SoylentNews

Samsung Ordered to Pay $400 Million in FinFET Patent Infringement Case

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:52PM   
from the compute-that! dept.

takyon writes:

Samsung Told to Pay $400 Million in FinFet Patent Dispute

Samsung Electronics Co. was told to pay $400 million after a federal jury in Texas said it infringed a patent owned by the licensing arm of a South Korean university. Samsung pledged to appeal.

Qualcomm Inc. and GlobalFoundries Inc. also were found to have infringed the patent but weren't told to pay any damages to the licensing arm of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, one of South Korea's top research universities.

The dispute centers on technology known as FinFet, a type of transistor that boosts performance and reduces power consumption for increasingly smaller chips. KAIST IP US, the university's licensing arm, claimed in its initial complaint that Samsung was dismissive of the FinFet research at first, believing it would be a fad. That all changed when rival Intel Corp. started licensing the invention and developing its own products, according to KAIST IP.

Patent: Double-gate FinFET device and fabricating method thereof.

Also at AnandTech.

---

Original Submission

• Re:Imaginary Property Re:Imaginary Property (Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:18PM (1 child)

  by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Wednesday June 20 2018, @07:18PM (#695712) Journal

  Maybe the university's patent is legit, and Samsung infringed on it because they consider getting punished by the courts just a cost of doing business (which they can delay by years with appeals).

  --
  [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Insightful=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Imaginary Property (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:30PM

  by frojack (1554) on Wednesday June 20 2018, @08:30PM (#695765) Journal

  after a federal jury in Texas

  When a jury is involved in Texas, you know the story is mostly click-bait.
  The Jury award is just the first step, the appeal is automatic. The real work on the case starts after the jury is dismissed.

  I would love to see the case tossed for improper choice of venue.
  https://sunsteinlaw.com/court-offers-common-sense-standards-for-challenging-plaintiffs-choice-of-venue/ [sunsteinlaw.com]

  In Genentech v Biogen:

  The Federal Circuit faulted the district court’s decision to keep the action in Texas. While many of the witnesses were located in California and not one in Texas, the district court had reasoned that because Genentech and Biogen did not identify them as “key witnesses,” their California presence did not favor transfer.

  The Federal Circuit rejected this analysis, because the injection of a “key witness” requirement improperly toughened the standard a party must satisfy for transfer.

  The court held that the presence of these witnesses favored transfer, as did the fact that Genentech and Biogen are both California companies with many case documents stored in California as well.

  --
  No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.

  Parent