[GamersNexus] Asetek Demands AMD Cease Sales of Fury X on Infringement Claims

[3DVagabond]

That means nothing. A patent troll is simply successful in exploiting a deficient legal code. It doesn't grant them any validity, it merely confirms that they have learned to game the system.

I don't think anyone can maintain a straight face and say that the U.S. patent law system isn't fundamentally broken and still retain a patina of credibility. The smartphone suing and counter-suing should have proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.

Silverforce's invocation of Apple's ridiculous "rounded corner" patent-trolling was a case in point. It's a crude example but it goes to show that until we get significant legal reform, the unhinged patent trolls like Asetek will continue to stifle innovation and encourage the continuation of the theatre of the absurd until they will be forced to stop.

Defending this nonsense helps nobody but the greedy executives at a company which is clearly running out of ideas to grow their company and have chosen to become a parasite in its stead.

A patent troll is not someone who markets a product and uses their patent to protect it. That is the entire purpose of patents.

Whether or not the patent system need an overhaul doesn't make every patent invalid or whimsical. Asetek's complaint looks legit on the surface, simply by looking at the design, with admittedly an untrained eye.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Some people are just salty, rushing in to defend AMD, and don't understand what a patent troll actually is (a company that only comes up with general ideas and never builds what they dream up) or how this has unfolded. If they'd put their own money and hard work into designing a product only to have it get reverse engineered and blatantly ripped-off, they would see things differently.

So is RAMBUS a patient troll?

i would say yes, in complete opposition to your position.

 

[MagickMan]

So is RAMBUS a patient troll?

i would say yes, in complete opposition to your position.

They didn't start that way, at one time they were legit (like Asetek).

 

[Tsavo]

What's amazing is they think no one would notice.

 

[Headfoot]

Watch AMD just buy a license for not that much money and be done with the whole thing. 97%+ of cases settle out of court so I'd bet money they buy a license and keep selling it as is.

Gotta love the same old same old regurgitated rhetoric about "broken" patent systems by people who couldn't even tell you the difference between patent, trademark and copyright. I will say with a straight face the patent system is not fundamentally broken. It is in need of measured, intelligent, well considered change in small increments with quality assurance measurement taken at all steps.

To those who purport to know oh so very much?
1. What is your opinion of the impact of the new pleading rules for patent infringement suits that went into effect a week ago?
2. What is your opinion on the impact of the AIA on patent trolling? Dont forget to talk about joinder. But of course if you know so much, you'll be well versed in that.
3. What is your opinion on the impact of post grant procedures (IPR, PGR, CBM) on patent trolling?
4. What do you think about the Octane case?
5. What do you think about the eBay case?
6. What do you think about KSR?
7. What do you think about Alice?

If you can't answer these without googling, then you have no idea how the patent system has changed since 2007, and your opinion is mostly hot air and bluster.

Lets get even more general. If you have ever mixed up the term of a copyright for the term of a patent, you really have absolutely 0 basis to claim any system is broken. If you cant tell me the term of a patent without googling it, you have no basis to form an opinion on the quality of the system.

Protip: the patent system has been changed the most it has ever been changed in its entire history in the last ten years, with the majority of that change happening in the last 3 years since 2012.

I will say though that design patents are a somewhat different matter. No one saw the Apple v Samsung case coming and coming out the way it did and it's fundamentally changed people's thinking about design patents. This area will be hot in the next few years. I'd say there are good odds that they change the design patent damages rule back in line with utility patents.

 

[gamervivek]

They are not a patent troll, Asetek actually make things to sell based on at least some of their granted patents. They've succeeded in several legal actions so the prior art must not be that compelling in terms of revoking Asetek's key patents.

Thanks for the correction, but that stands on the same level as 'Swiftech didn't lost, they just stopped selling'.

Prior art isn't the concern here, it's too bad that their claims have held up in US and it being such a big market would influence others as well.

 

[Mondozei]

AMD officially responds.

 

[96Firebird]

I will say though that design patents are a somewhat different matter. No one saw the Apple v Samsung case coming and coming out the way it did and it's fundamentally changed people's thinking about design patents. This area will be hot in the next few years. I'd say there are good odds that they change the design patent damages rule back in line with utility patents.

I agree, design patents are a tricky area to debate about. All the patents with my name of them are utility patents, and are very specific in their application. Design patents seem to be like brand recognition, where the look of the product is the main selling point. Apple must have convinced the jury that their rounded corners were specific to their products as a selling feature. The sum of damages due to dilution of the design seem excessive to me though, and I'm glad they didn't prevent the sale of Samsung phones in the US (mainly because I have one ).

 

[Headfoot]

I agree, design patents are a tricky area to debate about. All the patents with my name of them are utility patents, and are very specific in their application. Design patents seem to be like brand recognition, where the look of the product is the main selling point. Apple must have convinced the jury that their rounded corners were specific to their products as a selling feature. The sum of damages due to dilution of the design seem excessive to me though, and I'm glad they didn't prevent the sale of Samsung phones in the US (mainly because I have one ).

Yeah the crazy thing about design patents is that damages rule; you don't get a reasonable royalty like in utility; you get ALL profits. Design patents largely went under the radar for years and that includes when they did the AIA changes to Utility. Now that those crazy figures got lobbied around in Apple v Samsung you can bet you'll see 1) a lot more design patent suits, and 2) a lot more talk about the rules around design patent suits.

I personally like the idea of design patents but the "all profits" damages rule is pretty absurd and needs to be reduced to at best a reasonable royalty. Then again, design patents are trivially easy to design around provided you are aware of them before product launch.

Nobody in their right mind would go with a trade dress suit these days when the design patent is cheaper to prove you have and gets you a whole lot more cash... I wont post more here though as I dont want to drag things off topic.

 

[Dribble]

AMD officially responds.

That's basically saying we don't know we are infringing yet as our specific model of cooler has not be explicitly mentioned so we will keep selling. At some point Asustek will get their hands on a fury cooler and put it before a judge to prove it and then they will have to stop, but by then AMD will hope to have finished selling that particular card.

 

[guskline]

Headfoot, thank you for the input on the patent system.

 

[beginner99]

AMD is already seen by the public as a low-quality company. Now they'll also be seen as a copycat. It's going to hurt. Remember that this will also prevent them from releasing the Fury X2 (most likely), so there's a ton of R&D down the drain.

Well they should have a contract with Coolermaster that delivers the infringing parts. So if they can't sell because of them they might sue them or make some other deal.

 

[MrTeal]

Neither lost. Swiftech never went to court, they yanked the cooler from the US. Coolit is still in battle with Asetek, filling their own patent claims.

You can still readily buy those designs, and neither are paying Asetek a royalty. Again, you were wrong. The sole reason isn't because the pump is placed on the mounting plate.

The only company found infringing was Coolermaster. The reason is more than obvious looking at the products they put out that were affected.

Swiftech didn't battle Asetek in court, but they have been effectively found to violate Asetek's overly broad patent in court. One of the Cooler Master products listed in the injunction is the Glacier 240L, which is the H220 manufactured by Swiftech for CM with a new box and label.

Asetek has, at least in the eyes of that jury, patented the concept of integrating the cold plate and pump into one unit, regardless of how similar or dissimilar they are to Asetek's basic design.

 

[boozzer]

Swiftech didn't battle Asetek in court, but they have been effectively found to violate Asetek's overly broad patent in court. One of the Cooler Master products listed in the injunction is the Glacier 240L, which is the H220 manufactured by Swiftech for CM with a new box and label.

Asetek has, at least in the eyes of that jury, patented the concept of integrating the cold plate and pump into one unit, regardless of how similar or dissimilar they are to Asetek's basic design.

that right there is pretty crazy. the patent is basically an idea isn't it? not a specific design?

 

[96Firebird]

Ideas are the basis behind any patent. The fact that Asetek turned the idea into a design further proves they are not a "patent troll" as some have claimed.

 

[Headfoot]

that right there is pretty crazy. the patent is basically an idea isn't it? not a specific design?

Patents cover inventions; a specific design is required. But you can word it more broadly to encompass similar but not exactly the same design (and nearly everyone does). But you are required to have a "best mode" which is why you see the term "preferred embodiment" e.g. a design. They turned the best mode requirement into a paper tiger though in 2012.

A number of specific requirements (35 USC 112, best mode, "useful" in 101 and others) require you to prove you have reduced the invention to practice. The patent covers the claimed elements and their equivalents. Its not so simple as "the idea" or "the design" rather it is somewhere in between, for mechanical patents at least. Gets far murkier when you delve into pharmaceutical and chemical compound patents; or into software patents where it can be much much closer to coverage of the entire idea as opposed to one implementation of it. It gets murkier yet if your invention relies heavily on a law of nature (disease test panel processes, e.g. the Mayo case). It's rather more complicated than internet trolls would lead you to believe, which is why it costs many thousands of dollars to get a patent and a couple million to defend/enforce through complete litigation (e.g. to post-trial, but before appeal)

 

[boozzer]

Patents cover inventions; a specific design is required. But you can word it more broadly to encompass similar but not exactly the same design (and nearly everyone does). But you are required to have a "best mode" which is why you see the term "preferred embodiment" e.g. a design. They turned the best mode requirement into a paper tiger though in 2012.

A number of specific requirements (35 USC 112, best mode, "useful" in 101 and others) require you to prove you have reduced the invention to practice. The patent covers the claimed elements and their equivalents. Its not so simple as "the idea" or "the design" rather it is somewhere in between, for mechanical patents at least. Gets far murkier when you delve into pharmaceutical and chemical compound patents or into software patents, where it can be much much closer to coverage of the entire idea as opposed to one implementation of it. It's rather more complicated than internet trolls would lead you to believe, which is why it costs many thousands of dollars to get a patent and a couple million to defend through complete litigation (e.g. to post-trial, but before appeal)

ok, my million dollar question to you. where do you stand on this? and why do you think the case is legit or not? facts and/or opinions doesn't matter, give it to me. you seem to know quiet a bit about this.

 

[Headfoot]

I have no opinion on this case, i would need to be paid to have an opinion on that case. I just have knowledge of the system generally. It takes a substantial amount of time to get familiar enough with a case to have an opinion worth having, which is why this sort of thread is just a bunch of trolls slinging rhetoric at one another. This case has quite of bit of history from an initial look at it (3 related cases all being carried well into litigation), including actual final judgment which is a pretty rare occurrence as statistically over 97% of cases settle. A case which goes to final judgment is therefore by definition a strange case. Many times this sort of thing is motivated by bad blood and damaged egos as much as profits.

I can say however, that a patent must be fairly strong to survive a litigation in 2015. This has been ongoing since 2012 so the legal environment has been getting steadily less favorable to patent owners compared to pre-2012.

 

[guskline]

Headfoot again thank you for your input. With a little "google effort" one can find the Asetek v. CMI case and read the Judge's opinion. Fascinating read.
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/candce/3:2013cv00457/262970

In particular, filing #322 by Judge Tigar, @ 41 pages lays out the case very well.

 

[AtenRa]

Cooler Master Responds to AMD Fury X Infringement Claims

Although Asetek had originally included Cooler Master in the litigation, Asetek voluntarily and unconditionally dismissed all of its infringement claims against Cooler Master before trial. Additionally, the Cooler Master heat sink used with the Radeon Fury X was not accused in the litigation, was not found by the jury to infringe, and was not included in the judgment. The heat sink's design is also fundamentally different from the accused devices in the litigation.

 

[master_shake_]

Cooler Master Responds to AMD Fury X Infringement Claims

so patent troll is trolling?

 

[MrTeal]

so patent troll is trolling?

Not exactly. Asetek originally included Cooler Master in the litigation, but dropped them from the suit. Asetek kept suing CMI USA and won, and then had the injunction applies to Cooler Master.

Because of Cooler Master’s past history in developing the infringing products and its contractual relationship with CMI, the Court finds that Cooler Master is an appropriate subject of the injunction under Rule 65(d)(2).

4. Scope of the injunction

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, “every order granting an injunction and every restraining order shall set forth the reasons for its issuance; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained.” FED. R. CIV. P. 65(d). An injunction “cannot impose unnecessary restraints on lawful activity.” Riles v. Shell Exploration & Prod. Co., 298 F.3d 1302, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002); see also Johns Hopkins Univ. v. CellPro, Inc., 152 F.3d 1342, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“judicial restraint of lawful non-infringing activities must be avoided.”).

Asetek is entitled to an injunction directed toward Defendants’ activities which cause domestic infringement as well as the activities of those persons or companies acting in concert with CMI. The Court will issue an injunction that enjoins CMI, as well as Cooler Master, from making, using, offering for sale or selling in the United States, or importing into the United States any of the accused products as well as from otherwise infringing or inducing others to infringe the claims of the one or more of United States Patents Nos. 8,240,362 and 8,245,764.

 

[3DVagabond]

Well, I'm confused. If they never included the cooler in the litigation why would they send a cease and desist order to AMD? What about the Gigabyte 980 ti. What's happening with that? Why has this turned into only an AMD issue in the Press?

 

[Despoiler]

Well, I'm confused. If they never included the cooler in the litigation why would they send a cease and desist order to AMD? What about the Gigabyte 980 ti. What's happening with that? Why has this turned into only an AMD issue in the Press?

They sent it on a whim hoping for voluntary compliance. They were hoping AMDs lawyers were terrible or at least less shrewd. Obviously AMD didn't comply because they know they don't have to. Asetek will have to sue again to have more products ruled upon. The current suit started in 2013. By the time they even get this to court AMD won't even be producing or selling the Fury X. Also, it's going to cost Asetek more money to sue again. Asetek is looking screwed to me.

 

[96Firebird]

Does anyone have a link to an article about the cease and desist that doesn't use GamerNexus as the source?