Subscribe to Updates in Legal, Economic & Regulatory Affairs

RSS By Email

RSS By RSS

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe in Bloglines


The Expertise Imperative and Compliance Technology
Access to a diverse array of specialized expert inputs drives superior decisions in every organizational context: within corporations, by investors and consultancies, and within nonprofits. When decision makers are confident of their decision inputs, they can respond more quickly and creatively to challenges and opportunities.Learn more about GLG's Compliance Framework


This page may include content provided by Council Members, your access to which is subject to the Terms of Use.
Find Out More

November 29, 2007

Silicon Graphics v. ATI: Summary Judgment Pending

Analysis of: Silicon Graphics sues ATI over patent | news.zdnet.co.uk
This analysis is solely the work of the author. It has not been edited or endorsed by GLG.
Analysis By:
Douglas Lichtman, Professor of LawDouglas Lichtman
Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles
Implications: Silicon Graphics emerged from bankruptcy and quickly launched a patent lawsuit against ATI.  Now, that case has come to a head, with both parties filing motions that could plausibly and decisively end the case prior to the start of an actual jury trial.

Analysis: It has been roughly a year since Silicon Graphics filed its patent case against ATI.  The most interesting patent asserted is a patent that focuses on the use in graphics rendering of floating-point number representation.  Basically, there are several ways to store a number that is used in graphics calculations, and Silicon Graphics has a patent that asserts exclusive rights to one format (floating point) that has turned out to be particularly useful in modern applications.

I won't dig too far into the details of the patent in this post, but the important news is that the Wisonsin court has now construed the exact scope of that patent, which in turn has set the stage for each side to step forward with potentially decisive motions.  For ATI, the motion will most likely be a motion for a finding of non-infringement based on the court's reading of the patent.  For Silicon Graphics, the opposite motion is surely pending, arguing that ATI unquestionably infringes.

Which motion will prevail?  My own read of the documents favors ATI, in that the court's interpretation of the patent seems to have enough limitations that ATI should be able to argue sincerely that it does not actually do the invention as claimed.  I also suspect that ATI has a decent invalidity argument if its non-infringement argument fails. 

That said, don't count Silicon Graphics out.  Indeed, one of the most interesting features of this particular fight is that it involves three oddly chosen patents.  Silicon Graphics turns out to have an enormous patent portfolio; and the three patents being asserted here don't strike me as the most valuable and interesting ones in the stack.

Expect the court to rule on the various motions over the next 2-3 months.


Report a Concern

GLG News: What Experts Think Is Important





Analytics


Generated at 2008-10-15T17:45:18.060