Zibb

Ed SperlingOffering news and business analysis for the design engineer, Managing News Editor Suzanne Deffree filters the electronics industry's developments and trends to explain how what's happening in the board room today can impact the tech innovation of tomorrow.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

News Center Articles

Blog

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Spansion sues Samsung: A bold legal move that could impact Apple, Sony

Nov 18 2008 11:36AM | Permalink |Comments (28) |


In one of the boldest and most extreme reaching semiconductor industry legal claims in recent history, Spansion has filed two separate memory patent infringement complaints against Samsung with the ITC (International Trade Commission) and in the US District Court in Delaware.

In doing so, Spansion is seeking the exclusion from the US market of more than 100 million MP3 players, cell phones, digital cameras, and other consumer electronic devices containing Samsung's flash memory components, which the company claims violate 10 of its patents for floating gate technology. The complaint in the US District Court in Delaware also seeks an injunction and treble damages (awarded only when a patent is knowingly and intentionally violated) for the alleged infringement relating to Samsung flash memory, which Spansion estimates has accounted for more than $30 billion in Samsung's global revenues since 2003.

Although Samsung is the target of the litigations, Spansion named possibly impacted device makers in its ITC complaint that use the Samsung memory. In addition to Samsung, Spansion named Apple, Asus, Kingston, Lenovo, PNY, RIM, Sony, Sony-Ericsson, Transcend, some of their subsidiaries and third-party manufacturing companies.

Expect Samsung to put up a good fight, but if Spansion were to prove victorious in this legal action, any of the end products these companies make that contain the alleged infringing Samsung NAND -- like the iPod and BlackBerry -- could be blocked from sale here in the US. As Objective Analysis' Jim Handy put it in a statement this morning, "These companies could not have anticipated being shut out of the US market through the actions of one of their key suppliers -- that's just not supposed to happen."

Indeed, while Spansion was required to name potentially impacted electronics makers in its ITC complaint, doing so really turned up the heat on Samsung. Spansion estimates the first opinion on the ITC matter will come in nine months, just before we enter next year's holiday shopping season, with the first possible ITC action preventing sales of products using Samsung’s flash in around a year’s time. Nine months from now, consumer electronics makers will be planning out their Q3 calls and Q4 estimates, and by November 2009, they will most likely already be battered from what's shaping up to be a rough year. Samsung could lose NAND business simply based on shut-out concerns.


What's behind the claims


Much of the claims are based on Spansion's spring buy of non-volatile memory IP provider Saifun Semiconductors. With that acquisition, Spansion expanded its IP portfolio and took a key step in its strategy to create a major licensing business and generate new streams of significant revenue with high margins for itself (an especially important aspect of the deal as memory prices continue to fall and hurt company financials).

According to Spansion, its patents named in the law suits are fundamental to floating gate technology, which it boasted as the base for some 90% of the flash memory market. Spansion in its statement on the legal actions also noted its MirrorBit, a charge-trapping technology, that it claims represents a growing share of the flash memory market and is expected to replace floating gate technology in the future. Samsung has stated plans to transition to charge-trapping-type technologies for its future generation memory products.

Spansion also secured Saifun's legal team with the acquisition, a team that had previously won patent litigation against Samsung when the two companies couldn't work out a licensing agreement. Similarly, Spansion in the current suits claimed Samsung has been violating its patents for more than six years, despite its efforts to negotiate a patent licensing deal.

It should be noted that Spansion has said it is currently in talks with other flash manufacturers for charge-trapping IP licensing agreements. If those talks don't work out, although costly and time consuming, this action against Samsung may only be one of many suits to come.

What do you think? Is Spansion making legitimate claims here or is this a nuisance suit? Will Samsung lose business because of shut-out concerns? Voice your opinion below.


Reader Comments



at 11/18/2008 1:41:18 PM, ortech said:
I believe the courts need to view this as possible monopoly impact by them.





at 11/18/2008 1:46:44 PM, Mobius said:
I think Samsung should pursue SanDisk again and buy them out in order to keep their flash business in US insulated from this nuisance lawsuit.



at 11/18/2008 1:55:25 PM, DP said:
With the volume of business Samsung does, why not just buy Spansion and eliminate the problem altogether.



at 11/18/2008 2:00:30 PM, g said:
This is going to be a drawn out battle as there are a number of semiconductor companies with Floating Gate technologies that date back 10's of years.



at 11/18/2008 2:10:56 PM, oh_rxtx said:
Spansion is another one of these greedy leech companies that produce nothing.
They are practicing legal extortion.
This is bad for the public at large and the economy which does not need more problems.
Someone should shortsell their stock and drive it down so that they can be bought out and shut down to protect the consumer market.




at 11/18/2008 2:17:44 PM, Fred said:
Samsung doesn't come up with its own technology and should be prevented from stealing from others....why do you think patents exist?



at 11/18/2008 2:30:00 PM, Bob said:
Patents these days are not about protecting the small inventor, but creating monopolies and the block of innovation. This technology is progressing and very little can come under the heading of revolutionary step in technology that could not be foreseen or invented by a person 'knowledgeable in the art'.

But heck its good for the lawyers!



at 11/18/2008 2:40:43 PM, Timbalionguy said:
Just the way this is being handled speaks of uncontrolled, unbridled greed. These kinds of people gloat over the harm they cause everyone in the race to get rich beyond any reasonable level. IMHO, the folks at Spansion should be severely punished for even trying this.



at 11/18/2008 2:40:56 PM, Timbalionguy said:
Just the way this is being handled speaks of uncontrolled, unbridled greed. These kinds of people gloat over the harm they cause everyone in the race to get rich beyond any reasonable level. IMHO, the folks at Spansion should be severely punished for even trying this.



at 11/18/2008 3:07:46 PM, Greg said:
I'm for defending patents --if they are truely unique ... after 10 years though, everyone should be able to use it so technology progresses. It is so easy to design semiconductors these days as so many tools on the market.. many use same ones there competitors use .. how unique is it? It MUST PASS THE UNIQUE TEST OTHERWISE NO PATENT PROTECTION... while I can say myself what this situation is .. the court should becareful before giving Spansion carte blanche on this one... I don't like companies who use legal means just as way to extort money... the way Spansion biught this company leads to some suspicion... Does anybody remember Rambus and all the legal problems they caused? ! Good Ridence!




at 11/18/2008 3:08:08 PM, neoskeptic said:
This is a desparate attempt by a desparate company that has no future and has never made a profit. This seems especially odd since the infringement allegations have no teeth since everyone knows that Samsung gave up charge trap technology several years ago since it does not work.

Saifun seems to be a cursed company with terrible technology. First, they caused the failure of flash at Infineon/Qimonda with tons of money invested in their technology that does not work. They cost Spansion/AMD a lot of money in a licensing deal which Spansion/AMD could not afford in the brutally competitive NOR flash business. Now Spansion is trying to use the Saifun IP "boat anchor" in a futile attempt to sue Samsung. This probably is a clear signal of the end for Spansion/Saifun. Hopefully, Toshiba will avoid a similiar fate by steering clear of any thoughts of acquiring Spansion/Siafun.



at 11/18/2008 3:46:39 PM, Markus Unread said:
From Good Morning Silicon Valley -

"“If I appear to be a total milquetoast and I say I’ll never do it, then people will rip me off totally.”

– Former Microsoft exec Nathan Myhrvold says lawsuits are always an option, so far unneeded, in his new business, accumulating thousands of patents and extracting license payments from reluctant companies."

Maybe we should start calling randomly-aquired IP "sleazeware" or "trollware".
Especially when the acquiring company doesn't actually use the IP - except for lawsuits.





at 11/18/2008 4:22:22 PM, Martin said:
That's what we get for having overpopulation of lawyers!



at 11/18/2008 4:50:43 PM, Tamza said:
THAT is what you get when you mate an American culture (AMD) with a pseudo American-Japanese who try to be more American than Americans! Spansion is just buying time .. they are approaching the same financial status as the Detroit Three .. and mark my word will soon be asking the feds for a bailout/ bridge loan. Why shouldnt they, everyone else has/is doing so.



at 11/18/2008 5:33:16 PM, al said:
What Spansion did was absolutely correct as there will be pointless to invest in R&D if those creation/design later taken by others such as Samsung for FOC...Think carefully.



at 11/18/2008 5:55:23 PM, RJ said:
A = nuisance + impediment of technology, where A = Greedy Lawyers in technology.




at 11/18/2008 6:08:06 PM, Franz said:
Other than the few exceptions above that understand the value of IP protection to our economy, you all sound like a bunch of ignorant socialists. If someone obtained their IP lawfully (unlike Rambus) and it is being used by someone else without proper licensing, that is an illegal act. Give the legal process it's chance to seek the truth.



at 11/18/2008 6:25:20 PM, Dan said:
I don,t think American are that naif in the IP licensing. Come on...I dun think you want this country to be like Thailand or China where there are no control in Piracy!!!



at 11/18/2008 6:30:22 PM, beneyuen said:
If Spansion doesn't sue Samsung, they have nothing much to do in Sunnyvale and many Spansionians may lose their jobs.



at 11/18/2008 6:45:12 PM, ICEage said:
Is this Spansion/Saifun technology? Floating gate concept are long aviable in publications. The difficulty for flash is not the floating gate but the manufacuting technology to make the flash robust enough to having the yield needed.



at 11/18/2008 7:20:30 PM, JD said:
Spansion must push through with their legal action against Samsung, we dont want our industry to be in a copycat mode.They have all the rights to do this, this makes R&D job scope very meaningful.
This is a key learning for major players.



at 11/18/2008 10:28:26 PM, neoskeptic said:
Samsung is not using Spansion/Saifun technology as I explained before. Spansion is just making noise in a last gasp attempt to save their business. It is a clear indication that they are about to die. Since their business is dead, they do not fear counter a suit from Samsung. Spansion's business model has degraded into nothing more than a patent troll. Sad day for Spansion. Is AMD next?



at 11/19/2008 1:56:42 AM, - said:
just wonder how well their knowledge for those who has the -ve point for Register Patent, Flash industry & Spansion. I believe u will feel the pain when u yourself/your company r the one who involve in this incident



at 11/19/2008 6:40:32 PM, Bruce said:
People put up seed money for Saifun to do R&D and many engineers worked to obtain the 10 patents. Why anyone would think that Samsung should be able to use the fruit of their labors for free and not settle the matter years ago shows an incredible disregard for the type of work upon which Silicon Valley was founded and continues to depend. It is not the Samsungs that provide the real innovation or the big ideas that drive technology and the economy.



at 11/19/2008 6:40:43 PM, Bruce said:
People put up seed money for Saifun to do R&D and many engineers worked to obtain the 10 patents. Why anyone would think that Samsung should be able to use the fruit of their labors for free and not settle the matter years ago shows an incredible disregard for the type of work upon which Silicon Valley was founded and continues to depend. It is not the Samsungs that provide the real innovation or the big ideas that drive technology and the economy.



at 11/19/2008 6:41:43 PM, Bruce said:
People put up seed money for Saifun to do R&D and many engineers worked to obtain the 10 patents. Why anyone would think that Samsung should be able to use the fruit of their labors for free and not settle the matter years ago shows an incredible disregard for the type of work upon which Silicon Valley was founded and continues to depend. It is not the Samsungs that provide the real innovation or the big ideas that drive technology and the economy.



at 11/20/2008 1:01:02 AM, neoskeptic said:
Ridiculous. Samsung experimented with charge trap but found that it does not work and does not scale. This is a last gasp attempt by a broken company to find a new business model -- you can find the quote by Betrand (Spansion CEO) that he is essentially trying to convert Spansion into a patent troll. The sorry part is that Bertrand has no idea what a bunch of losers he got when he bought Saifun. He should ask the folks at Qimonda what they think of Saifun technology...




at 12/20/2008 2:54:43 PM, Device said:
Moris a crazy buster

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites