Advanced Micro Devices Inc. et al v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al

Filing 356

ORDER RE: TO PATENT 5,623,434 (tf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

William H. Manning (pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Brad P. Engdahl (pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Andrew M. Kepper (pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 612-339-4181 John P. Bovich (Bar No. 150688) E-mail: [e-mail] Reed Smith LLP 101 Second Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: [phone] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al.

Robert T. Haslam (Bar No. 71134) E-mail: [e-mail] Covington & Burling LLP 333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 650-632-4800 Alan H. Blankenheimer (Bar. No. 218713) E-mail: [e-mail] Covington & Burling LLP 9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th Floor San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 858-678-1601 Christine Saunders Haskett (Bar No. 188053) E-mail: [e-mail] Covington & Burling LLP One Front Street San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-955-6587

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, Case. No. CV-08-0986-SI STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO. 5,623,434 [Civil L.R. 7-12] SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

20

v.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. CV-08-0986-SI STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO. 5,623,434

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC (collectively "AMD"), and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

America, LLP; and Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. (collectively "Samsung") jointly submit this Stipulation to resolve a disagreement relating to AMD's standing to assert infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,434 ("Purcell '434 patent") against Samsung. WHEREAS, upon the filing of AMD's First Amended Complaint on May 1, 2008, which added claims of infringement against Samsung relating to the Purcell '434 patent, AMD did not own the Purcell '434 patent and instead the Purcell '434 patent was owned by a wholly owned subsidiary of plaintiff ATI Technologies, ULC known as ATI International SRL. WHEREAS, the parties disagree whether ATI International SRL's ownership of the Purcell '434 patent at the time AMD filed its First Amended Complaint impacted AMD's standing to assert the Purcell '434 patent in this action, in that AMD maintains ATI Technologies, ULC was an implied exclusive licensee of the Purcell '434 patent that possessed standing to sue for infringement of the Purcell '434 patent when the First Amended Complaint was filed and Samsung maintains that plaintiffs AMD and ATI Technologies, ULC lacked standing to assert the Purcell '434 patent on May 1, 2008. WHEREAS, the parties agree that resolution of the standing issue would impose unnecessary burdens upon the Court and parties. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between AMD and Samsung that: 1. Samsung consents, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), to AMD's filing a Second Amended Complaint that voluntarily dismisses the infringement claims relating to the Purcell '434 patent without prejudice. Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2. Samsung consents, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), to AMD's filing, immediately after the filing of the Second Amended Complaint, of a Third Amended Complaint that asserts infringement claims against Samsung relating to the Purcell '434 patent. The Third Amended Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 3. AMD will not seek damages for infringement of the Purcell '434 patent
-2STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO. 5,623,434

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

The Second Amended

Case No. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

occurring prior to the date of filing its Third Amended Complaint. 4. The parties agree that all patents asserted in this action by plaintiffs AMD and ATI Technologies, ULC will proceed on the same track and no dates in the Court's schedule will be altered as a result of this stipulation. 5. The parties agree that all court orders and opinions, court filings by the parties, discovery requests and responses, deposition testimony, documents produced by the parties, stipulations and agreements, documents served by the parties (including initial disclosures, infringement contentions and invalidity contentions), and documents or testimony provided by third parties shall remain of record and applicable to the Purcell '434 patent. ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. By: William H. Manning Brad P. Engdahl Andrew M. Kepper ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. AND ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

DATED: March 3, 2010

DATED: March 3, 2010

COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

By: s/ Robert T. Haslam_______________ Robert T. Haslam Alan H. Blankenheimer Christine S. Haskett ATTORNEYS FOR SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
Case No. CV-08-0986-SI

-3-

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO. 5,623,434

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

INC.; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; SAMSUNG DIGITAL IMAGING CO., LTD. Plaintiffs' counsel attests that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the above-named signatory.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Case No. CV-08-0986-SI

March __, 2010

_______________________________________ Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

-4-

STIP. AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO. 5,623,434

Exhibit A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

John P. Bovich (SBN 150688) E-mail: [e-mail] Reed Smith LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-391-8269 William H. Manning (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Telephone: [phone] Brad P. Engdahl (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 612-339-4181 David E. Marder (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 800 Boylston Street, 25th Floor Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 617-267-8288 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

(1) ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, (2) ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC, a Canadian unlimited liability company Plaintiffs, v. (1) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity, (2) SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a California corporation, (3) SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

No. CV-08-0986-SI SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(4) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, (5) SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, (6) SAMSUNG DIGITAL IMAGING CO., LTD., a Korean business entity. Defendants. Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "AMD") for their second amended complaint allege as follows: INTRODUCTION This is an action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiaries and related entities Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. (individually or collectively "Defendants" or "Samsung"), for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., for infringing: (a) U.S. Patent No. 5,545,592 ("'592 Iacoponi patent"), entitled "Nitrogen Treatment for Metal-Silicide Contact"; (b) U.S. Patent No. 4,737,830 ("'830 Patel patent"), entitled "Integrated Circuit Structure Having Compensating Means for Self-Inductance Effects"; (c) U.S. Patent No. 5,248,893 ("'893 Sakamoto patent"), entitled "Insulated Gate Field Effect Device with a Smoothly Curved Depletion Boundary in the Vicinity of the ChannelFree Zone"; (d) U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 ("'990 Cheng patent"), entitled "Memories with Burst Mode Access"; (e) U.S. Patent No. 5,377,200 ("'200 Pedneau patent"), entitled "Power Saving Feature for Components Having Built-In Testing Logic"; and

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

-2-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(f) U.S. Patent No. 6,784,879 ("'879 Orr patent"), entitled "Method and Apparatus for Providing Control of Background Video," owned by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s subsidiary, ATI Technologies, ULC. Collectively, the patents generally cover methods of semiconductor and semiconductor memory chip fabrication; semiconductors and semiconductor memory of certain composition, logic, or design; and consumer products incorporating or embodying the disclosed inventions. THE PARTIES 1. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

at One AMD Place, Sunnyvale, California 94085. 2. ATI Technologies, ULC is a subsidiary of AMD and is incorporated in Alberta,

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

Canada with its principal offices at 1 Commerce Valley Drive E, Markham, Ontario, L3T 7X6, Canada. 3. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") is a Korean business entity with its

MINNEAPOLIS

principal offices at 250, 2-ga, Taepyong-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-742, South Korea. On information and belief, SEC is South Korea's largest company and one of Asia's largest electronics companies. SEC designs, manufactures, and provides to the U.S. and world markets flash, DRAM, graphics memory, and other memory components, as well as other logic components, which are used in computers, and myriad mobile and entertainment products. 4. Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. ("SSI") is a California corporation with its principal

place of business located at 3655 North First Street, San Jose, California 95134. On information and belief, SSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC and was established in 1983 as a California corporation with approximately 300 employees in the Americas. On information and belief, SSI is the sales arm for SEC and sells flash, DRAM, graphics memory, and other memory components; conducts primary market and product research for SEC; and enables regional customers to influence the direction of SEC's future technologies and products. 5. Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC ("SAS") is a Delaware limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78754. On information and belief, SAS is one of Samsung's semiconductor fabrication facilities located -3SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

around the world. 6. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA") is a New York corporation with its

principal place of business at 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. On information and belief, SEA was formed in 1977 as a subsidiary of SEC, and markets, sells, or offers for sale a variety of consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD and MP3 players, video cameras, vacuum cleaners, and air conditioners, as well as memory chips and computer accessories, such as printers, monitors, hard disk drives, and DVD/CD-ROM drives. On information and belief, SEA also manages the North American operations of Samsung Telecommunications America, Samsung Electronics Canada, and Samsung Electronics Mexico. 7. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ("STA") is a Delaware limited

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

liability company with its principal place of business at 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75081. On information and belief, STA was founded in 1996 as a subsidiary of SEC, and markets, sells, or offers for sale a variety of personal and business communications devices in the United States, including cell phones. 8. Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. ("SDI") is a Korean Business entity with its

MINNEAPOLIS

principal offices at 416, Maetan 3-Dong, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do, 443-373, South Korea. On information and belief, SDI manufactures, imports, markets, sells, or offers for sale consumer electronics including digital cameras. JURISDICTION 9. This is an action for patent infringement, over which this Court has subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants consistent with

the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Each Defendant transacts substantial business in California (and in this district), or has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in California (and in this district) as alleged in this complaint. In addition, SSI in particular maintains a regular and established place of business at 3655 North 1st Street, San Jose, California, 95134.

-4-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. 11.

VENUE Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and

1400(b) because Defendants reside in this judicial district. Further, SSI has committed acts of infringement and has a regular established place of business in this district. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT This is a patent infringement action, and therefore exempt from Intradistrict

Assignment under Civil L.R. 3-2(c). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 13. Plaintiffs solely own all rights, titles, and interests in and to the following United

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (c) (b)

States patents (collectively, the "AMD Patents"), including the exclusive rights to bring suit with respect to any past, present, and future infringement thereof: (a) U.S. Patent No. 5,545,592, entitled "Nitrogen Treatment for Metal-Silicide Contact," which was duly and legally issued on August 13, 1996, from a patent application filed February 24, 1995, with John Iacoponi as the named inventor. Among other things, the '592 Iacoponi patent discloses an improved method of forming a contact point in a semiconductor device. U.S. Patent No. 4,737,830, entitled "Integrated Circuit Structure Having Compensating Means for Self-Inductance Effects," which was duly and legally issued on April 12, 1988, from a patent application filed January 8, 1986, with Bharat Patel as the lead named inventor. Among other things, the '830 Patel patent discloses an improved integrated circuit wherein self-inductive voltage spikes are reduced through the use of capacitance means constructed beneath at least one bus. U.S. Patent No. 5,248,893, entitled "Insulated Gate Field Effect Device with a Smoothly Curved Depletion Boundary in the Vicinity of the Channel-Free Zone," which was duly and legally issued on September 28, 1993, from a patent application filed January 5, 1993, with Shinichi Sakamoto as the named inventor. Among other things, the '893 Sakamoto patent discloses an insulated gate field -5SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (d)

effect device with a smoothly curved depletion boundary in the vicinity of the channel-free zone. U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990, entitled "Memories with Burst Mode Access," which was duly and legally issued on September 24, 1996, from a patent application filed October 24, 1994, with Pearl Cheng as the lead named inventor. Among other things, the '990 Cheng patent discloses a memory employing multiple sub-arrays that facilitates faster burst-mode access. (e) U.S. Patent No. 5,377,200, entitled "Power Saving Feature for Components Having Built-In Testing Logic," which was duly and legally issued on December 27, 1994, from a patent application filed August 27, 1992, with Michael Pedneau as the named inventor. Among other things, the '200 Pedneau patent discloses an improvement to built-in testing in an electronic component, in particular the ability to reduce or remove the power applied to testing circuits when not in use. (f) U.S. Patent No. 6,784,879, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Providing Control of Background Video," which was duly and legally issued on August 31, 2004, from a patent application filed July 14, 1997, with Stephen Orr as the named inventor. Among other things, the '879 Orr patent discloses a method and apparatus for control of background video on a display, which allows the user to control attributes of the video, such as volume, for example, while the video continues to play in the background and another application remains in focus on the display. 14. 15. Each of the AMD Patents is valid and enforceable. The Defendants have actual notice of all of the AMD Patents and the infringement

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

alleged herein at least upon filing of this second amended complaint (if not earlier), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC had actual notice of the '592 Iacoponi patent, the '830 Patel patent, the '893 Sakamoto patent, the '990 Cheng patent, the '200 Pedneau patent, the '879 Orr -6SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

patent and the infringement alleged herein at least upon the filing of the original complaint (if not earlier), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). On information and belief, Defendants had prior actual notice of at least the Iacoponi '592 patent no later than April 2006 and the Patel '830 patent no later than March 31, 2003. 16. Each of the Defendants has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, literally

or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the AMD Patents by acting without authority so as to: (a) make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell within the United States, or import into the United States semiconductor products, including at least Samsung DRAM, SRAM, and NAND-flash memory chips and/or other chips, that embody or practice the patented inventions, as well as electronics products that contain these chips, or practice the patented processes in the United States in connection with these activities; (b) import into the United States or offer to sell, sell, or use within the United States semiconductor products, including at least Samsung DRAM and NAND-flash memory chips and/or other chips made by a process patented by AMD, as well as electronics products that contain these chips. 17. The above-described acts of infringement committed by Defendants have caused

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

injury and damage to AMD, and as to unexpired patents, will cause additional severe and irreparable injury and damages in the future unless the Defendants are enjoined from further infringing the AMD Patents. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,545,592 18. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

17 above as if specifically set forth herein. 19. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '592 Iacoponi patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include, but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's DRAM and NAND-flash memory -7SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

chips, as well as any and all products that incorporate such memory chips or any other memory chips practicing or embodying the claimed invention or manufactured by the patented process, including digital cameras. The infringement remains ongoing. 20. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. 21. On information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the '592 Iacoponi

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

patent since at least as early as April 2006, when during licensing negotiations AMD presented Defendants with a detailed PowerPoint presentation outlining how Defendants' products specifically infringed claims of the Iacoponi '592 patent. Despite Plaintiffs' demand that Defendants either license the '592 Iacoponi patent or cease their infringement, Defendants instead opted to continue their willful, deliberate, and intentional infringement of one or more claims of said patent. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,737,830 22. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

21 above as if specifically set forth herein. 23. Defendants have directly infringed claims 5 and 6 of the '830 Patel patent, literally

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's DRAM, SRAM and NAND Flash memory chips, as well as any and all products that incorporate such memory chips or any other memory chips practicing or embodying the claimed invention. 24. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 25. On information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the '830 Patel

patent since at least as early as March 31, 2003, when during licensing negotiations AMD -8SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

presented Defendants with a detailed PowerPoint presentation outlining how Defendants' products specifically infringed claims of the '830 Patel patent. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,248,893 26. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

25 above as if specifically set forth herein. 27. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '893 Sakamoto

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's DRAM memory chips, as well as any and all products that incorporate such memory chips or any other memory chips practicing or embodying the claimed invention. 28. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 29. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

28 above as if specifically set forth herein. 30. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '990 Cheng patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's memory chips such as the K4T51083QC 512MB 90nm Rev "C" DDR2 SDRAM, as well as cell phones, MP3 players, televisions, printers, and any and all other products that incorporate this or any other chip embodying the claimed invention. Defendants' infringement remains ongoing. 31. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than

-9-

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,377,200 32. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

31 above as if specifically set forth herein. 33. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '200 Pedneau patent,

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, the S3C2412 Application Processor, as well as cell phones, MP3 players, televisions, printers, and any and all other products that incorporate the S3C2412 processor or any other processor embodying the claimed invention. Such infringement remains ongoing. 34. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,879 35. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

34 above as if specifically set forth herein. 36. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '879 Orr patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's LN-T1953H television, as well as all other Samsung televisions or other display devices that incorporate or embody the claimed invention. Such infringement remains ongoing. 37. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than

- 10 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, AMD respectfully requests that this Court: A. enter judgment that each of the Defendants has infringed one or more claims of

one or more of the AMD Patents; B. enter judgment that Defendants' infringement of the '592 Iacoponi patent has been

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

willful, deliberate, and intentional; C. enter a preliminary and permanent injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283,

enjoining each of the Defendants, and all of their respective agents, servants, officers, directors, employees, and all other persons acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from any further acts of infringement of the non-expired AMD Patents; D. enter an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding to AMD damages adequate

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

to compensate for Defendants' infringement of the AMD Patents (and, if necessary, related accountings), in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty; E. enter an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, trebling damages awarded to AMD to

the extent Defendants' infringement of the `592 Iacoponi patent is determined to have been willful; F. enter an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, deeming this to be an "exceptional

case" and thereby awarding to AMD its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; G. enter an order that Defendants account for and pay to AMD the damages to which

AMD is entitled as a consequence of the infringement; H. enter an order awarding to AMD pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum

rates allowable under the law; and, I. enter an order awarding to AMD such other and further relief, whether at law or in

equity, that this Court deems just and proper.

- 11 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DATED: March __, 2010

Respectfully submitted,

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P. By: _____________________________________ William H. Manning Brad P. Engdahl David E. Marder REED SMITH L.L.P. John P. Bovich Attorneys for Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 12 SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DATED: March __, 2010

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AMD demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P By:_____________________________ William H. Manning Brad P. Engdahl David E. Marder REED SMITH L.L.P. John P. Bovich Attorneys for Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

- 13 -

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

Exhibit B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

John P. Bovich (SBN 150688) E-mail: [e-mail] Reed Smith LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-391-8269 William H. Manning (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Telephone: [phone] Brad P. Engdahl (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 612-339-4181 David E. Marder (admitted pro hac vice) E-mail: [e-mail] Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. 800 Boylston Street, 25th Floor Boston, MA 02199 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 617-267-8288 Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

(1) ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, (2) ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC, a Canadian unlimited liability company Plaintiffs, v. (1) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity, (2) SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., a California corporation, (3) SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

No. CV-08-0986-SI THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT [JURY TRIAL DEMANDED]

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(4) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, (5) SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and (6) SAMSUNG DIGITAL IMAGING CO., LTD., a Korean business entity Defendants. Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC (collectively, "Plaintiffs" or "AMD") for their third amended complaint allege as follows: INTRODUCTION This is an action against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiaries and related entities Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. (individually or collectively "Defendants" or "Samsung"), for patent infringement under the Patent Laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., for infringing: (a) U.S. Patent No. 5,545,592 ("'592 Iacoponi patent"), entitled "Nitrogen Treatment for Metal-Silicide Contact"; (b) U.S. Patent No. 4,737,830 ("'830 Patel patent"), entitled "Integrated Circuit Structure Having Compensating Means for Self-Inductance Effects"; (c) U.S. Patent No. 5,248,893 ("'893 Sakamoto patent"), entitled "Insulated Gate Field Effect Device with a Smoothly Curved Depletion Boundary in the Vicinity of the ChannelFree Zone"; (d) U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 ("'990 Cheng patent"), entitled "Memories with Burst Mode Access"; (e) U.S. Patent No. 5,377,200 ("'200 Pedneau patent"), entitled "Power Saving Feature for Components Having Built-In Testing Logic," all owned by Advanced Micro Devices;

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

-2-

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(f)

U.S. Patent No. 5,623,434 ("'434 Purcell patent"), entitled "Structure and Method of

Using an Arithmetic and Logic Unit for Carry Propagation Stage of a Multiplier," owned by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s subsidiary, ATI Technologies, ULC; and (g) U.S. Patent No. 6,784,879 ("'879 Orr patent"), entitled "Method and Apparatus for

Providing Control of Background Video," owned by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.'s subsidiary, ATI Technologies, ULC. Collectively, the patents generally cover methods of semiconductor and semiconductor memory chip fabrication; semiconductors and semiconductor memory of certain composition, logic, or design; and consumer products incorporating or embodying the disclosed inventions. THE PARTIES 1. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal offices

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

at One AMD Place, Sunnyvale, California 94085. 2. ATI Technologies, ULC is a subsidiary of AMD and is incorporated in Alberta,

Canada with its principal offices at 1 Commerce Valley Drive E, Markham, Ontario, L3T 7X6, Canada. 3. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("SEC") is a Korean business entity with its

principal offices at 250, 2-ga, Taepyong-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul, 100-742, South Korea. On information and belief, SEC is South Korea's largest company and one of Asia's largest electronics companies. SEC designs, manufactures, and provides to the U.S. and world markets flash, DRAM, graphics memory, and other memory components, as well as other logic components, which are used in computers, and myriad mobile and entertainment products. 4. Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. ("SSI") is a California corporation with its principal

place of business located at 3655 North First Street, San Jose, California 95134. On information and belief, SSI is a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC and was established in 1983 as a California corporation with approximately 300 employees in the Americas. On information and belief, SSI is the sales arm for SEC and sells flash, DRAM, graphics memory, and other memory components; conducts primary market and product research for SEC; and enables regional customers to influence the direction of SEC's future technologies and products. -3THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

5.

Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC ("SAS") is a Delaware limited liability

company with its principal place of business at 12100 Samsung Boulevard, Austin, Texas 78754. On information and belief, SAS is one of Samsung's semiconductor fabrication facilities located around the world. 6. Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA") is a New York corporation with its

principal place of business at 105 Challenger Road, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey 07660. On information and belief, SEA was formed in 1977 as a subsidiary of SEC, and markets, sells, or offers for sale a variety of consumer electronics, including TVs, VCRs, DVD and MP3 players, video cameras, vacuum cleaners, and air conditioners, as well as memory chips and computer accessories, such as printers, monitors, hard disk drives, and DVD/CD-ROM drives. On information and belief, SEA also manages the North American operations of Samsung Telecommunications America, Samsung Electronics Canada, and Samsung Electronics Mexico. 7. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ("STA") is a Delaware limited

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

liability company with its principal place of business at 1301 East Lookout Drive, Richardson, Texas 75081. On information and belief, STA was founded in 1996 as a subsidiary of SEC, and markets, sells, or offers for sale a variety of personal and business communications devices in the United States, including cell phones. 8. Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. ("SDI") is a Korean business entity with its

principal offices at 416, Maetan 3-Dong, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon, Gyeonggi-Do, 443-373, South Korea. On information and belief, SDI manufactures, imports, markets, sells, or offers for sale consumer electronics including digital cameras. JURISDICTION 9. This is an action for patent infringement, over which this Court has subject matter

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). 10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants consistent with

the requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. Each Defendant transacts substantial business in California (and in this district), or has committed and continues to commit acts of patent infringement in California (and -4THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

in this district) as alleged in this complaint. In addition, SSI in particular maintains a regular and established place of business at 3655 North 1st Street, San Jose, California, 95134. VENUE 11. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and

1400(b) because Defendants reside in this judicial district. Further, SSI has committed acts of infringement and has a regular established place of business in this district. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT 12. This is a patent infringement action, and therefore exempt from Intradistrict

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Assignment under Civil L.R. 3-2(c). FACTUAL BACKGROUND 13. Plaintiffs solely own all rights, titles, and interests in and to the following United

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

States patents (collectively, the "AMD Patents"), including the exclusive rights to bring suit with respect to any past, present, and future infringement thereof: (a) U.S. Patent No. 5,545,592, entitled "Nitrogen Treatment for Metal-Silicide Contact," which was duly and legally issued on August 13, 1996, from a patent application filed February 24, 1995, with John Iacoponi as the named inventor. Among other things, the '592 Iacoponi patent discloses an improved method of forming a contact point in a semiconductor device. (b) U.S. Patent No. 4,737,830, entitled "Integrated Circuit Structure Having Compensating Means for Self-Inductance Effects," which was duly and legally issued on April 12, 1988, from a patent application filed January 8, 1986, with Bharat Patel as the lead named inventor. Among other things, the '830 Patel patent discloses an improved integrated circuit wherein self-inductive voltage spikes are reduced through the use of capacitance means constructed beneath at least one bus. (c) U.S. Patent No. 5,248,893, entitled "Insulated Gate Field Effect Device with a Smoothly Curved Depletion Boundary in the Vicinity of the Channel-Free Zone," which was duly and legally issued on September 28, 1993, from a patent -5THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 (d)

application filed January 5, 1993, with Shinichi Sakamoto as the named inventor. Among other things, the '893 Sakamoto patent discloses an insulated gate field effect device with a smoothly curved depletion boundary in the vicinity of the channel-free zone. U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990, entitled "Memories with Burst Mode Access," which was duly and legally issued on September 24, 1996, from a patent application filed October 24, 1994, with Pearl Cheng as the lead named inventor. Among other things, the '990 Cheng patent discloses a memory employing multiple sub-arrays that facilitates faster burst-mode access. (e) U.S. Patent No. 5,377,200, entitled "Power Saving Feature for Components Having Built-In Testing Logic," which was duly and legally issued on December 27, 1994, from a patent application filed August 27, 1992, with Michael Pedneau as the named inventor. Among other things, the '200 Pedneau patent discloses an improvement to built-in testing in an electronic component, in particular the ability to reduce or remove the power applied to testing circuits when not in use. (f) U.S. Patent No. 5,623,434, entitled "Structure and Method of Using an Arithmetic and Logic Unit for Carry Propagation Stage of a Multiplier," which was duly and legally issued on April 22, 1997, from a patent application filed July 27, 1994, with Stephen Purcell as the named inventor. Among other things, the '434 Purcell patent discloses a method and apparatus for using an arithmetic and logic unit as part of a multiplier circuit. (g) U.S. Patent No. 6,784,879, entitled "Method and Apparatus for Providing Control of Background Video," which was duly and legally issued on August 31, 2004, from a patent application filed July 14, 1997, with Stephen Orr as the named inventor. Among other things, the '879 Orr patent discloses a method and apparatus for control of background video on a display, which allows the user to control attributes of the video, such as volume, for example, while the video

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

-6-

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. 15.

continues to play in the background and another application remains in focus on the display. Each of the AMD Patents is valid and enforceable. The Defendants have actual notice of all of the AMD Patents and the infringement

alleged herein at least upon filing of this third amended complaint (if not earlier), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a), and Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC had actual notice of the '592 Iacoponi patent, the '830 Patel patent, the '893 Sakamoto patent, the '990 Cheng patent, the '200 Pedneau patent, the '879 Orr patent and the infringement alleged herein at least upon the filing of the original complaint (if not earlier), pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). On information and belief, Defendants had prior actual notice of at least the Iacoponi '592 patent no later than April 2006 and the Patel '830 patent no later than March 31, 2003. 16. Each of the Defendants has directly infringed, and continues to infringe, literally

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

or under the doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the AMD Patents by acting without authority so as to: (a) make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell within the United States, or import into the United States semiconductor products, including at least Samsung DRAM, SRAM, and NAND-flash memory chips and/or other chips, that embody or practice the patented inventions, as well as electronics products that contain these chips, or practice the patented processes in the United States in connection with these activities; (b) import into the United States or offer to sell, sell, or use within the United States semiconductor products, including at least Samsung DRAM and NAND-flash memory chips and/or other chips made by a process patented by AMD, as well as electronics products that contain these chips. 17. The above-described acts of infringement committed by Defendants have caused

injury and damage to AMD, and as to unexpired patents, will cause additional severe and -7THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

irreparable injury and damages in the future unless the Defendants are enjoined from further infringing the AMD Patents. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,545,592 18. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

17 above as if specifically set forth herein. 19. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '592 Iacoponi patent,

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include, but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's DRAM and NAND-flash memory chips, as well as any and all products that incorporate such memory chips or any other memory chips practicing or embodying the claimed invention or manufactured by the patented process, including digital cameras. The infringement remains ongoing. 20. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. 21. On information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the '592 Iacoponi

patent since at least as early as April 2006, when during licensing negotiations AMD presented Defendants with a detailed PowerPoint presentation outlining how Defendants' products specifically infringed claims of the Iacoponi '592 patent. Despite Plaintiffs' demand that Defendants either license the '592 Iacoponi patent or cease their infringement, Defendants instead opted to continue their willful, deliberate, and intentional infringement of one or more claims of said patent. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,737,830 22. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

21 above as if specifically set forth herein. 23. Defendants have directly infringed claims 5 and 6 of the '830 Patel patent, literally -8THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's DRAM, SRAM and NAND Flash memory chips, as well as any and all products that incorporate such memory chips or any other memory chips practicing or embodying the claimed invention. 24. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. 25. On information and belief, Defendants had actual knowledge of the '830 Patel

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

patent since at least as early as March 31, 2003, when during licensing negotiations AMD presented Defendants with a detailed PowerPoint presentation outlining how Defendants' products specifically infringed claims of the '830 Patel patent. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,248,893 26. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

25 above as if specifically set forth herein. 27. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '893 Sakamoto

patent, literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's DRAM memory chips, as well as any and all products that incorporate such memory chips or any other memory chips practicing or embodying the claimed invention. 28. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,559,990 29. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

28 above as if specifically set forth herein. -9THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30.

Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '990 Cheng patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's memory chips such as the K4T51083QC 512MB 90nm Rev "C" DDR2 SDRAM, as well as cell phones, MP3 players, televisions, printers, and any and all other products that incorporate this or any other chip embodying the claimed invention. Defendants' infringement remains ongoing. 31. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,377,200 32. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

31 above as if specifically set forth herein. 33. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '200 Pedneau patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, the S3C2412 Application Processor, as well as cell phones, MP3 players, televisions, printers, and any and all other products that incorporate the S3C2412 processor or any other processor embodying the claimed invention. Such infringement remains ongoing. 34. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,623,434 35. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

34 above as if specifically set forth herein. - 10 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36.

Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '434 Purcell patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's S3C2443 Application Processor and any other processor embodying the claimed invention, as well as cell phones, MP3 players, televisions, printers, and any and all other products that incorporate the S3C2443 Application Processor or any other processor embodying the claimed invention. Such infringement remains ongoing. 37. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. AMD will not seek damages for infringement of the '434 Purcell patent occurring prior to the filing of this Third Amended Complaint. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,784,879 38. AMD incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

37 above as if specifically set forth herein. 39. Defendants have directly infringed one or more claims of the '879 Orr patent,

literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. The infringing products include but are not limited to, for example, Samsung's LN-T1953H television, as well as all other Samsung televisions or other display devices that incorporate or embody the claimed invention. Such infringement remains ongoing. 40. As a consequence of Defendants' infringement, AMD is entitled to recover

damages adequate to compensate it for the injuries complained of herein, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty. AMD further is entitled to have Defendants enjoined from committing additional future acts of infringement which would subject AMD to irreparable harm. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, AMD respectfully requests that this Court: - 11 THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

A.

enter judgment that each of the Defendants has infringed one or more claims of

one or more of the AMD Patents; B. enter judgment that Defendants' infringement of the '592 Iacoponi patent has been

willful, deliberate, and intentional; C. enter a preliminary and permanent injunction, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283,

enjoining each of the Defendants, and all of their respective agents, servants, officers, directors, employees, and all other persons acting in concert with them, directly or indirectly, from any further acts of infringement of the non-expired AMD Patents; D. enter an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, awarding to AMD damages adequate

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

to compensate for Defendants' infringement of the AMD Patents (and, if necessary, related accountings), in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than a reasonable royalty; E. enter an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, trebling damages awarded to AMD to

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

the extent Defendants' infringement of the `592 Iacoponi patent is determined to have been willful; F. enter an order, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285, deeming this to be an "exceptional

case" and thereby awarding to AMD its reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses; G. enter an order that Defendants account for and pay to AMD the damages to which

AMD is entitled as a consequence of the infringement; H. enter an order awarding to AMD pre- and post-judgment interest at the maximum

rates allowable under the law; and, I. enter an order awarding to AMD such other and further relief, whether at law or in

equity, that this Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

- 12 -

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2

DATED: March ___, 2010 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

3 4 5 6 7 REED SMITH L.L.P. John P. Bovich Attorneys for Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC By: _____________________________________ William H. Manning Brad P. Engdahl David E. Marder

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

- 13 -

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DATED: March ___, 2010

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AMD demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P By:_____________________________ William H. Manning Brad P. Engdahl David E. Marder REED SMITH L.L.P. John P. Bovich Attorneys for Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC

ROBINS, K A P L A N , M I L L E R & C I R E S I L.L.P.

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A T T O R N E Y S AT L A W

MINNEAPOLIS

- 14 -

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, ACTION NO. CV-08-0986-SI