|
ANTITRUST
RAMBUS
Chimicles & Tikellis LLP filed a class action complaint in the District
Court for the Northern District of California against Rambus, Inc. (“Rambus”) on
behalf of indirect purchasers of SDRAM and/or DDR SDRAM. The complaint alleges that Rambus, through
deliberate and intentional means, has illegally monopolized, attempted to
monopolize, coerced competitors to restrain competition, or otherwise engaged
in unfair methods of competition in certain markets relating to technological
features necessary for the design and manufacture of common forms of dynamic
random access memory chips.
Rambus is a developer and licensor of computer memory technologies. SDRAM and/or DDR SDRAM are memory chip
technologies that are widely used in personal computers, servers, printers and
cameras. The complaint alleges that
Rambus was a member of the industry-wide standard-setting organization now
known as the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (“JEDEC”). According to the complaint, the JEDEC
maintained a commitment to avoid, where possible, the incorporation of patented
technologies into its published standards, or, at a minimum, to ensure that
such technologies will be available to be licensed to its members on
royalty-free or otherwise reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The complaint further alleges that the JEDEC
has implemented procedures designed to ensure that members disclose any
patents, or pending patent applications, involving the standard-setting work
being undertaken by the organization.
The complaint alleges that Rambus, through a course of deliberate and deceptive
conduct, was able to distort a critical standard-setting process by the JEDEC
and engage in an anticompetitive “hold up” of the computer memory
industry. Specifically, the complaint
claims that Rambus actively participated in JEDEC standard-setting procedures
for more than four years in the 1990s without disclosing to the JEDEC or its
members that it was actively working to develop, and possessed, a patent and
several pending patent applications that involved specific technologies that
were ultimately adopted in the JEDEC standards.
According to the complaint, through its knowing and willful
misrepresentations, omissions, and other acts of bad faith, Rambus created and
maintained the materially false and misleading impression that it did not
possess, or would not enforce, any relevant intellectual property rights that
would undermine the JEDEC standards.
The complaint claims that the standards that the JEDEC ultimately adopted
substantially overlapped with Rambus’s concealed patents. Shortly after the adoption of the JEDEC
standards, Rambus commenced several patent infringement lawsuits against JEDEC
members that practiced the standards.
According to the class action complaint, Rambus’s “patent ambush”
permitted it to undermine competition and harm consumers in markets for
products that incorporate Rambus’s patented technologies. The complaint alleges that Rambus’s
anticompetitive scheme has permitted it to unlawfully coerce manufacturers of
memory chips into a variety of agreements in restrain of trade pertaining to
the licensing of memory chip technology.
The complaint asserts that, as a result of Rambus’s deceptive conduct,
Plaintiff and Class members he seeks to represent have been injured by being
denied a true and competitive choice of DRAM technology, and have been forced
to pay supracompetitive prices for products that contain SDRAM and/or DDR SDRAM
technology.
The complaint also notes that, on August 2, 2006, the Federal Trade
Commission (“FTC”) issued a unanimous opinion that held that Rambus unlawfully
monopolized the markets for four computer memory technologies that have been
incorporated into the industry standards established by the JEDEC. The FTC concluded that “Rambus’s acts of
deception constituted exclusionary conduct under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
and Rambus unlawfully monopolized the markets for four technologies
incorporated into the JEDEC standards in violation of Section 5 of the FTC
Act.”
The antitrust class action filed by Chimicles & Tikellis seeks treble
damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees and costs.
The class action complaint can be viewed here.
For further information, please contact JamesMalone@chimicles.com, JosephSauder@chimicles.com,
or BenJohns@chimicles.com
via e-mail or by calling (610) 642-8500.
| 
