Chip manufacturer says judge should throw out CMU patent suit damages
A federal judge should throw out at least $550 million of damages a jury awarded Carnegie Mellon University in a patent lawsuit because the university waited eight years to pursue its claim, a Bermuda-based chip manufacturer claims in court documents.
A university spokesman declined comment.
A nine-member federal jury in December ruled that Marvell Technology Group Ltd. infringed on two patents the university holds for noise detection technology used in computer hard drives.
The jury adopted the university's claim that the company owes it 50 cents for each chip it sold with the technology since 2002, which totals $1.17 billion.
The university is seeking interest on the award, attorney fees and an enhanced penalty for willful infringement by the company. If U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer grants CMU's request, she could triple the damage award and add up to $350 million for interest and attorney fees.
While denying infringement, Marvell claims that CMU knew about the technology it was using in its chips by 2001.
Instead of contacting the company or filing a lawsuit, the university waited while Marvell invested more time and money in developing its chips and the university's potential damage award grew, the company said.
The company is asking Fischer to limit damages to chips sold since 2009, when CMU sued. Marvell is seeking a new trial or a ruling by the judge that CMU did not prove its case.
Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.