NVIDIA Gets Sued For Patent Infringement

[satein]

I first found it at the INQ, but I decide to leave the original url to the article...
NVIDIA Gets Sued For Patent Infringement

Scanner Technologies today announced it has filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas against nVidia claiming willful and deliberate infringement of U.S. Patents which disclose methods of three-dimensional inspection that allow ball grid array ("BGA") devices to be manufactured more precisely and efficiently.

U.S. Patent 7,079,678, which is assigned to Scanner Technologies, is entitled "Electronic Component Products Made According to a Process that Includes a Method for Three Dimensional Inspection" and discloses a patented process which is directed to a step in the manufacture of a BGA device.

U.S. Patent 7,085,411, also assigned to Scanner Technologies, is entitled "Method of Manufacturing Electronic Components Including a Method for Three Dimensional Inspection," discloses a method of manufacturing a BGA device.

The complaint alleges that nVidia has sold and/or is presently selling throughout the United States infringing BGA devices that are covered by one or more claims of the Scanner Patents. The complaint also alleges that nVidia has induced others to infringe. These BGA devices are a component in graphics cards, motherboards, computers, video game consoles, cell phones and handheld devices that are sold in the United States.

In addition to requesting preliminary and permanent injunctions, the complaint asks the court to award Scanner all damages it is entitled to recover, including reasonable royalties on infringing products, treble damages and attorneys' fees.

Elwin Beaty, President and CEO of Scanner Technologies stated "Scanner has been developing, manufacturing and selling vision equipment for the semiconductor industry since 1990. We believe that it is critical to protect our patented innovations, and accordingly took these actions today."

As I understand, BGA would be current NV chip packaging (any body can correct if I do wrong). Does this mean any problems to current or up-coming NV products?

Edit: typo correction...

 

[_xxx_]

Then Intel, AMD and any other semiconductor manufacturer is in for spanking too. But as I see it, it's not about BGA but some part of the process ("3D-inspection", whatever that might be)?

 

[satein]

Then Intel, AMD and any other semiconductor manufacturer is in for spanking too. But as I see it, it's not about BGA but some part of the process ("3D-inspection", whatever that might be)?

I understand that the infringement is not related to the BGA package itself, but something during the process of BGA. That was why I asked if there might be any impact on the NV product (probably on future product)?

Regards,

 

[Nappe1]

Then Intel, AMD and any other semiconductor manufacturer is in for spanking too. But as I see it, it's not about BGA but some part of the process ("3D-inspection", whatever that might be)?

Sounds like manufactured parts Quality Assurance. A way to automatically check if the pins/balls in the bottom of the chip are correct.

Imagine amount of possible payments nVidia might obliged, if court finds out the infringement as true. How long nVidia has been using BGA? have they used the same system all the time for the job? if yes, you can imagine amount of sold chips which are inspected with non-licensed / pantented technology.

Also, while Scanner Technologies calls the things happening on purpose, it would be quite logical to guess that they have contacted nVidia directly before taking this as far as it is now...
In any case, it will be interesting to see what happens... at least some lawyers will get some ham on top of the breads for next few years...

 

[Jawed]

Why shouldn't ATI be next?...

Jawed

 

[{Sniping}Waste]

Why shouldn't ATI be next?...

Jawed

Did you think about ATI not useing Three Dimensional Inspection method or if they are using it there paying Scanner Technologies royalties fees for it.

 

[Jawed]

For a start, I bet NVidia doesn't own any facilities for BGA inspection. It's prolly the packaging factory doing this under contract to NVidia. I guess it's merely that NVidia buys the dies and then sells them on to its board partners.

I dunno, I just don't see how NVidia is in the firing line, and why other companies, such as ATI, won't be next.

Of course, ATI might have bought a licence. I don't see why the customer of a packaging plant should buy a licence though...

Does NVidia package its chips? Does it test the BGA alignment instead of asking the packager to do so? In addition?

Where's Sunrise?...

Jawed

 

[_xxx_]

I'm pretty sure that license has never been on sale. It's one of those behind-everyones-back sneaky thingies, methinks.

 

[DemoCoder]

Submarine Patent Shake Down.

 

[Geo]

This looks a little odd to me.

The patents were granted on 8/1/2006, which is not the typical profile for the classic patent shake-down. Plus, it's not for inclusion of technology in a given product, but rather for inspection. Plus, it includes a claim for "inducing" or somesuch other companies to break the patent.

How would they know things like NV is using the tech for "inspection" (I don't recall an "Inspected by Stolen Scanner Technologies IP" sticker on every G71), and was inducing other companies to break it?

It just smells like there's some history here we aren't aware of. Which is not to prejudge who's right and who's not, but it just doesn't seem like the typical profile to me for the classic patent shake-down.

Edit: Wouldn't this tech have to appear in an actual product/machine that does the inspection? I mean, we don't really think it is reasonable to assume that NV whitecoats with a clipboard with "Stolen Scanner Technologies Inspection Process ZOMG" on it were doing this by hand, one die package at a time, do we? Maybe that's the claim for "inducement" --whoever built the machine that did the inspecting.

Edit Deux: Scanner Tech settled on favorable terms another lawsuit in 2003 with a competitor, ICOS Vision Systems over similar tech. I smell a connection. Maybe NV was using ICOS' machines?

 

[DemoCoder]

A submarine patent shake down is a patent that was filed a *long time ago* and only recently granted.

But you're right, how the hell would they know about NVidia's inspection methods.

 

[Demirug]

I am even not sure if we talk about NVidia inspection methods here. I am not aware that Nvidia does the BGA packing itself. I must confess that I am surprised that someone could be sued for a patent infringement that maybe someone else down in the production chain had done.

 

[_xxx_]

I think this will soon be gone with the wind.

 

[Guden Oden]

This is a US patent, right?
And NV lets a third party in the far east package its dies, right?

...So how in the hell can NV be breaking any patents here? Surely you can't infringe on a patent by importing something made abroad with a method covered in a patent in the country that the import is going to. The thing is already manufactured when it arrives, no manufacturing is taking place anymore!

If these guys should sue anyone, surely it should be the company that packages the dies. This just looks like a lawyer shark attack to try and grab a couple bites out of a successful company. What people is behind the company that's suing, have they done this sort of thing before?

 

[nimnorm]

This shark has a BIG appetite!

This just looks like a lawyer shark attack to try and grab a couple bites out of a successful company.

I work for a small company that designs and sells board-level products. Scanner Technologies has threatened us with legal action for patent infringement simply for using bga devices on our boards!

Please note: we don't manufacture bga devices, nor do we have any means for discovering what processes and equipment were used to manufacture the bga parts we buy.

Elwin Beaty of Scanner Technologies sent us a demand letter that claimed:
(1) Scanner has determined that the majority of bga parts on the planet are made using equipment that infringes their patents, and
(2) any bga devices made on infringing equipment are tainted and thus also infringe, and
(3) my company uses bga devices in our products, and so
(4) there is a high statistical probability that my company is guilty of infringement. We were told that the burden of proof of our innocence rests entirely on our shoulders and, absent such proof, we should expect serious legal action very soon unless we quickly agree to license the use of Scanner's patents and pony up our first annual license fee.

Scanner may have a legitimate gripe against companies that make competing bga processing systems, but IMHO it's a stretch to extend this animosity to the bga manufacturers who use those competing systems to manufacture bga's, and nothing short of extortion to threaten bga device users!

You are next! Most people, including you, own modern electronic devices that contain bga packages, so by Elwin Beaty's reasoning, you have violated Scanner Technologies' patents!

For the sake of Mr. Beaty's spiritual well-being, I hope that he is only serving as a reluctant frontman for other, less civilized business associates.

 

[tangey]

So if a supplier of say, Ford motor company, supplies Ford with distributors, and in testing said distributors the supplier uses a process that is patented, without having licenced that process, is Ford guilty of patent infringement....like hell it is. It is unreasonable to expect the buyer to have knowledge of everthing the supplier is doing, and whether all those things are legal, patented or whatever.

But what happens if the patent holder, writes to Ford and says, "listen you are buying parts from supplier x, who is infringing our patent as part of the process of manufacturing/testing this part. We will give you 30 days to cancel this contract. If you do not do so, then as a major source of the suppliers finanicial income, we will take the existence of this contract (in full knowledge that it requires an infringement of our patent to fulfil the contract) as an enticement/inducement for supplier x to continue to infringe our patent, and as such we will identify you as a contributory party in the patent infringement.

An interesting situation.

Thoughs anyone ?

 

[Geo]

A company that manufacturers industrial parts that infringe is not some peer-to-peer file sharing thing that mostly only exists virtually and can be reconstituted anywhere in minutes. It has to have a physical address, equipment, advertising, accounts receivable, etc etc. If they can't get an injunction against the manufacturer, it seems pretty chicken-sh*t to be threatening the manufacturers customers.

Now, if they are able to shut down the manufacturer, it would be appropriate, in my view, to contact his customers and inform them they are using parts made my infringing equipment and need to stop that or else, and here's the order we got shutting those bastards down, and you're next if you don't get new non-infringing equipment.

 

[Sxotty]

I am tired of companies suing Intel, Amd, Ati, and Nvidia for no good reason except that it is a profitable gamble that they will settle. I hope Nvidia wins and I hope Nvidia sues scanner tech into non-existence afterwards. That is of course assuming that Scanner doesn't have some legitimate gripe, but the usual thing is some vague ass patent that they think they can screw people over with.

 

[DemoCoder]

I bet this company is doing very poorly product wise/earnings wise, and has turned to lawyering because of their own failure.

 

[Mize]

A submarine patent shake down is a patent that was filed a *long time ago* and only recently granted.

But you're right, how the hell would they know about NVidia's inspection methods.

But applications are searcheable...? I have several patents but no idea how to stall the approval process intentionally.