U.S. PTO invalidates Rambus' third "Barth" patent

By Lee Kaelin on January 30, 2012, 9:30 AM

The appeals board at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released a ruling on January 24 that invalidates the third Barth patent held by Rambus, pertaining to memory chips used in computers which the firm successfully used to intimidate Nvidia into settling with them last year.

Of the three patents that made up the collective Barth patents, two were invalidated last September. The third, and perhaps most crucial patent, 6,591,353: "Protocol for Communication with Dynamic Memory, has now been invalidated on the basis of prior art. Nvidia exploited the several references made in the patent to "memory device."

"As NVIDIA persuasively explains, Hayes describes time-multiplexed clock data transfers between a master and slave during different clock cycles, and Bennett teaches benefits to providing a synchronized interface in a memory device using an external clock," according to the patent examiner, cited by Hot Hardware.

In more understandable terms, the Bennett patent (Nvidia declared it constituted prior art) contained documentation that made the Hayes patent obvious. Obviousness is a key component of patent law, with the USPTO evaluating it by using the Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation (TSM) test, among others.

This is the latest blow to Rambus, after the $4 billion lawsuit against Hynix and Micron was thrown out of court last November, causing the firm's stock to drop substantially and wiping out nearly two-thirds of its value.

They previously had success in July 2010 after the International Trade Commission ruled that Nvidia, Hewlett Packard and several smaller companies had infringed the three Barth patents. Rambus repeated its strategy using six patents early last year, this time targeting STMicroelectronics, MediaTek, Broadcom and other companies. Broadcom has since settled with Rambus. The invalidation of these key patents is likely to affect the agreements made with many companies, including Nvidia and Broadcom.

That said, few will be mourning Rambus’ potential demise after this ruling, having earned a reputation of being the patent troll in the technology industry over the last decade by making a living off of lawsuits for various patents it held. It is not clear if Rambus appealed the previous rulings regarding the first two Barth patents, or whether the firm plans to appeal the latest decision with the US Court of Appeals in Washington.




User Comments: 6

Got something to say? Post a comment
igotdembombs said:

Well they also made money from providing ram for N64s and PS3s. Didn't they get muscled out of the ram market?

Ranger12 Ranger12 said:

I don't have a problem with companies "patent trolling" if they legitametly have a case. It seems that Rambus was abusing the system though and the best thing that could happen would be for them to go away.

Muggs said:

igotdembombs said:

Well they also made money from providing ram for N64s and PS3s. Didn't they get muscled out of the ram market?

They weren't muscled out they priced themselves out of the market. I remember when rambus was released and their ram was 2-3 times as expensive and anyone who wanted to make rambus ram had to pay huge royalties to them. Then came along DDR ram which was cheaper and faster and wallah a dead technology that uses obvious patents to troll for the rest of it existence.

Guest said:

"The invalidation of these key patents is likely to affect the agreements made with many companies, including Nvidia and Broadcom."

In all likelyhood, it will not, since the terms of the agreements are typically made such that the agreement remains in force regardless of whether the patent is later found to be invalid.

dividebyzero dividebyzero, trainee n00b, said:

^^^ The judgement against Rambust's patents (ambush), doesn't affect technology associated with other patents deemed valid. What it does do, is affect any hopes that Rambust can strongarm companies into entering into further contracts based in large part from the threat of litigation....see the Rambust / Samsung "agreement", where Samsung was obliged to buy $200 million in Rambus stock - [link] .

Also note that many licence agreements that Rambust have entered into, still need to be renewed- or not, periodically.

example1013 said:

muggs said:

igotdembombs said:

Well they also made money from providing ram for N64s and PS3s. Didn't they get muscled out of the ram market?

They weren't muscled out they priced themselves out of the market. I remember when rambus was released and their ram was 2-3 times as expensive and anyone who wanted to make rambus ram had to pay huge royalties to them. Then came along DDR ram which was cheaper and faster and wallah a dead technology that uses obvious patents to troll for the rest of it existence.

voila*

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.