Elpida Memory Files New 337 Complaint Regarding Dynamic Random Access Memory (“DRAM”) Semiconductor Devices
On November 15, 2011, Elpida Memory, Inc. of Japan and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. of Sunnyvale, California (“Elpida”) filed a complaint requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337.
The complaint alleges that Nanya Technology Corporation of Taiwan and Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A. of Santa Clara, California (collectively, “Nanya”) unlawfully import into the U.S., sell for importation, and/or sell within the U.S. after importation certain semiconductor chips with DRAM circuitry, and modules and products containing the same that infringe one or more claims of the following U.S. Patent Nos. 6,150,689 (the ‘689 patent), 6,635,918 (the ‘918 patent), 6,555,861 (the ‘861 patent), 7,659,571 (the ‘571 patent), 7,713,828 (the ‘828 patent), 7,495,453 (the ‘453 patent), and 7,906,809 (the ‘809 patent).
According to the complaint, the asserted patents are generally directed to DRAM semiconductor device designs and methods of manufacturing DRAM devices that address the technical, material and system challenges arising from the design of high-speed, highly integrated DRAM semiconductor devices that require large numbers of integrated circuits and memory cells, but also lower power consumption and faster speeds.
In the complaint, Elpida states that Nanya imports and sells products that infringe the ‘689, ‘918, ‘861, ‘571, ‘828, ‘453, and ‘809 patents. The complaint specifically identifies a number of Nanya or Nanya Elixir memory modules as infringing products.
Regarding domestic industry, Elpida states that it has made significant investments in plant and equipment, and employment of labor and capital with respect to the articles and methods protected by the asserted patents.
As to related litigation, Elpida states that on April 2, 2010, it filed a complaint against Infineon Technologies AG and Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (collectively, “Infineon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging infringement of the ‘861 patent. Shortly after the complaint was filed, Elpida and Infineon reached a confidential settlement and entered into a cross-license agreement. Additionally, Elpida states that on September 6, 2011, it filed a complaint against Nanya in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging infringement of a number of Elpida’s patents. Before serving Nanya in that case, Elpida amended the complaint to include the patents asserted in the instant Section 337 complaint.
With respect to potential remedy, Elpida requests that the Commission issue a permanent limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.