in determining whether Samsung and Qualcomm infringe NVIDIA’s asserted patents.

Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender has now determined what the claim language will mean for the hearing and his ultimate decision on the merits of the case.

We’re very pleased with the outcome of the ruling, in which claim constructions favorable to NVIDIA will be applied to six out of seven disputed claims when the judge considers the question of Samsung’s and Qualcomm’s infringement. This further strengthens the patents we have asserted, and we look forward to a full hearing in late June.

 

[A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y]

Nvidia countersued Samsung in the U.S. District Court in Virginia

http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/16/update-patent-samsung

First, we have now countersued Samsung in the U.S. District Court in Virginia, citing four graphics patents beyond the seven cited in the ITC and Delaware cases. (The four patents are described in our latest filing here.) These newly asserted patents in our countersuit are scheduled to be decided at the same time as Samsung’s case against us.

2321 slide (1278 page) Response and Counter Claims
http://www.slideshare.net/NVIDIA/nvidia-countersues-samsung

Nvidia's defense:

First Defense: (Non Infringement) pg 798
Second Defense: (Invalidity) pg 799
Third Defense: (Waiver, Laches, Estoppel) pg 810
Fourth Defense: (Express or Implied License, Patent Exhaustion) pg 811
Fifth Defense: (Prosecution History Estoppel, Prosecution Disclaimer) pg 812
Sixth Defense: (Limitations of Damages) pg 812
Seventh Defense: (Patent Misuse) pg 812
Eighth Defense: (Breach of Contract) pg 813
Ninth Defense: (Unclean Hands) pg 813
Tenth Defense: (Equitable/Promissory Estoppel) pg 814
Eleventh Defense: (Statute of Limitations) pg 814
Twelfth Defense: (Other) pg 814

Counter Claims pg 816:

Patent(s)

7339590 - http://www.google.com/patents/US7339590
Vertex processing unit supporting vertex texture mapping

7095414 - http://www.google.com/patents/US7095414
Blending system and method in an integrated computer graphics pipeline

6532013 - http://www.google.com/patents/US6532013
System, method and article of manufacture for pixel shaders for programmable shading

8174531 - http://www.google.com/patents/US8174531
Programmable graphics processor for multithreaded execution of programs

 

[Alexko]

Forgive me for going slightly off-topic, but can you imagine being a judge and having to read a 2321-page document full of legalese about freaking semiconductor patents? I don't know about you, but you could never pay me enough to do that.

 

[silent_guy]

Forgive me for going slightly off-topic, but can you imagine being a judge and having to read a 2321-page document full of legalese about freaking semiconductor patents? I don't know about you, but you could never pay me enough to do that.

That was my first reaction as well.

 

[idsn6]

The judge could parallelize the process by farming out groups of pages at a time to an army of legal temps to evaluate and summarize. There might be some stalls when one legal claim depends on another, but these could be hidden with proper personnel scheduling.

This arrangement may run afoul of some graphics patents, though.

 

[Simon F]

Forgive me for going slightly off-topic, but can you imagine being a judge and having to read a 2321-page document full of legalese about freaking semiconductor patents? I don't know about you, but you could never pay me enough to do that.

That may be, but I heard a rumour of how much "expert witnesses" might get paid in these sort of cases and it didn't sound like you'd have to do too many weeks each year to get by.