DailyTech - Intel Countersues Transmeta Over Processor Designs

Submit News

IT Intel Countersues Transmeta Over Processor Designs
Gabriel Ikram (Blog) - January 15, 2007 2:15 PM

E-mail

del.icio.us

10 comment(s) - last by jondevelops.. on Jan 17 at 2:19 AM

Intel responds to Transmeta's opening arguments with its own lawsuit

This article was first published on HWUpgrade.com.

Three months ago Transmeta launched its first ever high-profile lawsuit against Intel Corporation. At that time, Transmeta had recently made the transition from a company that offers low-power chips to one that that licenses patents and performs R&D. With licensing as its primary source of income, it was only natural for Transmeta to file a lawsuit sooner or later.

Transmeta filed its lawsuit against Intel alleging that Intel’s entire x86 microprocessor line, all the way back to the Pentium Pro to its present day offerings, infringed on one or more of eleven total patents held by Transmeta. Transmeta went on to say that Intel had made over $100 billion on the processors pertaining to its patents and requested the court for treble damages -- meaning that if Transmeta wins it will be awarded triple the cost of the actual damages -- attorney's fees and a licensing deal.

Intel finally responded to the lawsuit late last week by countersuing Transmeta. The countersuit alleges that Transmeta has breached seven patents held by Intel, many of which deal with methods to control and reduce power consumption. Intel accuses Transmeta of breaching its following patents: 5,745,375; 5,617,554; 5,802,605; 5,819,101; 5,881,275; 6,385,634; 6,418,529.

The countersuit centers on Transmeta’s Crusoe, Efficeon and Efficeon 2 brands.

Intel's counter-suit was submitted to the same court Transmeta filed against Intel in three months ago, the U.S. District Court of Delaware. In addition to the the lawsuit, Intel presented a total of eleven defenses against Transmeta’s lawsuit:

Non-infringement
Invalidity
Obviousness type double patenting
Prosecution history estoppel
The doctrine of laches
License [sic]
Equitable estoppel
Ownership
Marking
Inequitable conduct and infectious unenforceability
The doctrine of unclean hands

"As expected, Intel has filed a timely response," stated Greg Rose, Transmeta's director of corporate marketing. The company has not issued any further statement about the suit.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Huh?

By Spivonious on 1/15/2007 10:00:36 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
11. The doctrine of unclean hands

What the heck does that mean?

RE: Huh?

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 1/15/2007 10:15:13 PM , Rating: 2

"Unclean hands" means the defendant (in this case Intel) believes the plantiff (in this case Transmeta) acted unethically with regard to the subject matter (which in this case I believe are the patents Transmeta says Intel infringed upon).

It's really hard to prove typically in trial, which I guess is why Intel put that as #11 instead of #1 :)

Parent

RE: Huh?

By Spivonious on 1/15/2007 10:16:23 PM , Rating: 2

Heh, so I guess there's a slight Macbeth vibe to that term. Thanks for the explanation Kris.

Parent

doctrine of laches

By joust on 1/16/2007 1:24:10 AM , Rating: 2

in case you're wondering, "doctrine of laches": (Black's Law dictionary)

1. Unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a right or claim -- almost always an equitable one -- in a way that prejudices the party against whom relief is sought
2. The equitable doctrine by which a court denies relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or has been negligent in asserting the claim, when that delay ... has prejudiced the party against whom relief is sought.

intel is saying transmeta waited an unreasonably long period of time to sue.

RE: doctrine of laches

By PlasmaBomb on 1/16/2007 3:42:36 AM , Rating: 2

It certainly sounds like Transmeta waited an unreasonably long time, the pentium pro was almost 12 years ago.

Parent

Treble damages?

By edge929 on 1/16/2007 3:24:14 PM , Rating: 2

"Transmeta went on to say that Intel had made over $100 billion on the processors pertaining to its patents and requested the court for treble damages -- meaning that if Transmeta wins it will be awarded triple the cost of the actual damages -- attorney's fees and a licensing deal."

So does that mean we're talkin' $300 billion + attorney fees? Wow, that's enough to bring Intel to its knees..... if paid all at once of course. Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Intel go anywhere, just would like to see that money go to a more prominent competitor than Transmeta *cough*AMD*cough*

Interesting to see how this pans out as I already sold my stock in Transmeta a while back.

RE: Treble damages?

By jondevelops on 1/17/2007 2:19:03 AM , Rating: 2

It would seem that Transmeta watched Intel do what it couldn't do with thier own patents and now attempts to feed off the profits. They are just upset and want some money so they can afford to jump on the bandwagon. Why would they want to sue Intel so badly? From their line of business, it would seem that they just just a bunch of *Patent Sharks*

Parent

In further news......

By marvdmartian on 1/16/2007 10:11:50 AM , Rating: 3

Transmeta responded to Intel's countersuit by proclaiming:

quote:
Oh yeah? Well, your mother wears combat boots!!!

Intel is thought to be considering it's response at this time. More later......

companies should stop doing joint venture projects

By mushi799 on 1/15/2007 9:42:54 PM , Rating: 2

It will end in lawsuits over who did what

Quad damage!

By PrinceGaz on 1/16/2007 8:30:58 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Transmeta went on to say that Intel had made over $100 billion on the processors pertaining to its patents and requested the court for treble damages

I don't know how those sort of lawsuits work but asking the court for treble damages seems a bit excessive. If they're willing to try for Treble damage, I think they should take a leaf out of Quake's book and go for Quad damage :)