XML 52 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT ﻿
v2.3.0.11

Litigation and Asserted Claims | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2011
Litigation and Asserted Claims |
Litigation and Asserted Claims |
13. Litigation and Asserted Claims Hynix Litigation U.S District Court of the Northern District of California On August 29, 2000, Hynix (formerly Hyundai) and various subsidiaries filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, as amended and narrowed through motion practice, asserts claims for fraud, violations of federal antitrust laws and deceptive practices in connection with Rambus’ participation in a standards setting organization called JEDEC, and seeks a declaratory judgment that the Rambus patents-in-suit are unenforceable, invalid and not infringed by Hynix, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Rambus denied Hynix’s claims and filed counterclaims for patent infringement against Hynix. The case was divided into three phases. In the first phase, Hynix tried its unclean hands defense beginning on October 17, 2005 and concluding on November 1, 2005. In its January 4, 2006 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the court held that Hynix’s unclean hands defense failed. Among other things, the court found that Rambus did not adopt its document retention policy in bad faith, did not engage in unlawful spoliation of evidence, and that while Rambus disposed of some relevant documents pursuant to its document retention policy, Hynix was not prejudiced by the destruction of Rambus documents. On January 19, 2009, Hynix filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s unclean hands order and for summary judgment on the ground that the decision by the Delaware court in the pending Micron-Rambus litigation (described below) should be given preclusive effect. In its motion Hynix requested alternatively that the court’s unclean hands order be certified for appeal and that the remainder of the case be stayed. Rambus filed an opposition to Hynix’s motion on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court denied Hynix’s motions and restated its conclusions that Rambus had not anticipated litigation until late 1999 and that Hynix had not demonstrated any prejudice from any alleged destruction of evidence. The second phase of the Hynix-Rambus trial — on patent infringement, validity and damages — began on March 15, 2006, and was submitted to the jury on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus on all issues and awarded Rambus a total of approximately $307 million in damages, excluding prejudgment interest. Specifically, the jury found that each of the ten selected patent claims was supported by the written description, and was not anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art; therefore, none of the patent claims was invalid. The jury also found that Hynix infringed all eight of the patent claims for which the jury was asked to determine infringement; the court had previously determined on summary judgment that Hynix infringed the other two claims at issue in the trial. On July 14, 2006, the court granted Hynix’s motion for a new trial on the issue of damages unless Rambus agreed to a reduction of the total jury award to approximately $134 million. The court found that the record supported a maximum royalty rate of 1% for SDR SDRAM and 4.25% for DDR SDRAM, which the court applied to the stipulated U.S. sales of infringing Hynix products through December 31, 2005. On July 27, 2006, Rambus elected remittitur of the jury’s award to approximately $134 million. On August 30, 2006, the court awarded Rambus prejudgment interest for the period June 23, 2000 through December 31, 2005. Hynix filed a motion on July 7, 2008 to reduce the amount of remitted damages and any supplemental damages that the court may award, as well as to limit the products that could be affected by any injunction that the court may grant, on the grounds of patent exhaustion. Following a hearing on August 29, 2008, the court denied Hynix’s motion. In separate orders issued December 2, 2008, January 16, 2009, and January 27, 2009, the court denied Hynix’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial on infringement and validity. On June 24, 2008, the court heard oral argument on Rambus’ motion to supplement the damages award and for equitable relief related to Hynix’s infringement of Rambus patents. On February 23, 2009, the court issued an order (1) granting Rambus’ motion for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest for the period after December 31, 2005, at the same rates ordered for the prior period; (2) denying Rambus’ motion for an injunction; and (3) ordering the parties to begin negotiations regarding the terms of a compulsory license regarding Hynix’s continued manufacture, use, and sale of infringing devices. The third phase of the Hynix-Rambus trial involved Hynix’s affirmative JEDEC-related antitrust and fraud allegations against Rambus. On April 24, 2007, the court ordered a coordinated trial of certain common JEDEC-related claims alleged by the manufacturer parties (i.e., Hynix, Micron, Nanya and Samsung) and defenses asserted by Rambus in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, and three other cases then pending before the same court (Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW, each described in further detail below). On December 14, 2007, the court excused Samsung from the coordinated trial based on Samsung’s agreement to certain conditions, including trial of its claims against Rambus by the court within six months following the conclusion of the coordinated trial. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. Specifically, the jury found that Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to meet their burden of proving that: (1) Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct; (2) Rambus made important representations that it did not have any intellectual property pertaining to the work of JEDEC and intended or reasonably expected that the representations would be heard by or repeated to others including Hynix, Micron or Nanya; (3) Rambus uttered deceptive half-truths about its intellectual property coverage or potential coverage of products compliant with synchronous DRAM standards then being considered by JEDEC by disclosing some facts but failing to disclose other important facts; or (4) JEDEC members shared a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard. Hynix, Micron, and Nanya filed motions for a new trial and for judgment on certain of their equitable claims and defenses. A hearing on those motions was held on May 1, 2008. A further hearing on the equitable claims and defenses was held on May 27, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the court issued an order denying Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s motions for new trial. On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial. The court concluded (among other things) that (1) Rambus did not have an obligation to disclose pending or anticipated patent applications and had sound reasons for not doing so; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that JEDEC members did not share a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard; (3) the written JEDEC disclosure policies did not clearly require members to disclose information about patent applications and the intent to file patent applications in the future; (4) there was no clearly understood or legally enforceable agreement of JEDEC members to disclose information about patent applications or the intent to seek patents relevant to standards being discussed at JEDEC; (5) during the time Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, Rambus did not have any patent application pending that covered a JEDEC standard, and none of the patents in suit was applied for until well after Rambus resigned from JEDEC; (6) Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC did not constitute an estoppel or waiver of its rights to enforce its patents; (7) Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to carry their burden to prove their asserted waiver and estoppel defenses not directly based on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC; (8) the evidence did not support a finding of any material misrepresentation, half truths or fraudulent concealment by Rambus related to JEDEC upon which Nanya relied; (9) the manufacturers failed to establish that Rambus violated unfair competition law by its conduct before JEDEC; (10) the evidence related to Rambus’s patent prosecution did not establish that Rambus unduly delayed in prosecuting the claims in suit; (11) Rambus did not unreasonably delay bringing its patent infringement claims; and (12) there is no basis for any unclean hands defense or unenforceability claim arising from Rambus’s conduct. On March 10, 2009, the court entered final judgment against Hynix in the amount of approximately $397 million as follows: approximately $134 million for infringement through December 31, 2005; approximately $215 million for infringement from January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2009; and approximately $48 million in pre-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest is accruing at the statutory rate. In addition, the judgment orders Hynix to pay Rambus royalties on net sales for U.S. infringement after January 31, 2009 and before April 18, 2010 of 1% for SDR SDRAM and 4.25% for DDR DDR2, DDR3, GDDR, GDDR2 and GDDR3 SDRAM memory devices. On April 9, 2009, Rambus submitted its cost bill in the amount of approximately $0.85 million. On March 24, 2009, Hynix filed a motion under Rule 62 seeking relief from the requirement that it post a supersedeas bond in the full amount of the final judgment in order to stay its execution pending an appeal. Rambus filed a brief opposing Hynix’s motion on April 10, 2009. A hearing on Hynix’s motion was heard on May 8, 2009. On May 14, 2009, the court granted Hynix’s motion in part and ordered that execution of the judgment be stayed on the condition that, within 45 days, Hynix post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $250 million and provide Rambus with documentation establishing a lien in Rambus’s favor on property owned by Hynix in Korea in the amount of the judgment not covered by the supersedeas bond. The court also ordered that Hynix pay the ongoing royalties set forth in the final judgment into an escrow account. Hynix posted the $250 million supersedeas bond on June 26, 2009. On September 17, 2010, the court granted Rambus’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of its order allowing Hynix to establish a lien in lieu of posting a bond for a portion of the judgment; on October 18, 2010, Hynix posted a bond in the full amount of the judgment plus accrued post-judgment interest in the total amount of $401.2 million. Hynix has deposited amounts into the escrow account pursuant to the court’s order regarding ongoing royalties. The escrowed funds will be released only upon agreement of the parties or further court order in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the escrow arrangement. On March 8, 2010, the court awarded costs to Rambus in the amount of approximately $0.76 million. That amount plus accrued interest has been deposited by Hynix into the same escrow account into which ongoing royalties have been deposited. On April 6, 2009, Hynix filed its notice of appeal. On April 17, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of cross appeal. On August 31, 2009, Hynix filed its opening brief. On December 7, 2009, Rambus filed its answering and opening cross-appeal brief. Hynix’s reply and answering brief was filed February 16, 2010, and Rambus’s reply was filed February 23, 2010. Oral argument was coordinated with the appeal in the Micron Delaware case (discussed below) and held on April 5, 2010. Oral argument was reheard by an expanded panel of five judges on October 6, 2010. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion (1) concluding that the district court erred in applying too narrow a standard of reasonable foreseeability and vacating the district court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding spoliation; (2) affirming the district court’s decisions on waiver and estoppel; (3) affirming the district court’s claim construction order; (4) affirming the district court’s order denying Hynix’s motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial on the basis of written description; (5) affirming the district court’s order denying Hynix’s motion for a new trial on the basis of obviousness; and (6) affirming the district court’s grant of Hynix’s motion for summary judgment for the claims at issue in Rambus’s cross-appeal. The Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s final judgment and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the Federal Circuit’s opinions in the Micron and Hynix cases. On June 27, 2011, Rambus filed a petition requesting that the Federal Circuit rehear the Hynix appeal if the Federal Circuit accepts the petition for rehearing Rambus filed in the Micron case. On June 27, 2011, Hynix filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to the issues of equitable estoppel, implied waiver, and claim construction. On July 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit denied the parties’ petitions. Micron Litigation U.S District Court in Delaware: Case No. 00-792-SLR On August 28, 2000, Micron filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for Delaware. The suit asserts violations of federal antitrust laws, deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC. Micron seeks a declaration of monopolization by Rambus, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, a declaratory judgment that eight Rambus patents are invalid and not infringed, and the award to Micron of a royalty-free license to the Rambus patents. Rambus has filed an answer and counterclaims disputing Micron’s claims and asserting infringement by Micron of 12 U.S. patents. This case has been divided into three phases in the same general order as in the Hynix 00-20905 action: (1) unclean hands; (2) patent infringement; and (3) antitrust, equitable estoppel, and other JEDEC-related issues. A bench trial on Micron’s unclean hands defense began on November 8, 2007 and concluded on November 15, 2007. The court ordered post-trial briefing on the issue of when Rambus became obligated to preserve documents because it anticipated litigation. A hearing on that issue was held on May 20, 2008. The court ordered further post-trial briefing on the remaining issues from the unclean hands trial, and a hearing on those issues was held on September 19, 2008. On January 9, 2009, the court issued an opinion in which it determined that Rambus had engaged in spoliation of evidence by failing to suspend general implementation of a document retention policy after the point at which the court determined that Rambus should have known litigation was reasonably foreseeable. The court issued an accompanying order declaring the 12 patents in suit unenforceable against Micron (the “Delaware Order”). On February 9, 2009, the court stayed all other proceedings pending appeal of the Delaware Order. On February 10, 2009, judgment was entered against Rambus and in favor of Micron on Rambus’ patent infringement claims and Micron’s corresponding claims for declaratory relief. On March 11, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of appeal. Rambus filed its opening brief on July 2, 2009. On August 28, 2009, Micron filed its answering brief. On October 14, 2009, Rambus filed its reply brief. Oral argument was coordinated with the appeal in the Hynix case (discussed above) and held on April 5, 2010. Oral argument was reheard by an expanded panel of five judges on October 6, 2010. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion affirming the district court’s determination that Rambus spoliated documents, vacating the district court’s dismissal sanction (including the district court’s determination of bad faith and prejudice), and remanding the case to the district court for further consideration consistent with its opinion. On June 27, 2011, Rambus filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to the issues of spoliation, bad faith, and prejudice. On July 29, 2011, the Federal Circuit denied Rambus’s petition. U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California On January 13, 2006, Rambus filed suit against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Rambus alleges that 14 Rambus patents are infringed by Micron’s DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3, and other advanced memory products. Rambus seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. Micron has denied Rambus’ allegations and is alleging counterclaims for violations of federal antitrust laws, unfair trade practices, equitable estoppel, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC. Micron seeks a declaration of monopolization by Rambus, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and a declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement of the 14 patents in suit. As explained above, the court ordered a coordinated trial (without Samsung) of certain common JEDEC-related claims and defenses asserted in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. Specifically, the jury found that Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to meet their burden of proving that: (1) Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct; (2) Rambus made important representations that it did not have any intellectual property pertaining to the work of JEDEC and intended or reasonably expected that the representations would be heard by or repeated to others including Hynix, Micron or Nanya; (3) Rambus uttered deceptive half-truths about its intellectual property coverage or potential coverage of products compliant with synchronous DRAM standards then being considered by JEDEC by disclosing some facts but failing to disclose other important facts; or (4) JEDEC members shared a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard. Hynix, Micron, and Nanya filed motions for a new trial and for judgment on certain of their equitable claims and defenses. A hearing on those motions was held on May 1, 2008. A further hearing on the equitable claims and defenses was held on May 27, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the court issued an order denying Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s motions for new trial. On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial. The court concluded (among other things) that (1) Rambus did not have an obligation to disclose pending or anticipated patent applications and had sound reasons for not doing so; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that JEDEC members did not share a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard; (3) the written JEDEC disclosure policies did not clearly require members to disclose information about patent applications and the intent to file patent applications in the future; (4) there was no clearly understood or legally enforceable agreement of JEDEC members to disclose information about patent applications or the intent to seek patents relevant to standards being discussed at JEDEC; (5) during the time Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, Rambus did not have any patent application pending that covered a JEDEC standard, and none of the patents in suit was applied for until well after Rambus resigned from JEDEC; (6) Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC did not constitute an estoppel or waiver of its rights to enforce its patents; (7) Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to carry their burden to prove their asserted waiver and estoppel defenses not directly based on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC; (8) the evidence did not support a finding of any material misrepresentation, half truths or fraudulent concealment by Rambus related to JEDEC upon which Nanya relied; (9) the manufacturers failed to establish that Rambus violated unfair competition law by its conduct before JEDEC; (10) the evidence related to Rambus’s patent prosecution did not establish that Rambus unduly delayed in prosecuting the claims in suit; (11) Rambus did not unreasonably delay bringing its patent infringement claims; and (12) there is no basis for any unclean hands defense or unenforceability claim arising from Rambus’s conduct. In these cases (except for the Hynix 00-20905 action), a hearing on claim construction and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity was held on June 4 and 5, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the court issued its claim construction order relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in suit and denied Hynix, Micron, Nanya, and Samsung’s (collectively, the “Manufacturers”) motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on their proposed claim construction. The court issued claim construction orders relating to the Ware patents in suit on July 25 and August 27, 2008, and denied the Manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims. On September 4, 2008, at the court’s direction, Rambus elected to proceed to trial on 12 patent claims, each from the Farmwald/Horowitz family. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against the Manufacturers under the Ware patents in suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897), and each party’s claims relating to those patents were dismissed with prejudice. On November 21, 2008, the court entered an order clarifying certain aspects of its July 10, 2008, claim construction order. On November 24, 2008, the court granted Rambus’ motion for summary judgment of direct infringement with respect to claim 16 of Rambus’ U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 by the Manufacturers’ DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 memory chip products (except for Nanya’s DDR3 memory chip products). In the same order, the court denied the remainder of Rambus’ motion for summary judgment of infringement. On January 19, 2009, Micron filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed an opposition to Micron’s motion on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court entered a stay of this action pending resolution of Rambus’ appeal of the Delaware Order. European Patent Infringement Cases In 2001, Rambus filed suit against Micron in Mannheim, Germany, for infringement of European patent, EP 1 022 642. That suit has not been active. Two proceedings in Italy remain ongoing relating to Rambus’s claim that Micron is infringing European patent, EP 1 004 956, and Micron’s purported claim resulting from a seizure of evidence in Italy in 2000 carried out by Rambus pursuant to a court order. DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 Litigation (“DDR2”) U.S District Court in the Northern District of California On January 25, 2005, Rambus filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California court against Hynix, Infineon, Nanya, and Inotera. Infineon and Inotera were subsequently dismissed from this litigation as was Samsung which had been added as a defendant. Rambus alleges that certain of its patents are infringed by certain of the defendants’ SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 and other advanced memory products. Hynix and Nanya have denied Rambus’ claims and asserted counterclaims against Rambus for, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws, unfair trade practices, equitable estoppel, and fraud in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC. As explained above, the court ordered a coordinated trial (without Samsung) of certain common JEDEC-related claims and defenses asserted in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. Specifically, the jury found that Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to meet their burden of proving that: (1) Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct; (2) Rambus made important representations that it did not have any intellectual property pertaining to the work of JEDEC and intended or reasonably expected that the representations would be heard by or repeated to others including Hynix, Micron or Nanya; (3) Rambus uttered deceptive half- truths about its intellectual property coverage or potential coverage of products compliant with synchronous DRAM standards then being considered by JEDEC by disclosing some facts but failing to disclose other important facts; or (4) JEDEC members shared a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard. Hynix, Micron, and Nanya filed motions for a new trial and for judgment on certain of their equitable claims and defenses. A hearing on those motions was held on May 1, 2008. A further hearing on the equitable claims and defenses was held on May 27, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the court issued an order denying Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s motions for new trial. On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial. The court concluded (among other things) that (1) Rambus did not have an obligation to disclose pending or anticipated patent applications and had sound reasons for not doing so; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that JEDEC members did not share a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard; (3) the written JEDEC disclosure policies did not clearly require members to disclose information about patent applications and the intent to file patent applications in the future; (4) there was no clearly understood or legally enforceable agreement of JEDEC members to disclose information about patent applications or the intent to seek patents relevant to standards being discussed at JEDEC; (5) during the time Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, Rambus did not have any patent application pending that covered a JEDEC standard, and none of the patents in suit was applied for until well after Rambus resigned from JEDEC; (6) Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC did not constitute an estoppel or waiver of its rights to enforce its patents; (7) Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to carry their burden to prove their asserted waiver and estoppel defenses not directly based on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC; (8) the evidence did not support a finding of any material misrepresentation, half truths or fraudulent concealment by Rambus related to JEDEC upon which Nanya relied; (9) the manufacturers failed to establish that Rambus violated unfair competition law by its conduct before JEDEC; (10) the evidence related to Rambus’s patent prosecution did not establish that Rambus unduly delayed in prosecuting the claims in suit; (11) Rambus did not unreasonably delay bringing its patent infringement claims; and (12) there is no basis for any unclean hands defense or unenforceability claim arising from Rambus’s conduct. In these cases (except for the Hynix 00-20905 action), a hearing on claim construction and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity was held on June 4 and 5, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the court issued its claim construction order relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in suit and denied the Manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on their proposed claim construction. The court issued claim construction orders relating to the Ware patents in suit on July 25 and August 27, 2008, and denied the Manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims. On September 4, 2008, at the court’s direction, Rambus elected to proceed to trial on 12 patent claims, each from the Farmwald/Horowitz family. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against the Manufacturers under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897, and each party’s claims relating to those patents were dismissed with prejudice. On November 21, 2008, the court entered an order clarifying certain aspects of its July 10, 2008, claim construction order. On November 24, 2008, the court granted Rambus’s motion for summary judgment of direct infringement with respect to claim 16 of Rambus’s U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 by the Manufacturers’ DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 memory chip products (except for Nanya’s DDR3 memory chip products). In the same order, the court denied the remainder of Rambus’s motion for summary judgment of infringement. On January 19, 2009, Nanya and Hynix filed motions for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed opposition briefs to these motions on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court entered a stay of this action pending resolution of Rambus’ appeal of the Delaware Order. European Commission Competition Directorate-General On or about April 22, 2003, Rambus was notified by the European Commission Competition Directorate-General (Directorate) (the “European Commission”) that it had received complaints from Infineon and Hynix. Rambus answered the ensuing requests for information prompted by those complaints on June 16, 2003. Rambus obtained a copy of Infineon’s complaint to the European Commission in late July 2003, and on October 8, 2003, at the request of the European Commission, filed its response. The European Commission sent Rambus a further request for information on December 22, 2006, which Rambus answered on January 26, 2007. On August 1, 2007, Rambus received a statement of objections from the European Commission. The statement of objections alleges that through Rambus’ participation in the JEDEC standards setting organization and subsequent conduct, Rambus violated European Union competition law. Rambus filed a response to the statement of objections on October 31, 2007, and a hearing was held on December 4 and 5, 2007. On December 9, 2009, the European Commission announced that it has reached a final settlement with Rambus to resolve the pending case. Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission made no finding of liability, and no fine will be assessed against Rambus. Rambus commits to offer licenses with maximum royalty rates for certain memory types and memory controllers on a forward-going basis (the “Commitment”). The Commitment is expressly made without any admission by Rambus of the allegations asserted against it. The Commitment also does not resolve any existing claims of infringement prior to the signing of any license with a prospective licensee, nor does it release or excuse any of the prospective licensees from damages or royalty obligations through the date of signing a license. Rambus offers licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% for DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 SDRAM memory types. Qualified licensees will enjoy a royalty holiday for SDR and DDR DRAM devices, subject to compliance with the terms of the license. In addition, Rambus offers licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% per unit for SDR memory controllers through April 2010, dropping to 1.0% thereafter, and royalty rates of 2.65% per unit for DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 memory controllers through April 2010, then dropping to 2.0%. The Commitment to license at the above rates remains valid for a period of five years from December 9, 2009. All royalty rates are applicable to future shipments only and do not affect liability, if any, for damages or royalties that accrued up to the time of the license grant. On March 25, 2010, Hynix filed appeals with the General Court of the European Union purporting to challenge the settlement and the European Commission’s rejection of Hynix’s complaint. No decision has issued to date on Hynix’s appeal. Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco On May 5, 2004, Rambus filed a lawsuit against Micron, Hynix, Infineon and Siemens in San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco court”) seeking damages for conspiring to fix prices (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq.), conspiring to monopolize under the Cartwright Act (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq.), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.). This lawsuit alleges that there were concerted efforts beginning in the 1990s to deter innovation in the DRAM market and to boycott Rambus and/or deter market acceptance of Rambus’ RDRAM product. Subsequently, Infineon and Siemens were dismissed from this action (as a result of a settlement with Infineon) and three Samsung-related entities were added as defendants. On January 19, 2010, Rambus and Samsung entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the parties released all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them and certain other potential claims. A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of claims between Rambus and Samsung was filed on February 4, 2010. A jury trial against Micron and Hynix began on June 20, 2011. Trial remains ongoing. Stock Option Investigation Related Claims On May 30, 2006, the Audit Committee commenced an internal investigation of the timing of past stock option grants and related accounting issues. On May 31, 2006, the first of three shareholder derivative actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Rambus (as a nominal defendant) and certain current and former executives and board members. These actions were consolidated for all purposes under the caption, In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. C-06-3513-JF (N.D. Cal.), and Howard Chu and Gaetano Ruggieri were appointed lead plaintiffs. The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleged violations of certain federal and state securities laws as well as other state law causes of action. The complaint sought disgorgement and damages in an unspecified amount, unspecified equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 30, 2007, another shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Rambus (as a nominal defendant) and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Francl v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP et al., No. 07-Civ. 7650 (GBD)). On November 21, 2007, the New York court granted PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California. On October 18, 2006, the Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) to evaluate potential claims or other actions arising from the stock option granting activities. The Board of Directors appointed J. Thomas Bentley, Chairman of the Audit Committee, and Abraham Sofaer, a retired federal judge and Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee, both of whom joined the Rambus Board of Directors in 2005, to comprise the SLC. On August 24, 2007, the final written report setting forth the findings of the SLC was filed with the court. As set forth in its report, the SLC determined that all claims should be terminated and dismissed against the named defendants in In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation with the exception of claims against named defendant Ed Larsen, who served as Vice President, Human Resources from September 1996 until December 1999, and then Senior Vice President, Administration until July 2004. The SLC entered into settlement agreements with certain former officers of Rambus. The aggregate value of the settlements to Rambus exceeds $5.3 million in cash as well as substantial additional value to Rambus relating to the relinquishment of claims to over 2.7 million stock options. On October 5, 2007, Rambus filed a motion to terminate in accordance with the SLC’s recommendations. Subsequently, the parties settled In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation and Francl v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP et al., No. 07-Civ. 7650 (GBD). The settlement provided for a payment by Rambus of $2.0 million and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants, with the exception of claims against Ed Larsen (which have now also been settled), in these actions. The $2.0 million was accrued for during the quarter ended June 30, 2008 within accrued litigation expenses and paid in January 2009. A final approval hearing was held on January 16, 2009, and an order of final approval was entered on January 20, 2009. On July 17, 2006, the first of six class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Rambus and certain current and former executives and board members. These lawsuits were consolidated under the caption, In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, C-06-4346-JF (N.D. Cal.). The settlement of this action was preliminarily approved by the court on March 5, 2008. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Rambus paid $18.3 million into a settlement fund on March 17, 2008. Some alleged class members requested exclusion from the settlement. A final fairness hearing was held on May 14, 2008. That same day the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement agreement and entered judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defendants in the consolidated class action litigation. On March 1, 2007, a pro se lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California by two alleged Rambus shareholders against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Kelley et al. v. Rambus, Inc. et al. C-07-01238-JF (N.D. Cal.)). This action was consolidated with a substantially identical pro se lawsuit filed by another purported Rambus shareholder against the same parties. The consolidated complaint against Rambus alleges violations of federal and state securities laws, and state law claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Following several rounds of motions to dismiss, on April 17, 2008, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice except for plaintiffs’ claims under sections 14(a) and 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as to which leave to amend was granted. On June 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing substantially the same allegations as the prior complaint although limited to claims under sections 14(a) and 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Rambus’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was heard on September 12, 2008. On December 9, 2008, the court granted Rambus’ motion and entered judgment in favor of Rambus. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2008. Plaintiffs’ filed their opening brief on April 13, 2009. Rambus opposed on May 29, 2009, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on June 12, 2009. On June 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the judgment in favor of Rambus. On September 11, 2008, the same pro se plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Kelley et al. v. Rambus, Inc. et al., Case No. 1-08-CV-122444). The complaint alleges violations of certain California state securities statues as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation based on substantially the same underlying factual allegations contained in the pro se lawsuit filed in federal court. On October 31, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. On December 2, 2010, Rambus filed a demurrer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, among other things. On May 12, 2011, the court sustained Rambus’ demurrer without leave to amend. Judgment in favor of Rambus was entered on June 15, 2011. On August 25, 2008, an amended complaint was filed by certain individuals and entities in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Steele et al. v. Rambus Inc. et al., Case No. 1-08-CV-113682). The amended complaint alleges violations of certain California state securities statues as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation. On October 10, 2008, Rambus filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. A hearing was held on January 9, 2009. On January 12, 2009, the court sustained Rambus’ demurrer without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on February 13, 2009, containing the same causes of action as the previous complaint. On March 17, 2009, Rambus filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint. A hearing was held on May 22, 2009. On May 26, 2009, the court sustained in part and overruled in part Rambus’s demurrer. On June 5, 2009, Rambus filed an answer denying plaintiffs’ remaining allegations. Discovery is ongoing. NVIDIA Litigation U.S District Court in the Northern District of California On July 10, 2008, Rambus filed suit against NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that NVIDIA’s products with memory controllers for SDR, DDR, DDRx, GDDR, and GDDRy (where DDRx and GDDRy includes at least DDR2, DDR3 and GDDR3) technologies infringe 17 patents. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against NVIDIA under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897, accordingly 15 patents remain in suit. On December 30, 2008, the court granted NVIDIA’s motion to stay this case as to Rambus’ claims that NVIDIA’s products infringe nine patents that are also the subject of proceedings in front of the International Trade Commission (described below), and denied NVIDIA’s motion to stay the remainder of Rambus’ patent infringement claims. Discovery is proceeding as to issues not stayed by the court’s order. On August 1, 2011, NVIDIA filed an answer denying Rambus’s claims and counterclaims alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and deceptive practices in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC and alleged spoliation of evidence. NVIDIA seeks a declaratory judgment that the Rambus patents-in-suit are unenforceable, invalid and not infringed by NVIDIA, compensatory and other damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees. A claim construction hearing is scheduled for January 11, 2012. On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed suit against NVIDIA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that NVIDIA’s products with certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express and DisplayPort peripheral interfaces, infringe six patents from the Dally family of patents which are owned by Massachusetts Institute of Technology and exclusively licensed by Rambus. On January 20, 2011, NVIDIA filed a motion to stay the case pending resolution of the 2010 ITC investigation (described below). On January 25, 2011, the court granted NVIDIA’s motion. International Trade Commission 2008 Investigation On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint with the U. S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) requesting the commencement of an investigation pertaining to NVIDIA products. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of products that infringe nine Rambus patents from the Ware and Barth families of patents. The accused products include NVIDIA products that incorporate DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers, including graphics processors, and media and communications processors. The complaint names NVIDIA as a proposed respondent, as well as companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products and are imported into the United States. Additional respondents include: Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International, BFG Technologies, Biostar Microtech and Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc. and Giga-Byte Technology Co., Hewlett-Packard, MSI Computer Corp. and Micro-Star International Co., Palit Multimedia Inc. and Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, and Sparkle Computer Co. On December 4, 2008, the ITC instituted the investigation. A hearing on claim construction was held on March 24, 2009, and a claim construction order issued on June 22, 2009. On June 5, 2009, Rambus moved to withdraw from the investigation four of the asserted patents and certain claims of a fifth asserted patent in order to simplify the investigation, streamline the final hearing, and conserve Commission resources. A final hearing before the administrative law judge was held October 13-20, 2009, and the parties submitted two rounds of post-hearing briefs. On January 22, 2010, the administrative law judge issued a final initial determination holding that the importation of the accused NVIDIA products violates section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 because they infringe seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents. The administrative law judge held that the accused NVIDIA products literally infringe all asserted claims of each asserted Barth and Ware patent, that they infringe three asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents, that respondents contribute to and induce infringement of all asserted claims, and that the asserted patents are not unenforceable due to unclean hands or equitable estoppel. The administrative law judge held that the asserted Barth patents are not invalid for anticipation or obviousness and are not obvious for double patenting. The administrative law judge further held that, while the accused products infringed eight claims of the two asserted Ware patents and that those patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, no violation has occurred because the asserted Ware patents are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The administrative law judge recommended that the ITC issue (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of accused products by any respondent; and (2) a cease and desist order prohibiting domestic respondents from engaging in certain activities in the United States with respect to the accused products. On February 12, 2010, the parties’ filed petitions asking the full Commission to review certain aspects of the final initial determination. On March 25, 2010, the ITC determined to review certain obviousness findings regarding the Barth patents and certain obviousness and anticipation findings regarding the Ware patents. The parties have submitted briefing on these issues and on the issue of remedy and bonding. On May 24, 2010, the ITC extended the target date for completion of the investigation by two days to May 26, 2010. On May 26, 2010, the ITC requested further briefing on the impact of the license between Rambus and Samsung on the administrative law judge’s findings and conclusions, particularly on the issue of patent exhaustion. On June 7, 2010 and June 15, 2010, the parties filed briefs as requested by the ITC. On June 22, 2010, the ITC requested additional briefing to discuss the relevance and effect with respect to the issue of patent exhaustion of a decision issued on May 27, 2010, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case captioned Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun. On June 25, 2010, the parties filed briefs as requested by the ITC. On July 26, 2010, the ITC issued its final determination affirming the administrative law judge’s initial determination with certain modifications to provide further analysis of issues related to obviousness. The ITC found that respondents failed to demonstrate that Rambus’ patent rights are exhausted with respect to accused products that incorporate Samsung memory. The ITC issued (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation by any respondent of memory controller products and products incorporating a memory controller that infringe one or more of the seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents; and (2) a cease and desist order prohibiting respondents with commercially significant inventories of infringing products in the United States from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, memory controller products and products incorporating a memory controller that infringe one or more of the seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The ITC determined that the amount of the bond to permit importation during the sixty-day Presidential review period was 2.65 percent of the entered value of the subject imports. The ITC denied respondents’ request for stay and terminated the investigation. The parties have each filed opening, responsive, and reply appellate briefs with the Federal Circuit. No date for oral argument has been scheduled. International Trade Commission 2010 Investigation On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC requesting the commencement of an investigation and seeking an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of, among other things, NVIDIA products with certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express and DisplayPort peripheral interfaces, that Rambus alleges infringe three patents from the Dally family. The complaint names, among others, NVIDIA as a respondent, as well as companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products and are imported into the United States, including Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International Inc., Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corp., Biostar Microtech International Corp., Elitegroup Computer Systems, EVGA Corp., Galaxy Microsystems Ltd., G.B.T. Inc., Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd., Gracom Technologies LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, Jaton Corp., Jaton Technology TPE, Micro-Star International Co., MSI Computer Corp., Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, Ltd., Sparkle Computer Co., Ltd., Zotac International (MCO) Ltd. and Zotac USA Inc. On December 29, 2010, the ITC instituted the investigation. A final hearing before the administrative law judge is scheduled for October 12-20, 2011. Under the current schedule, the final initial determination is due on or before January 4, 2012, and the target date is May 4, 2012. Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek, and STMicroelectronics Litigation International Trade Commission 2010 Investigation On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed a complaint with the ITC requesting the commencement of an investigation and seeking an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of products that incorporate at least DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, LPDDR2, mobile DDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics that infringe patents from the Barth family of patents, and products having certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express interfaces, DisplayPort interfaces, and certain Serial AT Attachment (“SATA”) and Serial Attached SCSI (“SAS”) interfaces, from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI and STMicroelectronics that infringe patents from the Dally family of patents. The complaint names, among others, Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics as respondents, as well as companies whose products incorporate those companies’ accused products and are imported into the United States, including Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International Inc., Audio Partnership Plc, Cisco Systems, Garmin International, G.B.T. Inc., Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd., Gracom Technologies LLC, Hewlett-Packard Company, Hitachi GST, Motorola, Inc., Oppo Digital, Inc., and Seagate Technology. As described more fully above, the complaint also names NVIDIA and certain companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products with certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express and DisplayPort peripheral interfaces, and seeks to bar their importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation. On December 29, 2010, the ITC instituted the investigation. On June 20, 2011, the administrative law judge granted a joint motion by Rambus and Freescale to terminate the investigation as to Freescale pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. A final hearing before the administrative law judge is scheduled for October 12-20, 2011. Under the current schedule, the final initial determination is due on or before January 4, 2012, and the target date is May 4, 2012. U.S District Court in the Northern District of California On December 1, 2010, Rambus filed complaints against Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that 1) products that incorporate at least DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, LPDDR2, mobile DDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI, MediaTek and STMicroelectronics infringe patents from the Barth family of patents; 2) those same products and products from those companies that incorporate SDR memory controllers infringe patents from the Farmwald-Horowitz family; and 3) products having certain peripheral interfaces, including PCI Express, DisplayPort, and certain SATA and SAS interfaces, from Broadcom, Freescale, LSI and STMicroelectronics infringe patents from the Dally family of patents. On January 24, January 26, and March 1, 2011, LSI, Broadcom, and STMicroelectronics filed their respective answers denying Rambus’s allegations and asserting counterclaims seeking declarations of non-infringement and invalidity, and unenforceability with respect to at least certain of the patents in suit. Rambus filed answers denying the allegations in LSI’s, Broadcom’s, and STMicroelectronics’ counterclaims on February 14, February 16, and March 22, 2011, respectively. On February 7 and March 7, 2011, Freescale and MediaTek filed their respective answers denying Rambus’s allegations. Responses to the complaints in the remainder of these actions are not yet due. On January 26, 2011, Freescale filed a motion to stay the case against Freescale. On January 28, 2011, Broadcom, Mediatek, and LSI filed motions to stay their respective actions. On February 4, 2011, STMicroelectronics filed a motion to stay its action. Rambus has opposed entry of any stay as to certain patents not overlapping with patents asserted in the ITC 2010 investigation. A hearing on these motions to stay was held on April 21, 2011. On June 7, 2011, Rambus’s complaint against Freescale was dismissed pursuant to the parties’ settlement agreement. On June 13, 2011, the Court granted in part the motions to stay and denied them as to certain patents not overlapping with patents asserted in the ITC 2010 investigation. Discovery is ongoing. Potential Future Litigation In addition to the litigation described above, companies continue to adopt Rambus technologies into various products. Rambus has notified many of these companies of their use of Rambus technology and continues to evaluate how to proceed on these matters. There can be no assurance that any ongoing or future litigation will be successful. Rambus spends substantial company resources defending its intellectual property in litigation, which may continue for the foreseeable future given the multiple pending litigations. The outcomes of these litigations — as well as any delay in their resolution — could affect Rambus’ ability to license its intellectual property in the future. The Company records a contingent liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable in accordance with accounting for contingencies.

X
- Details
Name: | rmbs_LitigationAndAssertedClaimsDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | rmbs
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The element represents entire disclosure for legal proceedings, litigation, and other regulatory matters. + Details
Name: | rmbs_LitigationAndAssertedClaimsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | rmbs
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration