EC charges Rambus with DRAM antitrust violations

Taylor, Colleen
August 2007
Electronic News;8/27/2007, Vol. 53 Issue 35, p26
Trade Publication
The article reports that statement of objections (SO) have been sent by the European Commission (EC) to Los Altos, California-based memory technology developer Rambus Inc. based on alleged anticompetitive business practices. According to the EC, the SO, outlines the commission's preliminary view that Rambus has infringed EC treaty rules on "abuse of a dominant position" by claiming "unreasonable royalties" for the use of certain patents for DRAM, subsequent to a so-called "patent ambush."


Related Articles

  • Shareholder Suit Against Rambus Dropped While FTC Trial Continues.  // Consortium Standards Bulletin;2003, Vol. 2 Issue 7, p19 

    The article reports on the ruling by Administrative Law Judge Stephen McGuire in favor of Rambus Inc. in the shareholding suit fight against it by the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S. It is the reverse of a decision made in its patent infringement trial against Infineon Technologies AG and...

  • The EU Court of Justice Upholds the AstraZeneca Condemnation for Misusing Patent Law Procedures. Giannino, Michele // Journal of European Competition Law & Practice;Aug2013, Vol. 4 Issue 4, p317 

    The EU Court of Justice (EUCJ) rejects the AstraZeneca appeal, substantially confirming the rulings of the Commission on the misuse of patent law procedures, and also clarifies in which situations making use of such procedures may result in a competition infringement.

  • Untitled.  // Electronics Weekly;8/29/2007, Issue 2301, p24 

    The article informs that the European Commission (EC) has told Rambus Inc. that it believes it has infringed EC Treaty rules by claiming unreasonable royalties on dynamic random access memory (DRAM) patents. The claim relates to the semiconductor memory technology company's participation in...

  • Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank & College Savings.... Polse, Jennifer L. // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;2000, Vol. 15 Issue 1, p373 

    Focuses on the case involving Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank and College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board on the issue on patent infringement in Berkeley, California. Violations on the Lanham Act and the Patent...

  • Streamlined procedure tackles patent cheats. Hunter, Joanne // Packaging Magazine;6/12/2003, Vol. 6 Issue 11, p5 

    Reports on the benefits of a streamlined litigation process that will make it cheaper and faster to fight patent infringers in England and Wales. Comments of patent and trademark solicitors Frank B. Dehn & Co. about the patent infringement litigation procedure; Advise to claimants and...

  • ASK THE COMMISH.  // Inventors' Digest;Mar2008, Vol. 24 Issue 3, p11 

    The article presents an answer to a question about the issue that Patent Reform Act of 2007 encourages infringement.

  • Recent Developments in Patent Law. Antush, Ronald A. // Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal;Fall99, Vol. 8 Issue 1, p71 

    Provides a review of selected patent opinions which involve significant decisions in areas of patent law in the U.S. Details of the case Pitney Bowes Inc. versus Hewlett-Packard Co.; Decision on the case of Festo Corp. versus Shoketsu Kinsoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.; Issues on sovereign immunity...

  • Recent Developments in Patent Law. Darrow, Christopher G. // Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal;Spring2002, Vol. 10 Issue 3, p379 

    Focuses on developments in patent laws in the U.S. Applicability of patenting plants; Challenges on the validity of a patent; Source of actual notice of infringement.

  • Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts Inc. v. Cardinal Industries, Inc. & Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky... Schultz, Jason // Berkeley Technology Law Journal;1999, Vol. 14 Issue 1, p173 

    Focuses on restrictions imposed on the doctrine of equivalents (DOE) for the United States patent infringement cases, Chiuminatta Concrete Concepts Inc. v. Cardinal Industries Inc. and Dawn Equipment Co. v. Kentucky Farms Inc. Definition of doctrine of equivalents (DOE); Coextensive equivalents...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics