$2.18 Billion: That’s what US Court Directs Intel to Pay for Patent Infringement

Recently, a federal jury in Texas awarded damages for patent infringement to the tune of US$ 2.18 billion – one of the largest in US history. The case is VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 21-57, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Waco). Intel Corp. (“Intel”) a well-known chip maker was handed the award that goes against them. In fact, it is believed the damages are about half of Intel’s fourth-quarter profit.

The jury held that Intel infringed two patents owned by VLSI Technology LLC (“VLSI”). The jury found $1.5 billion for infringement of one patent and $675 million for infringement of the second. The jury rejected Intel’s denial of infringing either of the patents and its argument that one patent was invalid because it claimed to cover work done by Intel engineers. The jury also held that there was no willful infringement. Had the jury found Intel to be a willful infringer, then the award could have gone up to three times the amount set by the jury.

VLSI is not the original owner of the patents; in-fact the background information surrounding the transfer and ownership is also interesting. Ostensibly, VLSI has no products, no earnings, or profits of substance to show as its own and this patent award would constitute a major and perhaps its only source of income. VLSI was an independent company till around 1999 when Philips purchased them for $1 billion and its assets were later transferred to the spinoff NXP. On the other hand, one of the patents was originally issued in 2012 to Freescale Semiconductor Inc. and the other in 2010 to SigmaTel Inc. SigmaTel was acquired by Freescale, and Freescale was in turn acquired by NXP in 2015 along with the two patents. VLSI was founded (again) in 2016 by Fortress Investment Group and the two patents, in this case, were transferred to VLSI in 2019.

The patents in question – U.S. Patent Nos. 7,523,373 (‘373) and 7,725,759 (‘759) cover ways to improve the power and speed of processors using specific designs. The ‘373 patent (titled: Minimum memory operating voltage technique) essentially covers determining the minimum operating voltage of memory and storing this value in non-volatile memory.  Two voltage sources are provided, and the second is selected to operate the memory if the first is below the minimum value. The ‘759 patent (titled: System and method of managing clock speed in an electronic device) on the other hand involves a programmable clock controller that can receive a request from a first device coupled to a variable clock frequency bus.  The controller then changes the frequency of a high-speed clock that is used to control the clock frequency of a second device coupled to the bus as well as the bus itself.  The jury found that Intel literally infringed claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 11 of the ‘373 patent, and infringed claims 14, 17, 18, and 24 of the ‘759 patent under the doctrine of equivalents.

Intel intends to appeal while Fortress and VLSI Technology have other lawsuits pending against Intel, too.

Author:  Arindam Purkayastha, Patent Attorney, at IIPRD.  In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at arindam@iiprd.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

20 − 13 =

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010