Wednesday, February 1st 2017
AMD Files Patent Infringement Complaint Against LG, Vizio, Others
On January 24, 2017, AMD filed a complaint against several prominent tech companies, requesting that the ITC commence an investigation pursuant to Section 337. The basis for the complaint: some of these companies (namely, LG, MediaTek, VIZIO, and Sigma) unlawfully import into or sell inside the U.S. products which infringe on AMD's graphics intelectual property - namely, on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,633,506 (the '506 patent), 7,796,133 (the '133 patent) and 8,760,454 (the '454 patent) (collectively, the "asserted patents".
According to the complaint, these patents generally relate to architectures for graphics processing unit (GPU) circuitry. The '506 patent relates to "a graphics processing architecture that enables a large amount of graphics data to be rendered to a frame buffer". The '133 patent relates to specialized "texture" processing circuitry that is employed by GPUs. Lastly, the '454 patent relates to a "unified shader" hardware architecture for GPUs. The complaint specifically refers to various televisions and smartphones, specifically, towards the graphics processing systems within those televisions and smartphones - as infringing products.
AMD asserts its vested interest in the mentioned patents, referring to the substantial investment it has done on developing products based on them, as well as its partner foundry GlobalFoundries on manufacturing products based on these patents. AMD also goes on to claim that the patent infringement damages its legitimate partners who have acquired the right to use them - namely, Samsung.
As a means of achieving justice on what AMD sees as gross violations on its intelectual property, the company only requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the infringing companies - so, basically, that the products referenced in the complaint be prohibited of being imported to and sold on U.S. territory. No claims on have yet been filed, but considering how that is a common occurrence in this kind of practices, it's likely that AMD will still claim the payment of an indemnity and/or royalties that would have otherwise been paid by the infringing companies, if they are ever found of the malpractice that AMD filed against. All in all, this will probably go in one of three ways: the companies are found guilty and AMD stands to make money; the companies are found not to have been infringing on patents, in which AMD loses money; or the companies enter an agreement for cross patent licensing and maybe some monetary value changing hands between them. It's still too soon to look into any of these outcomes, though. For now, just know that AMD too sets lawsuits against other companies.
According to the complaint, these patents generally relate to architectures for graphics processing unit (GPU) circuitry. The '506 patent relates to "a graphics processing architecture that enables a large amount of graphics data to be rendered to a frame buffer". The '133 patent relates to specialized "texture" processing circuitry that is employed by GPUs. Lastly, the '454 patent relates to a "unified shader" hardware architecture for GPUs. The complaint specifically refers to various televisions and smartphones, specifically, towards the graphics processing systems within those televisions and smartphones - as infringing products.
As a means of achieving justice on what AMD sees as gross violations on its intelectual property, the company only requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and permanent cease and desist orders directed at the infringing companies - so, basically, that the products referenced in the complaint be prohibited of being imported to and sold on U.S. territory. No claims on have yet been filed, but considering how that is a common occurrence in this kind of practices, it's likely that AMD will still claim the payment of an indemnity and/or royalties that would have otherwise been paid by the infringing companies, if they are ever found of the malpractice that AMD filed against. All in all, this will probably go in one of three ways: the companies are found guilty and AMD stands to make money; the companies are found not to have been infringing on patents, in which AMD loses money; or the companies enter an agreement for cross patent licensing and maybe some monetary value changing hands between them. It's still too soon to look into any of these outcomes, though. For now, just know that AMD too sets lawsuits against other companies.
31 Comments on AMD Files Patent Infringement Complaint Against LG, Vizio, Others
Unless manufacturers stole some confidential design data, how can they infringe on anything by simply creating some products? Perhaps I am missing something?
I swear I've seen this a few years ago....
EDIT:
Oh, wait, it was identical bogus lawsuit by NVidia against Samsung and Qualcomm!
Beware, AMD, it ended badly for Team Green :slap:
Don't blame AMD.
If you don't have it to loose you don't loose it damnit. That's quite a grasping patent they gained. Source :
But OTOH the “GRAPHICS PROCESSING ARCHITECTURE EMPLOYING A UNIFIED SHADER”," is Intel, NVidia paying royalties to AMD for this #8,760,454 patent ?
They could still hold patents from that.
The fact that Samsung pays for the usage of this IP makes the case a little more legit...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VideoCore
"These "slices" correspond roughly to AMD's Compute Units."
I'm all for patents that protects real inventions for the rightful inventor, but most patents these days are too vague or specify obvious non-inventions or existing technologies.
This sounds just as stupid as that Swedish guy who patented "Data processing system and apparatus for color graphics display" years after the "invention" of color graphics, and has sued companies ever since.
So AMD has also sunk to the level where they have given up creating real products and are instead sueing for royalties to existing technology?
Perhaps I should patent "patent trolling", so I can sue all these trolls?
Obviously, AMD's assertion is that they did steal or copy a confidential design. They probably copied it from a Samsung product thinking it too insignificant for Samsung to care.
The whole point of a patent is 'I invented this first', so the patent holder can monetize his product for 25 years or so. Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell both worked independently toward developing the telephone, but in the end Bell won the patent and thus the monies.
And if you think a patent infringement is a sign that a company is desperate, you are stupid.
There are a number of companies owning such patents, including companies like Microsoft and Apple. Microsoft has a number of patents which affect any operating system, incl. mouse input patents, and Apple own patents for "multitasking", none of which were invented by either companies. Even though every sane person know these patterns to be nonsense, most makers of Android devices pay Microsoft a fee per device.If someone stole a design, it's a copyright violation, not a patent issue. Patents are publicly available.