Stock Ticker

  • Loading stock data...

Jury Asks Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) To Pay $2.18 Billion After Losing Patent Trial

Texas’s federal jury has compelled Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC) to pay $2.18 billion after losing a recent patent-infringement trial linked to chip-making. Intel has, on several occasions, denied having infringed VLSI Technology LLC’s two patents, but the jury sees matters differently. In Waco, the federal jury found Intel guilty of infringement, ordering it to pay off the $2.18 billion.

Focusing on the two patents

The jury ordered Intel to pay $1.5 billion for the first patent infringement and another $675 million for the second. The world’s largest chipmaker won’t be leaving without putting up a fight, outlining its plans to continue its efforts to seek out justice.

Intel had told the court that one of the patents was invalid, citing that the patent in question spoke about accomplishing tasks done by its engineers. The jury listened to its pleas, eventually dismissing them.

Layers defend their sides

The heated debates in court came out as somewhat overwhelming considering how Intel lawyer William Lee of WilmerHale trivialized the other party. In defending Intel, Lee presented VLSI as the kind of inventor that takes two patents off the shelf and claims a $2 billion pay. The lawyer told off VLSI, outlining that it hadn’t used the patent for ten years.

Freescale Semiconductor Inc was the original issuer of one of the patents. The others that bought the patents later included SigmaTel Inc and Freescale. The Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors Inc would eventually buy Freescale, and that was in 2015. VLSI would later take up the two patents through a transfer process.

VLSI lawyer Morgan Chu of Irell & Minella defended his side, citing how critical the patents in question were to business. According to Chu, the patents represented inventions that boost the processors’ speed and power. The lawyer termed power and speed to be part of the most significant issues in competition.

Federal law is quite clear in its stipulations, dismissing the whole idea about a party’s depth of knowledge on any particular patent. In other words, it is not possible to vindicate oneself based on lacking knowledge on a specific patent.

The jury considered this stipulation to find Intel guilty and compel it to pay the amount in question for infringement.

Published by Flavia Carruth

Hi, I am Flavia and have done my MBA with finance as specialization and a Bachelor in Economics with 4 years of experience as Financial Analyst in leading Software Firm. I have passion for article writing, report making and stock market Analysis.

Recent Stories

SignUp Now For Our Featured Newsletter