XML 64 R21.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.6

Litigation and Asserted Claims | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2013
LitigationAndAssertedClaimsDisclosureAbstract |
Litigation and Asserted Claims | Litigation and Asserted Claims SK Hynix Litigation U.S District Court of the Northern District of California On August 29, 2000, SK Hynix (formerly Hyundai and Hynix) and various subsidiaries filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint 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 SK Hynix, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. Rambus denied SK Hynix's claims and filed counterclaims for patent infringement against SK Hynix. The case was divided into three phases: (1) unclean hands; (2) patent infringement; and (3) antitrust, equitable estoppel, and other JEDEC-related issues. Rambus prevailed in all three phases and judgment was entered against SK Hynix. On appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its unclean hands and spoliation opinions in the SK Hynix and Micron cases. SK Hynix was also awarded costs of appeal; The Company has accrued approximately $8.1 million related to those costs as of March 31, 2013. On remand, the district court found that Rambus engaged in spoliation of evidence. Because the asserted patents were otherwise valid and Rambus did not intentionally destroy particular damaging documents, the court concluded that the appropriate sanction was to strike from the record evidence supporting a royalty in excess of a reasonable, non-discriminatory royalty. Accordingly, the court ordered the parties to submit briefs on what a reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty would be for the patents in suit. On December 19, 2012, the court held a hearing on the reasonable royalty motion; SK Hynix's motion for summary judgment of invalidity, new trial, or a stay of the case, and Rambus' motion to amend the unclean hands decision. No decisions have issued to date. SK Hynix subsequently filed a motion for collateral estoppel based on the Micron spoliation decision on remand. On February 27, 2013, the district court issued notice that SK Hynix's motion has been submitted without oral argument from the parties. 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. Micron prevailed on its unclean hands defense and judgment was entered against Rambus on the patent infringement claims. On appeal, the Federal Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. On January 2, 2013, the court issued its decision finding that Rambus had spoliated documents in bad faith, that Micron's inequitable conduct defense and JEDEC-based claims and defenses related to patent misuse, antitrust, and unfair competition were prejudiced, and that the patents-in-suit are thus unenforceable against Micron. The court issued an order on January 24, 2013, directing judgment be entered against Rambus on the patent infringement claims in 30 days, and staying the remainder of the case pending appeal. Rambus filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on March 27, 2013. Rambus' opening appellate brief is currently due to be filed in May 2013. 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. This case has been stayed since February 3, 2009. European Patent Infringement Cases In 2001, Rambus filed suit against Micron in Mannheim, Germany, for infringement of European patent, EP 1 22 642. That suit has not been active. Two related proceedings in Italy remain active. One relates to Rambus' claim that Micron is infringing European patent, EP 1 4 956. The court in this proceeding has found the '956 patent valid but not infringed. The court also dismissed Micron's claims for unfair competition based on JEDEC as well as abuse of process. Micron did not appeal this decision so this case is now closed. The second case in Italy involves Micron's purported claim resulting from a seizure of evidence in Italy in 2000 carried out by Rambus pursuant to a court order. The court in this proceeding dismissed Micron's claim. Micron has appealed this decision to the Italian Supreme Court. 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. This case has been stayed since February 3, 2009. 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, which led to a statement of objections from the European Commission alleging that through Rambus' participation in the JEDEC standards setting organization and subsequent conduct, Rambus violated European Union competition law. On December 9, 2009, the European Commission announced that it had reached a final settlement with Rambus to resolve the pending case. 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, conspiring to monopolize under the Cartwright Act, intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition. 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 and later dismissed (as a result of a settlement with Samsung). A jury trial against Micron and Hynix began on June 20, 2011. On November 16, 2011, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hynix and Micron and against Rambus and judgment was entered by the Court on February 15, 2012. The court issued an order on January 29, 2013, awarding costs to Micron and Hynix of $520 thousand and $350 thousand, respectively. The Company has accrued $0.9 million related to these costs as of March 31, 2013. Rambus filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 2012 and thereafter filed its opening brief on appeal on September 19, 2012. Defendants filed their responsive briefs on March 8, 2013. Rambus' reply brief is currently scheduled to be filed in May 2013. 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. Several class action, derivative, and private shareholder suits were subsequently filed, all of which (with one exception described below) have been dismissed or settled. 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. 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. On December 9, 2008, the court entered judgment in favor of Rambus. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2008. 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. The complaint alleges violations of certain California state securities statutes 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. Judgment in favor of Rambus was entered on June 15, 2011. Plaintiffs appealed and the court of appeals issued an order affirming the judgment on December 14, 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 GDDR3memory 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. 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, January 17, 2012, and March 19, 2012, respectively, the administrative law judge granted joint motions to terminate the investigation as to Freescale, Broadcom and Mediatek pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. A final hearing before the administrative law judge was held October 12-20, 2011. On July 25, 2012, the ITC issued the notice of its determination to terminate the investigation with a finding of no violation for the following reasons: all of the asserted patent claims are invalid due to anticipation or obviousness, except for certain Dally claims that include multiple-transmitters for which the ITC determined there was no infringement; Rambus did not demonstrate the existence of a domestic industry for both the Barth and Dally patents; the Barth patents are unenforceable under the doctrine of unclean hands; and the Barth patents are exhausted as to one respondent. The ITC's opinion setting forth its determinations issued on July 31, 2012. Rambus filed a notice of appeal on September 21, 2012. Rambus' opening brief is currently scheduled to be filed in May 2013. 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 March 20, 2011, June 7, 2011, and December 29, 2011, respectively, Rambus' complaint against MediaTek, Freescale and Broadcom was dismissed pursuant to the parties' settlement agreement. Rambus and LSI announced that they had entered into a settlement of their disputes on February 19, 2013. On September 26, 2012, the court issued a claim construction order. At a December 20, 2012 case management conference, the court scheduled an unclean hands trial to start on August 26, 2013, and a patent trial to start on April 14, 2014. 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. A reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is not material to the consolidated financial statements.

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. + References No definition available. + Details
Name: | rmbs_LitigationAndAssertedClaimsTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | rmbs_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration