CMU wins $1.17 billion verdict against Marvell over HDD patents

[neufuse Veteran]

By Matthew DeCarlo

On December 27, 2012, 2:00 PM EST

Nine jurors have ordered Marvell to pay Carnegie Mellon University $1,169,140,271 in damages for infringing two hard drive patents. If the ruling sticks on appeal, it would claim more than a year's worth of profits at Marvell, which earned just over $900 million last year and $615 million this year. Additionally, it would be the largest US patent verdict to date, topping this August's $1.05 billion ruling in the Apple versus Samsung case.

Held at a Pittsburgh federal court, the four-week trial involved CMU patents (No. 6,201,839 and 6,438,180) describing "noise predictive technology" that increases the speed by which circuits in hard drives read data from magnetic disks. Marvell insisted that the university hasn't made any innovations, as a Seagate patent (No. 6,282,251) filed 14 months prior to one of CMU's holdings describes everything covered by the patents in question.

The jury disagreed with that argument, finding Marvell guilty of selling 2.34 billion chips with the technology without a license from CMU. Even worse, the jury found that Marvell's infringement was willful, which could allow trial judge Nora Barry Fischer to award triple the damages -- a figure that would approach the Bermuda-based semiconductor company's $3.77 billion market cap. The final judgment is set to be made on May 1, 2013.

Marvell will appeal the ruling and maintains that it strongly believes "the theoretical methods described in these patents cannot practically be built in silicon even using the most advanced techniques available today, let alone with the technology available a decade ago." The company added that it uses its own patented read channel technology developed in-house. Following the news, Marvell's share price has fallen by more than 10%.

http://www.techspot.com/news/51184-cmu-wins-117-billion-verdict-against-marvell-over-hdd-patents.html

[Jim K Global Moderator]

woohoo..higher HD prices here we come (again)

[+Warwagon MVC]

Patents will be this countries downfall.

[neufuse Veteran]

Patents will be this countries downfall.

Patents should exist, HOWEVER, the length of time you can hold a patent should be changed.. it should be much shorter to allow for tech advances and prevent patent hoarding

[Shadrack]

Patents will be this countries downfall.

They probably do need to be reformed. I'm not very educated in what was gong on in this case so I can't really make an opinion on it. If Marvell used technology that they knew they needed a license for then that is a problem. I'm not pro-destroying whatever legit protection IP and inventor owners have. Some reform needs to happen so that at least these patent dispute conflicts get handled in a more organized way. Right now the court room dramas that play out and I'm sure the lawyer bills are the most ridiculous component to the whole thing.

If I came up with some IP and patented it, any of the major players could probably rip it off from me leaving me with little recourse as there is no way I could afford the legal fight they would put up over it.

[nvllsvm]

Patents should exist, HOWEVER, the length of time you can hold a patent should be changed.. it should be much shorter to allow for tech advances and prevent patent hoarding

By granting someone a patent on something, a third party's private property rights are unwillingly forfeited. Patents, along with intellectual property, place restrictions on how someone can configure their private property in a private exchange. Essentially, it uses the idea of a configuration/concept/idea to illegitimately lay claim to the private property of others.

I fail to see how such things belong in a free society.

[Aergan]

Don't understand how Seagate has a patent yet CMU wins?

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

How did they infringe a patent that can't even be implemented with today's technology? Also, they had their own patent and the jury "disagreed with that argument". It seems to me like the jury was pressured to side against a non-US company.

[Richteralan]

How did they infringe a patent that can't even be implemented with today's technology? Also, they had their own patent and the jury "disagreed with that argument". It seems to me like the jury was pressured to side against a non-US company.

Welcome to contemporary US Justice?