Trial Notes 4/13/06 Part 3
On infringement:
5 features: read request with precharge, DLL, access time reg, variable block size, data out in response to rising and falling edge clock
Read request with auto precharge: H states there’s only one kind of read. But there’s a read command and a read with auto precharge command. Two different commands. In addition, the read with auto precharge data output cannot be interrupted.
Access Time Reg: Changing the command, changes the delay. From Lee:
Cas = 2, data must wait at least 1 clock cycle.
Cas = 3, data must wait at least 2 clock cycles
Taylor: Cas = 2, data must wait 1 clock cycle + tAC.
DLL: On chip DLL. Dispute over variable delay line. The H schematic shows DLL. The internal training manual schematic shows DLL. H states they use a tap select line. 3 different roads to SF (Hynix example repeated). [actually, the different 3 roads to SF is not a valid tap-select example that Hynix used. In select tap, the exact same road is used. If you want a longer delay, the road traveled becomes a bit longer. Hynix’s example is very flawed and should have been pointed out.] Stone reminds the jury of the DLL patent (don’t know who it belongs to, nor is it important). It’s defined as a DLL patent, yet it shows a tap delay line (just what Hynix has).
Data out in response to rising and falling edge of clock: That’s how it’s stated in H datasheet. Hynix maintains not rising edge, but crossing point. [just semantics] Stone refers back to Taylor’s technical report where he states: Data out on every edge of clock.
‘105 patent- coupled to – output driver to clock. Dispute: Taylor says the circuit signal (which is a clock signal) changes names. But the circuit displays a cause and effect. Stone questions why you can’t change name more than 2 OR 3 times? Stone provides 2 examples of coupling. [I notice in a previous post I had attributed the cell phone example to Furniss. This was incorrect.] Cell phone connection with brother. The speech goes through a number of components: phone, transmitter, switching station, etc. All these components are coupled together so that they can communicate together. A second example of the gas pedal coupled to the back tires is given. Murphy explained coupling. When the clock wiggles here, the output wiggles there. That’s coupling. That’s infringement!
On Damages:
Teece provided a hypothetical negotiation for royalty rates. It was a conservative calculation. Very conservative. Didn’t take things into account. 1. Untested patents. 2. World Wide license. Stone repeats jury instruction: Financial position should be as if no infringement occurred but not less. (something to that effect) Weinstein didn’t disagree with Teece’s numbers. This case will eliminate the patent uncertainty. The 50% uncertainty is removed. Damages should be increased by a factor of 2. $4.4B US sales only- What effect does that have when other agreements are on world wide sales? Teece said an adjustment is needed. 2 or 3 times higher, probably not 4. Weinstein didn’t disagree. When uncertainty is removed, damages should be: SDRAM $25M, DDR $192M. When WW sales is accounted for damages should be: SDRAM $100M, DDR $768M. [Looks like Stone pretty much used a factor of 4]
Wrap up:
This case is about choices, values. Innovation to benefit all of us.
We reward inventions. That’s why we have a patent law.
H takes 6 years to bring this to resolution. They want to preserve their market share.
Their approach is don’t pay R. Drag out negations and sue.
