Licensing organization files patent suit against Intel
630269
Intel was hit with a lawsuit by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation on Wednesday, alleging that the chipmaker used a WARF invention in its processor architectures, including the popular Core 2 Duo.
411558
The pharmaceutical sues over patent infringement.
41196
Wii affected? Super Mario and friends are facing legal action from a US-based semiconductor intellectual property company over an alleged patent infringement - potentially within the Wii games console.â¦
249616
In the latest squabble over patents between Japanese and South Korean electronics giants, Toshiba has sued Hynix Semiconductor&#39;s Japan and US units, alleging patent infringement in flash-memory
538773
By Jennifer Davies, The San Diego Union-Tribune  Dec. 12--In the latest round of an ongoing legal battle between the  wireless chip makers, the U.S. International Trade Commission ruled yesterday  that Qualcomm is infringing on a patent held by rival Broadcom.
144521
Patented tech used without permission, boffins claim A band of boffins is suing Intel, claiming the chip giant pinched their patented technology and used it in the Core 2 Duo processor design without their say-so.â¦
613445
The case against Intel's right to pay its channel clients for exclusivity has been a matter for a civil court. But if the New York Attorney General finds what he's looking for, the company could find the case against it both upgraded and multithreaded.
257030
Chip maker Intel is being investigated by the New York Attorney General following anti-trust concerns.
142077
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has settled a complaint against a company that owns patents to a widely used Ethernet standard, saying the patent owner was attempting to collect huge license fees despite a prior commitment to the contrary.
332795
The representative for Hollywood's major movie studios on Monday said its members have sued two microchip makers, alleging they sold their products to makers of equipment that can be used to illegally copy DVDs.
471108
Tuesday&#39;s&#160;raid on Intel&#39;s Munich office&#160;by European Commission investigators marks the latest development in one of several antitrust cases that have dogged the world&#39;s largest chip maker for years. Here&#39;s a rundown of Intel&#39;s brushes with antitrust investigators and lawsuits around the world since 1990:1990Dec. 19: Microprocessor maker Cyrix filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas. &quot;Intel has engaged in a campaign of unlawful exclusionary practices to protect its coprocessor monopoly from competition by Cyrix,&quot; the company said in a statement.1991June 29: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) informed Intel that it was investigating the company&#39;s business practices.Aug. 20: Advanced Micro Devices brought a $2 billion antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California, alleging that Intel &quot;engaged in unlawful acts designed to secure and maintain a monopoly.&quot;Dec. 19: U.S. District Court Judge James Ware dismissed part of AMD&#39;s antitrust lawsuit against Intel because a four-year statute of limitations had passed for some actions listed in AMD&#39;s complaint. AMD declared its intention to press forward with the lawsuit anyway.1992May 28: Processor maker Chips and Technologies sued Intel for antitrust violations in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California. The claims were a response to a Feb. 1992 patent lawsuit filed by Intel.1993Feb. 4: Chips and Technologies agreed to dismiss its 1992 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a settlement to resolve a patent dispute between the two companies.July 15: The FTC completed its investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices, saying no evidence was found to support charges of anticompetitive behavior.1994Feb. 4: Cyrix dismissed its 1990 antitrust claims against Intel as part of a patent-dispute settlement between the two companies.1995Jan. 11: AMD and Intel announced a broad legal settlement that ended several court cases between the two companies, including the 1991 antitrust lawsuit filed by AMD.1997Aug. 27: The FTC requested additional information from Intel concerning its plans to acquire Chips and Technologies, citing antitrust laws. At the time, Chips and Technologies was a major supplier of graphics chips.Sept. 25: The FTC began a second antitrust investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices. This investigation was conducted separately from the review of Intel&#39;s offer to acquire Chips and Technologies.1998Jan. 13: The FTC decided not to seek an injunction against Intel&#39;s acquisition of Chips and Technologies but announced plans to &quot;continue the investigation into the lawfulness of the acquisition.&quot;April 23: The FTC ruled that an October 1997 legal settlement between Intel and Digital Equipment that included the sale of Digital Equipment&#39;s semiconductor division, including its Alpha processor, to Intel would violate U.S. antitrust law if completed. As a result, the FTC required Digital Equipment to offer licenses for its Alpha processor to both AMD and Samsung Electronics as part of the deal.June 8: The FTC issued an antitrust ruling against Intel. The FTC found that Intel stopped providing important technical information about its products to Digital Equipment, Compaq Computer, and Intergraph after the three companies took legal action against Intel to enforce microprocessor patents they held. Intel also threatened to stop selling microprocessors to those companies, the FTC said.1999March 17: The FTC accepted a settlement with Intel over the 1998 antitrust ruling. The agreement required Intel to refrain from withholding technical information from customers involved in intellectual-property litigation with the company, but did not constitute an admission of guilt on the chip maker&#39;s part.2000Sept. 26: The FTC ended its second investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices and decided to take no further action against the company.2004Apr. 8: The Fair Trade Commission of Japan (JFTC) raided the offices of Intel&#39;s Japanese subsidiary and several Japanese computer companies as part of an investigation into Intel&#39;s business practices.2005March 8: JFTC ruled that Intel violated Japanese antitrust laws and hurt competition in the country&#39;s processor market.March 31:&#160;Intel disputed the JFTC&#39;s findings, but did not contest them and agreed to refrain from certain business practices.June 27: AMD filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit detailed allegations of anticompetitive behavior by Intel in the U.S., Asia and Europe.June 30:&#160;AMD sued Intel&#160;in the Tokyo High Court and the Tokyo District Court, seeking more than $50 million in damages arising from the chip maker&#39;s anticompetitive actions in Japan.July 12: European Commission investigators raided the offices of Intel and PC manufacturers in several countries as part of an antitrust investigation.2006Feb. 9: Korean Fair Trade Commission (KFTC) officials&#160;raided Intel offices in South Korea.July 17: AMD filed a complaint against Intel with Germany&#39;s Federal Cartel Office, claiming that a deal betwen Intel and retailer Media Markt blocked the sale of computers based on AMD processors at hundreds of retail outlets.Sept. 11: European Commission antitrust officials announced plans to investigate the complaint filed in Germany by AMD against Intel and Media Markt.2007July 27: The European Commission&#160;charged Intel with antitrust violations. It accused Intel of offering rebates to PC manufacturers that buy the majority of their processors from Intel, paying PC manufacturers to delay or cancel products based on AMD processors, and selling processors below cost when bidding against AMD for contracts with server makers.Sept. 12: The KFTC issued preliminary antitrust charges against Intel while continuing its investigation into the company&#39;s business practices in South Korea.2008Jan. 10: The New York State Attorney General launched an antitrust investigation of Intel. The chip maker was served with a subpoena seeking information on its pricing practices and &quot;possible attempts to exclude competitors through market domination.&quot;Feb. 12: European Commission investigators raided Intel&#39;s office in Munich. The offices of retailers Media Markt and DSG International were also raided by investigators.
666712
Inks deal for ten years of patents Intel has agreed to stump up $250 to Transmeta to settle the patent dispute case between the firms without battling through the courts. Intel will pay its rival $150 in a lump sum, plus an annual license fee of $20m for the next five years.â¦
420354
I2 Technologies accused SAP of patent infringement in a lawsuit filed Tuesday.
525050
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC), of Hsinchu, Taiwan, has expanded its patent-infringement fight against rival contract chip maker Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC) by filing a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
105326
SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Further pitting itself against Intel Corp.&#39;s Pentium-M offerings, Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
757212
A legal battle is shaping up in California involving a Chinese startup that makes equipment used to produce semiconductors.Advanced Micro-Fabrication Equipment&#160;(AMEC), of Shanghai, was sued in California by Applied Materials, which claims the company misappropriated its trade secrets. But lawyers for the Chinese company asked the judge to dismiss the suit, arguing the U.S. court has no jurisdiction over AMEC&#39;s activities.AMEC&#39;s motion for dismissal will be heard by Judge James Ware of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on Feb. 11.Applied&#39;s lawsuit, filed in October and amended last month, claims AMEC used its trade secrets to develop etch and CVD (Chemical Vapor Deposit) tools that are used to make chips. AMEC&#39;s tools will compete against similar products from Applied, which cost millions of dollars each. Applied is seeking an injunction from the court to prevent the misappropriation of its trade secrets and wants punitive damages as well as a declaration that it owns patent applications recently filed by AMEC.Applied identified four former employees in the suit, including AMEC founders Gerald Yin and Aihua Chen.Applied&#39;s amended complaint describes Yin, who left Applied in 2004 to start AMEC, as a former corporate vice president and chief technology officer who &quot;managed the etch product group and had broad access to Applied confidential information and trade secrets concerning its etch tools.&quot; In addition, the complaint says Chen at one point served as general manager of Applied&#39;s CVD product group and had access to proprietary technology related to those tools.To bolster its case against AMEC, Applied noted that the former employees identified in the lawsuit signed agreements that give Applied all rights to inventions made during their employment, and prevent them from using Applied&#39;s confidential information for anyone else&#39;s benefit. Under the agreement, any patents filed by the former employees within one year of leaving Applied are &quot;presumed to have been conceived or made during their employment with Applied and would belong to Applied.&quot;As a result, Applied&#39;s complaint lays claim to two AMEC patent applications filed in China on August 5, 2005, that name Yin and other former Applied employees as inventors. These patents should belong to Applied as the patent applications were made &quot;one year and three days after Yin left applied&quot; and therefore must be based on information that Yin disclosed to AMEC during the one year period, the complaint said.AMEC subsequently filed patent claims in Japan and the U.S. based on the Chinese patent applications. Applied&#39;s complaint also claims these patent applications as its own, noting Applied filed its own patent applications covering the same technologies.In response, AMEC&#39;s motion to dismiss argues that the U.S. court has no jurisdiction over the Chinese company.&quot;In this case, there is no jurisdiction over AMEC Inc., because the allegations of the (amended complaint) relate exclusively to actions that took place in China. None of Applied&#39;s claims arises out of allegations concerning contact with California,&quot; the motion said, adding any legal action by Applied against AMEC should be heard in a Chinese court instead.
260017
(InfoWorld) - A district court judge in the U.S. state of Delaware has dismissed part of Advanced Micro Devices' lawsuit against Intel. The dismissed claims relate to alleged business practices of Intel that AMD claimsÂ affected sales of its own microprocessors. Intel petitioned the court toÂ have the claims dismissedÂ because it said that while AMD is headquartered in the U.S. it manufactures its processors in Germany and assembles them in Malaysia, Singapore and China. AMD is already seeking damages through the Japanese courts, European Commission and Korea Fair Trade Commission for the same business practices that are alleged in the U.S. lawsuit. Because the alleged harm was suffered outside the U.S. and because AMD is seeking redress overseas, Intel argued that the allegations fall outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, according to a memorandum opinion from the court. AMD contended that it is not seeking such "foreign commerce claims" and that the x86 microprocessor market is a global market and that Intel's conduct in overseas markets had an effect on its business in the U.S. "AMD has not demonstrated that the alleged foreign conduct of Intel has direct, substantial and foreseeable effects in the U.S. which gives rise to its claim. AMD's allegations, taken in the light of the most favorable to AMD, describe a foreign effect and a foreign harm that have had ripple effects for the domestic market, but have not had any direct, substantial or reasonable effect which would give rise to an antitrust claim within the jurisdictional reach of the Sherman Act. Accordingly, the court will dismiss AMD's claims based on alleged lost sales of AMD's microprocessors to foreign customers," U.S. District Judge Joseph Farnan wrote in his conclusion. Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman, said, "We are pleased that the judge appears to have agreed with out legal argument to remove those aspects of the case outside U.S. jurisdiction." He declined further comment until a conference with the judge takes place on Wednesday. AMD could not immediately be reached for comment. AMD, the long-time No. 2 player in the microprocessor market, jolted the IT industry in June last year when it filed its broad lawsuit against rival Intel. The suit alleged Intel had managed to maintain a monopoly in the PC processor market by illegally coercing customers around the world into using its products. The 48-page court filing identified 38 companies that, AMD alleged, had been coerced into using Intel processors at the expense of competing chips from AMD. Included are almost all of the large companies in the PC and server market, such as Dell, Sony, Gateway, and IBM. Among the allegation, AMD said Fujitsu Siemens Computers was offered a "special discount" on Celeron processors in return for hiding AMD-based computers on its Web site and removing references from its retail catalog. Also, at the 2004 Super Computing Show, an annual conference devoted to high performance computing, Intel offered computer makers money to remove AMD systems from their booths.