Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JEDEC Fiddles With DDR4 While LRDIMM Burns

Posted by Soulskill on from the patents-are-complicated dept.

An anonymous reader writes "JEDEC hasn't finalized the upcoming DDR4 standard yet, but it seems they left out licensing some crucial IP for (the already finalized and shipping) LRDIMMs (for use on data center servers). As a result they are only produced by one source which is facing some hurdles justifying their copying of IP. This article discusses how DDR4 is based on LRDIMMs and the future of memory. Quoting: 'JEDEC finalized the LRDIMM standard without securing licensing on load reduction and rank multiplication. Inphi, currently the only maker of LRDIMM buffer chipsets – others have backed off – lost a challenge of Netlist IP at the USPTO. As a result the Netlist patents have become stronger and are going to come back and bite Inphi in Netlist vs. Inphi, which was stayed pending these patent reexaminations – patents which survive re-examination can never again be challenged in court. NLST patents ’537 and ’274 survived with all claims intact, which is a powerful statement on the strength of their IP – Inphi has appealed to the BPAI, but the USPTO decision is telling.'"

4 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. I sure am glad we have patents... by Rix · · Score: 5, Funny

    To promote the progress of science and useful arts. Imagine where we'd be without them!

    1. Re:I sure am glad we have patents... by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You must be kidding. Startups don't get patents that support them. They either get themselves a patent they can't afford to defend (and so it does nothing but cost) or they get squashed like a bug by a big incumbent with a huge portfolio.

  2. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "patents which survive re-examination can never again be challenged in court"

    Wrong. A party that files an inter partes reexamination petition and that petition for inter partes reexamination is granted by the PTO (initiating an inter partes reexamination), may not "assert[] at a later time, in any civil action. . . the invalidity of any claim finally determined to be valid and patentable on any ground which the third-party requester raised or could have raised during the inter partes reexamination proceedings." 35 USC 315(c)

    So, anyone other than Inphi (or its privies) may challenge the patents' validity in Court on any grounds, including the prior art that was before the PTO in the Inphi v. Netlist reexam. Moreover, Inphi could challenge the patents on "any ground which" Inphi did not "raise" and "could" not "have raised" in the inter partes reexamination. This would include, at a minimum, any ground for invalidity other than prior art in the form of other patents printed publications. 35 USC 301, 311(a). I.e., invalidity under 35 USC 101 ( patentable subject matter, utility), 112 (indefiniteness, written description, enablement) and 102(b) (public use, on sale).

    Also, Netlist amended a bunch of claims, which typically raises major worries about validity for written description.

  3. Netlist IS a small company by rgbrenner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Netlist was founded in 2000 and had revenues of $14 million last quarter.

    They are not (as far as I can tell) a patent troll.. they design and manufacture memory subsystems.

    JDEC made sure all of the big players IP was properly licensed, but left out Netlist's patent. How do we know the big players weren't just trying to screw them over?

    http://www.netlist.com/about-netlist/history/
    http://www.netlist.com/about-netlist/quality-and-manufacturing/
    http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?ResLibraryID=54253&GoTopage=1&Category=1629&BzID=1941