Days of Arm-Qualcomm legal disputes continue, and with new day we get new updates. Gerard Williams III, CEO and founder of Nuvia, also one of the main brains behind Qualcomm's Oryon cores inside Snapdragon X processors, testified before the court that the chip design contains minimal Arm IP despite using the company's instruction set architecture. Williams estimated that "one percent or less" of the final design originated from Arm's IP. Despite Qualcomm using Arm ISA license, the company has very little Arm IP in its SoCs. Most of the Snapdragon X design has been done within Qualcomm's labs, in addition to Nuvia. Williams, who co-founded Nuvia in 2019, explained that while their processors use Arm's Armv8 instruction set, the core design was largely developed from scratch. Nuvia initially secured two non-transferable licenses from Arm: a Technology License Agreement (TLA) and an Architecture License Agreement (ALA).

These agreements allowed the company to develop custom cores while implementing Arm's instruction set. The development team created their own proprietary microarchitecture, including custom data paths and cache systems, rather than using Arm's existing designs. The controversy erupted when Qualcomm acquired Nuvia and announced plans to use the cores in PC processors rather than the initially intended datacenter applications. Arm demanded a renegotiation of licensing terms following the acquisition, which Qualcomm refused, arguing that its existing ALA covered Nuvia's designs. The dispute escalated when Arm revoked Nuvia's licenses in 2022 and terminated Qualcomm's Architecture License Agreement this October. Arm is now seeking the destruction of all Nuvia designs developed before the merger, arguing that the licensing agreements couldn't be transferred through acquisition. Qualcomm builds a case on TLA not being violated since the designs are mostly custom, so we have to see how the ruling proceeds. Arm wants to "hurt" Qualcomm with ALA revoking, and perhaps the final case ends with a settlement, given that Qualcomm is one of Arm's biggest customers.

Netlist, Inc. today announced that it won a $118 million damages award against Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (together "Samsung") in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The award resulted from a jury trial which involved three Netlist patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,619,912, 11,093,417 and 10,268,608. The infringing products were all Samsung DDR4 RDIMMs and DDR4 LRDIMMs. Netlist filed the complaint against Samsung in August 2022.

The federal jury's unanimous verdict confirmed that all three Netlist patents had been infringed by Samsung, that none of the patents were invalid, that Samsung willfully infringed those patents, and that money damages were owed to Netlist for the infringement of all three patents.

The United States Supreme Court is about to decide on two cases brought by NVIDIA and Meta (Facebook) to avoid legal action against them for fraud on securities. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear NVIDIA's arguments on November 13 regarding the dismissal attempt of the securities class action lawsuit. Swedish investment firm E. Ohman J:or Fonder AB claims NVIDIA misled investors in 2017-2018 by understating its revenue dependency on cryptocurrency mining. NVIDIA's stand lies in the plaintiff's failure to meet the criteria established by the 1995 Private Securities Litigation Reform Act. Earlier this year, NVIDIA settled with the U.S. regulatory authority to pay $5.5 million to settle charges about the poor reporting of crypto mining's impact on its gaming segment.

The Supreme Court is also set to adjudicate the case brought by Facebook to dismiss the securities lawsuit where investors led by Amalgamated Bank accused the company of deceiving them by not revealing a 2015 data breach that involved Cambridge Analytica and which, in turn, affected more than 30 million users. The case came to the fore after Facebook's stock tanked in the light of reports about Cambridge Analytica's misuse of user data during the 2016 Trump campaign. Facebook maintains it wasn't obliged to disclose past breaches in risk statements, as these are supposedly forward-looking. The company had previously paid $100 million in penalty to the SEC and $5 billion to the FTC over the same issue. Recently, three Supreme Court decisions in June had eroded federal regulators, namely the SEC which is the principal regulator of securities fraud, and appear to bring more limitations to the power of private plaintiffs to be able to enforce federal rules set out for corporate misconduct.

Mimir IP, a South Korean patent management company, bought around 1,500 chip-related patents from SK hynix in May. They have now filed a lawsuit against the U.S. memory company Micron, accusing it of using these patents without permission, TrendForce reported. If Mimir wins, they could get up to USD 480 million in damages. The lawsuit, filed on June 3, also targets Tesla, Dell, HP, and Lenovo for using Micron's products. The patents in question are related to circuits, voltage measurement devices, and non-volatile memory devices.

The case is being heard in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and the US International Trade Commission. This is the first time a South Korean company that acquired patents from domestic chipmakers has filed a lawsuit against a US semiconductor company. Officials from the involved companies have not commented. Micron, Samsung, and SK hynix have been changing how they deal with their patents recently, so this is not really a surprise move. In March 2023, Micron transferred over 400 chip-related patents to Lodestar Licensing Group. In June 2023, Samsung transferred 96 US chip patents, including the right to file patent infringement complaints, to IKT, an affiliate of Samsung Display.

Epic Games, the developer behind the battle royale game Fortnite, has been slapped with a hefty fine of €1.1 million for violating EU consumer laws and pressuring youngsters into making in-game purchases. This decision was made by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) following an investigation into the company's practices. The ACM found that Epic Games had failed to provide clear information about the nature of its in-game purchases, particularly to children. This lack of transparency led to many young players making unintended purchases, which was a clear violation of EU consumer protection laws. The authority also noted that Epic Games' practices were designed to encourage children to make frequent purchases, which further deepens the issue. Netherlands' ACM claims that these were "dark patterns" which are prohibited in the EU. More specifically, these were "Get it now" or "Buy now" phrases that pushed youngsters into making choices. One fine is for illegal aggressive commercial practice that created fear of missing out (FOMO), which is calculated at €562,500. Another €562,500 is fined on countdown timers, which were used in the Item Shop for items that were still available even after the timer had reached zero. This totals €1.125 million.

In response to the fine, Epic Games has announced its intention to appeal the decision. This fine serves as a significant reminder to game developers of the importance of transparency and consumer protection in the gaming industry. As the popularity of online gaming continues to grow, companies must prioritize the well-being and financial security of their young players. The ACM's decision sends a strong message that such practices will not be tolerated and that companies must take responsibility for their actions. The fine is significant, and it will be interesting to see how Epic Games responds to the decision. In a statement for GameIndustry.biz, Epic Games has noted that "The findings in the ACM's decision contain significant factual errors about how Fortnite and the Item Shop operate. The ACM is mandating changes that would result in a poor experience for players. We will appeal this decision. While our appeal is pending, players in the Netherlands that are under the age of 18 will not be able to see or purchase items that are in the shop for less than 48 hours, beginning May 24, 2024."

Game File reporter, Stephen Totilo, has discovered a new Nintendo-filed legal document—the Japanese multinational video game company's North American office is ready to do battle (in court) with Tropic Haze. The latter's Yuzu Switch Emulator is the focus of Nintendo's legal case—initiated on February 26, at the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. Totilo's social media summary of goings-on stated: "Nintendo is suing the creators of popular Switch emulator Yuzu, saying their tech illegally circumvents Nintendo's software encryption and facilitates piracy. Seeks damages for alleged violations and a shutdown of the emulator." The Dolphin Emulator—a Gamecube and Wii emulation platform—was removed from Valve's Steam store last year, following the sending of a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown order, but its development team was not pursued in US courts. The House of Mario is reportedly fiercely protective of its intellectual properties and technologies—gaining a hard-nosed reputation for engaging in plenty of legal action over decades past.

Nintendo's federal-level lawsuit alleges that Tropic Haze's Yuzu Switch Emulator played a large part in widespread illegal distribution of a 2023 flagship game title. They believe that "The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom" was pirated over one million times in a time period prior to its official launch on Switch consoles, while Yuzu's Patreon funding almost doubled within the same cycle. Nintendo stated (through filed documentation): "With Yuzu in hand, nothing stops a user from obtaining and playing unlawful copies of virtually any game made for the Nintendo Switch, all without paying a dime to Nintendo or to any of the hundreds of other game developers and publishers making and selling games for the Nintendo Switch...In effect, Yuzu turns general computing devices into tools for massive intellectual property infringement of Nintendo and others' copyrighted works." They argue that Yuzu is capable of circumventing the Switch console's many layers of encryption—Tropic Haze's software, in their opinion, is "primarily designed" to break Switch software protections.

According to Financial Times, a regional court in Düsseldorf, Germany, created a significant setback for Intel on Wednesday, issuing an injunction prohibiting sales of some of its processors due to allegations they infringe on a patent held by R2 Semiconductor. R2, a technology firm based in Palo Alto, California, accused Intel of violating its patent related to processor voltage regulation. The ruling applies to Intel's 10th, 11th, and 12th generation Core processors, known as Ice Lake, Tiger Lake, and Alder Lake, as well as its Ice Lake Xeon server SKUs. Newer processors generations (13th, 14th, etc.) don't infringe the patent. Even though Intel noted that it plans to appeal the decision, the ramifications could extend beyond the company itself. Industry experts warn the court order could lead to a sweeping ban on products containing the disputed Intel chips, including laptops and pre-built PCs from major manufacturers like HP and Dell. R2 has waged an ongoing legal fight across multiple jurisdictions to defend its intellectual property.

After initially filing suit against Intel in the United States, R2 shifted its efforts to Germany and other European countries after its patent was invalidated stateside. Intel strongly denied R2's patent infringement claims, alleging the company's entire business model relies on extracting legal settlements through serial litigation. Intel believes the injunction serves only R2's financial interests while harming consumers, businesses, and the economy. The two firms traded barbs in official statements about the case. R2's CEO, David Fisher, rebuffed Intel's characterization of his company, saying it has only targeted Intel for infringement of its clear IP rights. As the war of words continues, the practical impact of the German court's decision remains uncertain, pending Intel's appeal. However, the preliminary injunction demonstrates the massive financial consequences at stake in battles over technological patents.

A U.S. appeals court has overturned a staggering $2.18 billion patent infringement verdict against Intel Corporation, initially won by VLSI Technology, marking a pivotal shift in one of the most prominent patent law cases in U.S. history. The 2021 decision by a Texas jury, which found Intel guilty of infringing on a VLSI patent, was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit due to insufficient evidence. Additionally, a new trial in Texas has been ordered to determine the appropriate amount Intel owes for infringing a second patent owned by VLSI. This patent-holding company, affiliated with Fortress Investment Group and recently involved in a majority share acquisition by Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Investment Co from Japan's Softbank, has been in multiple legal confrontations with Intel over semiconductor technology patents, which VLSI acquired from NXP Semiconductors.

The legal disputes have seen varied outcomes; Intel deflected a claim for more than $3 billion in damages in a separate Waco jury trial in 2021. However, the same year, VLSI was awarded nearly $949 million from Intel in another patent case by a jury in Austin, Texas. The companies mutually agreed to dismiss another potential multi-billion-dollar lawsuit in Delaware. With Intel's stock experiencing a downturn (-6.05% in the past five days) following the latest court ruling and the scheduled 2024 trial in Northern California, the ongoing legal battles between the two tech entities continue to influence market dynamics and the semiconductor industry at large. Detaining if the patent infringement happened is still relatively complex, as VLSI needs a team of engineers to determine if Intel used any of its patents.

The European Commission has re-imposed a fine of around €376.36 million on Intel for a previously established abuse of dominant position in the market for computer chips called x86 central processing units ('CPUs'). Intel engaged in a series of anticompetitive practices aimed at excluding competitors from the relevant market in breach of EU antitrust rules.

With today's decision, we are re-imposing a €376.36 million fine on Intel for having abused its dominant position in the computer chips market. Intel paid its customers to limit, delay or cancel the sale of products containing computer chips of its main rival. This is illegal under our competition rules. Our decision shows the Commission's commitment to ensure that very serious antitrust breaches do not go unsanctioned. - Commissioner Didier Reynders, in charge of competition policy

The U.S. Patent Office tribunal has ruled in favor of Intel Corp in a significant $2.2 billion case against VLSI Technology LLC. Intel's bid to nullify a patent that constituted $1.5 billion of a $2.18 billion verdict it previously lost to VLSI in 2021 was accepted. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board invalidated the computer chip-related patent and another VLSI patent, accounting for the rest of the Texas federal court verdict. An Intel spokesperson expressed their satisfaction with the decision, criticizing the invalidated VLSI patents as "low-quality."

VLSI, the company holding the patent that has filed several infringement lawsuits against Intel, retains the option to appeal both decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In a separate case last year, VLSI secured a verdict worth $949 million against Intel in Texas. VLSI is a subsidiary of Fortress Investment Group, which is managed by investment funds from SoftBank Group. The patent board proceeding was initiated by South Dakota-based Patent Quality Assurance LLC, while another patent from the $2.18 billion verdict was contested by OpenSky Industries LLC. Despite initial sanctions for attempting to extort both Intel and VLSI, OpenSky was permitted to continue the proceeding with Intel at the helm.

A legal dispute between Realtek and MediaTek has kicked off over Realtek claiming that MediaTek has gotten a third party company to sue Realtek over some unspecified patents involving technology used in smart TVs and set-top boxes. The third party involved goes under the name of IPValue Management Inc and appears to be what is generally known as a patent troll, i.e. a company that buys up patents and uses them to take legal actions against other companies, without actually producing anything related to the patents in question. Realtek claims that MediaTek is conspiring with IPValue to drive Realtek out of the market, leaving Mediatek in a close to monopoly situation in the market.

According to Reuters, Realtek told the publication that it filed the lawsuit against MediaTek to "protect free and fair competition in the industry" and "prevent further harm to the public." Neither MediaTek or IPValue have commented on the lawsuit to the publication. What makes this entire mess even more peculiar, is that MediaTek is said to have a licensing agreement in place with a subsidiary of IPValue called Future Link System LLC, which was signed in 2019. This agreement was brought up by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in a separate lawsuit last year, with the ITC calling it alarming and the court calling it improper. After the ITC criticism last year, Future Link apparently settled with several other companies such as Amlogic, but not with Realtek, which is why the company is now taking things to court. Realtek claims that MediaTek is trying to force any allegedly infringing chips out of the market and trying to make Realtek look like an unreliable partner and supplier to its customers. As such, Realtek wants the court to end the alleged conspiracy and is also asking for damages. Time will tell if Realtek is successful or not, but it seems strange that a patent troll would agree to licence its patents to some parties, but not all, since the only reason for a patent troll to exist is to make money from its patents.

According to a recent news article released by Chinese news group Sina Technology, NetEase has filed a lawsuit against its former publishing partner Blizzard Entertainment, to the tune of (around) $43.5 Million. The Chinese Internet technology company is seeking compensation, in the form of a very large refund, following Blizzard's total exit from the nation's online gaming sector - its server infrastructure in China was shut down in January of this year. The closing of Blizzard-related services represented a very abrupt end to a 14-year long relationship between the two online gaming specialists - press coverage at the time presented a tense situation involving many major disagreements - the partnership was broken because of unfavorable terms on Blizzard's part.

NetEase posits that it had to compensate its customer base through refunds from its own reserves, after the sudden shutdown of Blizzard's hugely popular MMO - World of Warcraft, and other online multiplayer game series including Overwatch, Hearthstone, Diablo and Starcraft. A significant chunk of the $43.5 million settlement is said to cover the company's cost in refunding part of its customer base - somewhere in the range of 1.12 million players - for discontinued games and services. NetEase is also reported to be seeking damages for broken license agreements, unsold merchandise inventory and the loss of access to future Blizzard intellectual properties.

Update Apr 25th: According to an article from PC Gamer, published today, NetEase is not taking Blizzard to court. It turns out that a serial litigator, Yang Jun, has included NetEase as an appellant in his filed legal documents - under another company name, The9, an apparently defunct former licensing partner. PC Gamer has been informed that Yang Jun has sued NetEase in the past, and that his latest batch of legal documents have been amended to reflect that he is the lone party in demanding a financial settlement from Blizzard.

The world of semiconductor IP licensing is complex by nature. If you use a company's IP, you must agree to its licensing terms. Today, it is precisely those terms that are being breached in the event of Arm Ltd. filing a lawsuit against one of its biggest customers, Qualcomm. When Qualcomm acquired Nuvia Inc., regarded as one of the best CPU design teams in the industry, it transferred Arm-Nuvia license agreements as its own. It continued the development of Arm IP under Qualcomm's name. This is a standard restriction, as Arm's licensing prohibits these sorts of IP transfers among companies to protect the IP.

As the UK-headquartered company reports: "Because Qualcomm attempted to transfer Nuvia licenses without Arm's consent, which is a standard restriction under Arm's license agreements, Nuvia's licenses terminated in March 2022. Before and after that date, Arm made multiple good faith efforts to seek a resolution. In contrast, Qualcomm has breached the terms of the Arm license agreement by continuing development under the terminated licenses. Arm was left with no choice other than to bring this claim against Qualcomm and Nuvia to protect our IP, our business, and to ensure customers are able to access valid Arm-based products."

Back in January, Intel overturned an antitrust ruling by the EU and didn't have to pay the $1.2 billion fine, but it seems like the company isn't satisfied with getting out of having to pay a huge fine, but is now asking the EU to compensate the company for interest lost. As such, Intel has filed for "payment of compensation and consequential interest for the damage sustained because of the European Commissions refusal to pay Intel default interest" with the EU General Court. The sum of money Intel is asking for is based on the European Central Bank's refinancing rate and as the original fine was levied back in 2009, Intel claims they're owed more than half of the value of the fine.

Intel is also expecting further interest on the money, if the payment is late from the EU. It should be noted that the European Commission has already paid Intel €38 million in interest on the fine that was paid back in 2009, but Intel is clearly not happy and is asking for a much greater sum. However, the battle between the European Commission and Intel isn't over, as the Commission is working on appealing the ruling, so depending on the outcome of that appeal, Intel might have to pay back the fine to the EU. For those that don't remember the original reason for the antitrust fine, Intel was accused of giving rebates to certain partners and system integrators to make sure they didn't use AMD products in their systems, among other things.

Genesis Mining, one of the largest cloud providers of cryptocurrency mining services headquartered in Iceland, has today won a great deal with China's Supreme Court. According to the reports, Genesis is now getting back the 485,000 AMD Radeon RX 470 8 GB graphics cards returned to its mining facilities in hopes of soon usage. What leads to this you might wonder? Previously, Genesis Mining partner, Chuangshiji Technology Limited, which provides hosting services for Genesis, took the company's mining hardware and started listing it without consent from the Iceland-based firm.

As the company filed a lawsuit in China supreme court, the legal disputes were going on for some time and today Genesis has won. According to the report, Genesis is getting back as much as 485,000 AMD Radeon RX 470 8 GB graphics cards with a total mining power of 14.5 TH/s. All these GPUs are now looking for a new home inside Genesis Mining facilities and will be able to provide a bit over a million dollars in mined Ethereum, at today's prices.

Last year, we found out that a group of investors has accused NVIDIA that the company has misled its investors by reporting crypto revenue as gaming revenue numbers and making its gaming revenue seem much bigger than it is. The original lawsuit was filed in 2017 and it demanded that NVIDIA should pay one billion US Dollars to investors shall they be proven right. In 2017, cryptocurrency mining was at the same craze it is today, with people buying every possible card that exists and consumers having a hard time upgrading their PCs. Investors in NVIDIA corporation have believed that in 2017, the company has presented its cryptocurrency earning figures as a part of the gaming figures, thus giving misleading information about the company's success in the gaming market.

Today, we have information that NVIDIA has won this lawsuit. On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Haywood Gilliam has dismissed the case and ruled that investors were unable to provide any significant evidence that the company has used such practices and misled investors. By taking this case off the company, NVIDIA will not be paying one billion USD to the accusing investors and the company continues operations as normal.

(Editor's Note: We'll see if this statement from Micron is enough to staunch the bleeding on its shares - which it should, since the company says no recognizable impact will exist on its bottom line. If things are as they seem (and yet, they seldom are), this is a checkmate move from Chinese manufacturing companies - eventually supported by the Chinese government - and an interesting way to lock China's voracious DRAM and NAND market to fully domestic manufacturers.)

Micron Technology, Inc., announced that the Fuzhou Intermediate People's Court, Fujian Province, China today notified two Chinese subsidiaries of Micron that it has granted a preliminary injunction against those entities in patent infringement cases filed by United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) and Fujian Jinhua Integrated Circuit Co. (Jinhua). The patent infringement claims of UMC and Jinhua were filed against Micron in retaliation for criminal indictments filed by Taiwan authorities against UMC and three of its employees and a civil lawsuit filed by Micron against UMC and Jinhua in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for the misappropriation of Micron trade secrets.

A Supreme Court decision last Thursday may be just what the doctor ordered for states' ability to collect taxes on online sales from a much wider variety of businesses. The decision, passed with 5-4 votes from the Justices involved, overrules previous understandings regarding the physical presence rule: essentially, that a business was only forced to collect sales tax and send it to the State it's operating if it had some sort of physical presence (be it warehouses or some such) in that particular state. If not, taxes were still due - but shoppers had to take the initiative of delivering their taxable amount to the state. That, naturally, very rarely happened, which led to reported billion dollar losses in tax revenue for a variety of US states.

Now, states have essentially been given the green light to pass laws requiring out-of-state sellers to collect the state's sales tax from customers and send it to the state. More than a dozen states have already adopted such laws even ahead of the court's decision, confident in the decision's direction, said state tax policy expert Joseph Crosby.

Valve Software, which through its Steam platform sells and supports games and software on behalf of other game publishers, has been fined AU $3 million by an Australian Federal Court for "misleading consumers," and for not conducting commerce in line with the local consumer protection norms, which guarantee Australian consumers a host of remedies that include refunds, if a product or service purchased doesn't live up to its marketed standards.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) in 2014 pulled up Valve for not offering a satisfactory refunds system to Australian consumers. The case, heard by a Federal Court, after two appeals by Valve against penalties, ordered Valve to pay up AU $3 million in fine, and set up a consumer-satisfaction system in line with Australian Consumer Law. As a private company (not listed on any stock exchange), Valve is not obligated to reveal its net-worth, which was estimated by the press in various points in time. It was valued at USD $3 billion in 2012. Its founder Gabe Newell has an estimated net-worth of $5.5 billion, according to a Forbes report.

Newegg (owned by Beijing-based Hangzhou Liaison Interactive Information Technology) has been sued by a conglomerate of South Korean banks. The plaintiffs claim that the Southern California computer parts retailer has aided, abetted, and profited from enabling a Ponzi Scheme to take place with its products orders. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, alleges that Newegg and ASI Corp., a South Korean computer wholesaler, made fraudulent orders from Korean hardware manufacturer Moneual, whose chief executive, Hong-seok Park, was sentenced in 2015 to 23 years in prison for financial fraud, and additionally subject to fines and forfeitures.

Newegg and ASI took part on the whole scheme by creating non-existent, exaggerated-pricing (sometimes 300x higher than market value) orders for Moneual products, thus allowing it to gain a higher valuation from investors. By inflating sales figures, the suit alleges that Moneual was able to receive hundreds of millions of dollars from South Korean banks. As a reward, Newegg and ASI received kickbacks from Moneual.

You must remember the ongoing house of horrors that is Toshiba's financial situation. Granted, it isn't that bad - the company is still managing to push the envelope on its semiconductor production business. Still, I'm sure the company would have liked to not be on the verge of selling out 20% of its memory business production stake - which is one of the company's most profitable divisions to begin with.