IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`MONTEREY RESEARCH, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. ________________
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT
`
`Plaintiff Monterey Research, LLC (“Monterey”), for its Complaint for Patent Infringement
`
`against Defendant Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”), alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Monterey is an intellectual property and technology licensing company. Monterey’s
`
`patent portfolio comprises over 2,700 active and pending patents worldwide, including approximately
`
`2,000 active United States patents. Monterey’s patent portfolio stems from technology developed by
`
`a number of leading high-technology companies, including Cypress Semiconductor Corporation,
`
`Fujitsu, NVX Corporation, and Ramtron. Those companies developed key innovations that have
`
`greatly enhanced the capabilities of computer systems, increased electronic device processing power,
`
`and reduced electronic device power consumption. Among other things, those inventions produced
`
`significant technological advances, including smaller, faster, and more efficient semiconductors and
`
`integrated circuits.
`
`2.
`
`AMD infringes Monterey’s patents by making, using, selling, offering for sale, and/or
`
`importing products (including importing products made by a patented process) throughout the United
`
`States, including within this District. AMD’s customers incorporate those products into downstream
`
`products that are made, used, sold, offered for sale, and/or imported throughout the United States,
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0001
`
`

`

`including within this District. Those downstream products include, but are not limited to,
`
`motherboards, desktop computers, servers, laptop computers, videogame consoles, and other
`
`products that include AMD semiconductor devices and integrated circuits.
`
`3.
`
`AMD has infringed and continues to infringe Monterey’s patents. AMD has thus far
`
`refused to license those patents and, instead, has continued to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or
`
`import Monterey’s intellectual property within the United States without Monterey’s permission.
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`4.
`
`This action arises under 35 U.S.C. § 271 for AMD’s infringement of Monterey’s
`
`United States Patent Nos. 6,534,805 (“the ’805 patent”); 6,629,226 (“the ’226 patent”); 6,651,134
`
`(“the ’134 patent”); 6,765,407 (“the ’407 patent”); 6,961,807 (“the ’807 patent”); and 8,373,455 (“the
`
`’455 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Monterey is a Delaware limited liability company with offices in New Jersey
`
`and California. Monterey maintains a registered agent for service in Delaware: Intertrust Corporate
`
`Services Delaware Ltd. located at 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 210, Wilmington, Delaware 19808.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant AMD is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 2485
`
`Augustine Drive, Santa Clara, California 95054. AMD is a publicly traded company that may be
`
`served through its registered agent for service, The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street,
`
`Wilmington, Delaware 19801.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action under 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331 and 1338(a) at least because this action arises under the patent laws of the United States,
`
`including 35 U.S.C. § 271 et seq.
`
`2
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0002
`
`

`

`8.
`
`Personal jurisdiction exists over AMD at least because AMD is a Delaware
`
`corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware. AMD also has a registered agent for
`
`service of process in Delaware. In addition, AMD has committed, aided, abetted, contributed to,
`
`and/or participated in the commission of acts of infringement giving rise to this action within the
`
`State of Delaware by, inter alia, directly and/or indirectly making, using, selling, offering for sale,
`
`importing products, and/or practicing methods that practice one or more claims of the Patents-in-Suit.
`
`Furthermore, AMD has transacted and conducted business in the State of Delaware and with
`
`Delaware residents by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing (including importing
`
`products made by a patented process) products and instrumentalities that practice one or more claims
`
`of the Patents-in-Suit. Among other things, AMD, directly and/or through intermediaries, uses, sells,
`
`ships, distributes, imports into, offers for sale, and/or advertises or otherwise promotes its products
`
`throughout the United States, including in the State of Delaware. See, e.g., www.amd.com/en. At
`
`least for those reasons, AMD has the requisite minimum contacts within the forum such that the
`
`exercise of jurisdiction over AMD would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial
`
`justice.
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (c) and 1400(b).
`
`AMD resides in this district and has committed acts of infringement in this district. AMD has
`
`committed acts of infringement in this district by, among other things, selling and offering for sale in
`
`this district (and elsewhere) infringing products made, used, developed, tested, and otherwise
`
`practiced by AMD. Venue is further proper based on the facts alleged in the preceding paragraphs,
`
`which Monterey incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein.
`
`THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT
`
`10. Monterey incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`3
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0003
`
`

`

`A.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,534,805
`
`11.
`
`The ’805 patent, titled “SRAM Cell Design,” was duly and properly issued by the
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) on March 18, 2003. On October 14, 2014,
`
`the USPTO issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate for the ’805 patent, which confirmed the
`
`patentability of the ’805 patent. A true and correct copy of the ’805 patent and the Ex Parte
`
`Reexamination Certificate for the ’805 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
`
`12. Monterey is the owner and assignee of the ’805 patent; owns all right, title, and interest
`
`in the ’805 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including
`
`past infringement.
`
`B.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,629,226
`
`13.
`
`The ’226 patent, titled “FIFO Read Interface Protocol,” was duly and properly issued
`
`by the USPTO on September 30, 2003. A true and correct copy of the ’226 patent is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit B.
`
`14. Monterey is the owner and assignee of the ’226 patent; owns all right, title, and interest
`
`in the ’226 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including
`
`past infringement.
`
`C.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,651,134
`
`15.
`
`The ’134 patent, titled “Memory Device with Fixed Length Non Interruptible Burst,”
`
`was duly and properly issued by the USPTO on November 18, 2003. A true and correct copy of the
`
`’134 patent is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
`
`16. Monterey is the owner and assignee of the ’134 patent; owns all right, title, and interest
`
`in the ’134 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including
`
`past infringement.
`
`
`
`4
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0004
`
`

`

`D.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,765,407
`
`17.
`
`The ’407 patent, titled “Digital Configurable Macro Architecture,” was duly and
`
`properly issued by the USPTO on July 20, 2004. A true and correct copy of the ’407 patent is attached
`
`hereto as Exhibit D.
`
`18. Monterey is the owner and assignee of the ’407 patent; owns all right, title, and interest
`
`in the ’407 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof, including
`
`past infringement.
`
`E.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,961,807
`
`19.
`
`The ’807 patent, titled “Device, System and Method for an Integrated Circuit
`
`Adaptable for Use in Computing Systems of Differing Memory Requirements,” was duly and
`
`properly issued by the USPTO on November 1, 2005. A true and correct copy of the ’807 patent
`
`is attached hereto as Exhibit E.
`
`20. Monterey is the owner and assignee of the ’807 patent; owns all right, title, and
`
`interest in the ’807 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof,
`
`including past infringement.
`
`F.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,373,455
`
`21.
`
`The ’455 patent, titled “Output Buffer Circuit,” was duly and properly issued by
`
`the USPTO on February 12, 2013. A true and correct copy of the ’455 patent is attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit F.
`
`22. Monterey is the owner and assignee of the ’455 patent; owns all right, title, and
`
`interest in the ’455 patent; and holds the right to sue and recover damages for infringement thereof,
`
`including past infringement.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`23. Monterey incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`5
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0005
`
`

`

`herein.
`
`24.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit stem from the research and design of innovative and proprietary
`
`technology developed by leading high-technology companies, including Cypress Semiconductor
`
`Corporation (“Cypress”). Cypress is an American multinational company and pioneer of cutting-
`
`edge semiconductor technology. Founded in 1982, Cypress has made substantial investments in
`
`researching, developing, and manufacturing high-quality semiconductor devices, integrated circuits,
`
`and products containing the same.
`
`25.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit are directed to inventive technology relating to semiconductor
`
`devices, integrated circuits, and/or products containing the same.
`
`26.
`
`Defendant AMD works closely with its customers, OEMs, foundry suppliers,
`
`distributors, and/or other third parties to make, use, sell, offer to sell, and/or import semiconductor
`
`devices, integrated circuits, and/or products containing the same. Among other things, AMD
`
`optimizes its manufacturing process for its customers and optimizes its products for integration into
`
`downstream products. AMD’s affirmative acts in furtherance of the manufacture, use, sale, offer to
`
`sell, and importation of its products in and/or into the United States include, but are not limited to,
`
`any one or combination of: (i) designing specifications for manufacture of its products; (ii)
`
`collaborating on, encouraging, and/or funding the development of processes for the manufacture of
`
`its products; (iii) soliciting and/or sourcing the manufacture of its products; (iv) licensing, developing,
`
`and/or transferring technology and know-how to enable the manufacture of its products; (v) enabling
`
`and encouraging the use, sale, or importation of its products in the United States; and (vi) advertising
`
`its products and/or downstream products incorporating them in the United States.
`
`27.
`
`AMD also provides marketing and/or technical support services for its products from
`
`its facilities in the United States. For example, AMD maintains a website that advertises its products,
`
`6
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0006
`
`

`

`including identifying the applications for which they can be used and providing specifications for its
`
`products. See, e.g., www.amd.com/en. AMD’s publicly-available website also contains user
`
`manuals, product documentation, and other materials related to its products. See, e.g.,
`
`www.amd.com/en. For example, AMD’s website contains a knowledge base, software help center,
`
`support
`
`forum,
`
`technical documents, and downloadable graphics drivers.
`
` See, e.g.,
`
`www.amd.com/en.
`
`COUNT ONE
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’805 PATENT
`
`28. Monterey incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`29. Monterey is the assignee and lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’805 patent.
`
`30.
`
`31.
`
`The ’805 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`The ’805 patent is generally directed to static random access memory (“SRAM”) cell
`
`design, particularly to optimizing SRAM cell design using a simpler geometric layout.
`
`32.
`
`As semiconductor structure size continued to shrink with time, one exemplary issue
`
`with the prior art of the ’805 patent was increased difficulties in manufacturing. Specifically, the
`
`then-existing memory cells contained complex geometric designs which required numerous
`
`processing steps and larger cell sizes. Generally, more processing steps lead to increased
`
`manufacturing costs and reduced profits.
`
`33.
`
`The ’805 patent teaches, among other things, an improved memory cell layout which
`
`allows the features to be arranged in such a way as to minimize cell size. For example, the single
`
`local interconnect layer of the ’805 patent allows for a thinner product and fewer processing steps.
`
`34.
`
`AMD products use SRAM with a six-transistor (“6T”) and/or eight-transistor (“8T”)
`
`7
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0007
`
`

`

`cell design. AMD’s 6T and 8T SRAM contain a single local interconnect layer. This has resulted
`
`in, among other things, AMD’s ability to decrease the size of its SRAM area and to decrease the
`
`number of manufacturing steps.
`
`35.
`
`AMD has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, one or more claims of
`
`the ’805 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by,
`
`among other things, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
`
`States without authorization products covered by one or more claims of the ’805 patent, including,
`
`but not limited to, all AMD devices incorporating SRAM with a 6T and/or 8T cell design, such as
`
`the A8-3800 semiconductor device and other products in the A-Series, Pro A-Series, Ryzen, Ryzen
`
`Pro, Athlon, Epyc, FX, E-Series, Opteron, Phenom, Sempron, and the Turion product families; and
`
`all other semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products with similar infringing technology
`
`(“the Accused ’805 Products”).
`
`36.
`
`As one non-limiting example, AMD infringes claim 8 of the ’805 patent. For example,
`
`the A8-3800 semiconductor device contains:
`
`a.
`
`a memory cell (e.g., SRAM cell of the A8-3800) comprising a plurality of
`
`substantially oblong active regions (e.g., N-type and/or P-type diffusion areas of the A8-3800)
`
`formed in a semiconductor substrate and arranged substantially in parallel with one another, and a
`
`plurality of substantially oblong local interconnects (e.g., structures formed at the polysilicon layer
`
`on top of the substrate of the A8-3800) above said substrate that extend only partially across the
`
`memory cell and are arranged substantially in parallel with one another and substantially
`
`perpendicular to said active regions; and
`
`b.
`
`a single local interconnect layer (e.g., metal 1 (“M1”) layer of the A8-3800)
`
`comprising local interconnects (e.g., structures formed at the M1 layer of the A8-3800)
`
`8
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0008
`
`

`

`corresponding to bitlines (e.g., those formed at the metal 2 (“M2”) layer of the A8-3800) and a
`
`global word-line (e.g., those formed at the metal 3 (“M3”) layer of the A8-3800).
`
`37.
`
`Claim 8 of the ’805 patent applies to each Accused ’805 Product at least because each
`
`of those products contain the same or similar structures as the AMD A8-3800.
`
`38.
`
`AMD has induced infringement of, and continues to induce infringement of, one or
`
`more claims of the ’805 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), either literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by, among other things, actively inducing others, including its customers, to make, use,
`
`sell, offer to sell, and/or import in or into the United States without authorization the Accused ’805
`
`Products, as well as products containing the same. AMD knowingly and intentionally instructs its
`
`customers, OEMs, foundry suppliers, distributors, and/or third parties to infringe at least through user
`
`manuals, product documentation, and other materials, such as those located on AMD’s website at
`
`www.amd.com/en. Additional non-limiting examples include the materials found on AMD’s
`
`websites
`
`at
`
`www.amd.com/en/processors/athlon-and-a-series
`
`and
`
`www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/processors/.
`
`39.
`
`AMD has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’805 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), either literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by, among other things, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
`
`in or into the United States the Accused ’805 Products, which constitute a material part of the
`
`invention of the ’805 patent, knowing the Accused ’805 Products to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`40. Monterey has sustained and is entitled to recover damages as a result of AMD’s
`
`infringement.
`
`9
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0009
`
`

`

`41.
`
`AMD’s infringement of the ’805 patent has been knowing, deliberate, and willful,
`
`beginning at least as early as the date Monterey filed the complaint in this action and therefore at least
`
`the date by which AMD knew of the ’805 patent and that its conduct constituted and resulted in
`
`infringement of the ’805 patent. AMD nonetheless has committed—and continues to commit—acts
`
`of direct and indirect infringement despite knowing that its actions constituted infringement of the
`
`valid and enforceable ’805 patent, despite a risk of infringement that was known or so obvious that it
`
`should have been known to AMD, and/or even though AMD otherwise knew or should have known
`
`that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of that valid and enforceable
`
`patent. AMD’s conduct in light of these circumstances is egregious. AMD’s knowing, deliberate,
`
`and willful infringement of the ’805 patent entitles Monterey to increased damages under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 284 and to attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
`
`COUNT TWO
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’226 PATENT
`
`42. Monterey incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`herein.
`
`43. Monterey is the assignee and lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’226 patent.
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`The ’226 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`The ’226 patent is generally directed to a method and/or architecture for implementing
`
`a multiqueue memory read interface, and more particularly, to a method and/or architecture for
`
`implementing a multiqueue read interface protocol for eliminating synchronizing problems for
`
`configuration dependent latencies where the protocol may be capable of handling variable size
`
`packets.
`
`46.
`
`The ’226 patent explains that in prior multiqueue memories (e.g., first-in-first-out
`
`10
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0010
`
`

`

`(“FIFO”) memory), a signal, e.g., ADDRESS, was a queue address configured to determine a queue
`
`number of the multiqueue memory. The signals, e.g., READ_CLOCK and READ_EN, could control
`
`the timing of the presentation of the data signal, e.g., DATA. Because of particular architectures and
`
`specifications of particular devices, the latency between enabling a queue address signal, e.g.,
`
`ADDRESS, and presenting a data signal, e.g., DATA, could differ depending on the particular
`
`configuration. Configuration information needed to be written into an external read device. The only
`
`event reference available to the external read device was an end of packet or a start of packet, e.g.,
`
`EOP or SOP. In such an environment, the read device was required to monitor this event to generate
`
`the queue address signal, e.g., ADDRESS, in a sufficient number of cycles ahead of the read.
`
`47.
`
`These prior multiqueue memory systems had the disadvantage of requiring a fixed
`
`packet size. This circuit could be required to generate the queue address, e.g., ADDRESS, a certain
`
`number of cycles before the end of packet occurs. The particular number of cycles may be the same
`
`as the minimum latency requirement. For certain configurations, there was a specific latency between
`
`the queue address signal, e.g., ADDRESS, and presenting the signal, e.g., DATA. If the packet size
`
`varied randomly, such as when the size of the packet was less than the number of cycles of latency,
`
`a read of one or more unwanted packets occurred. Additionally, it may have been difficult for the
`
`read device to synchronize the queue address signal, e.g., ADDRESS, with the data received from
`
`the memory (e.g., FIFO). Therefore, the read device needed to be configured with enough logic to
`
`respond to the different latencies. Such a configuration required extra overhead for the read device.
`
`48.
`
`The ’226 patent teaches, among other things, an interface coupled to a multiqueue
`
`storage device and configured to interface the multiqueue storage device with one or more
`
`handshaking signals. The multiqueue storage device and the interface may be configured to transfer
`
`variable size data packets. Such a system provided numerous benefits, including but not limited to:
`
`11
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0011
`
`

`

`(i) eliminating synchronizing problems with configuration dependent latencies; (ii) being capable of
`
`handling variable size packets; (iii) allowing back-to-back reads of variable size packets; and (iv)
`
`exchanging address and data between an external read device and a multiqueue storage device.
`
`49.
`
`AMD products use a multiqueue storage device, such as an NVM Express (“NVME”)
`
`compliant memory. For example, NVME compliant memory can be found in, among other products,
`
`the AMD Pro SSG. AMD products use multiqueue storage devices that are compliant with the
`
`NVME Base Specification standard and similar versions of the NVME standard that incorporate the
`
`innovations of the ʼ226 patent’s multiqueue memory read interface. AMD’s multiqueue storage
`
`device further interfaces with handshaking signals, and allows back-to-back reads of variable size
`
`data packets.
`
`50.
`
`AMD has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, one or more claims of
`
`the ’226 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by,
`
`among other things, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
`
`States without authorization products covered by one or more claims of the ’226 patent, including,
`
`but not limited to, products supporting NVME or with NVME compliant memory, such as the Radeon
`
`Pro SSG semiconductor device and other products in the Radeon Pro, Epyc and Ryzen product
`
`families; other AMD semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products built to utilize NVME
`
`compliant memory; and all other semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products using a
`
`similar multiqueue memory read interface (“the Accused ’226 Products”).
`
`51.
`
`As one non-limiting example, AMD infringes claim 18 of the ’226 patent. For
`
`example, the Radeon Pro SSG semiconductor device contains: An interface coupled to a multiqueue
`
`storage device (e.g., multiqueue memory of the Radeon Pro SSG) and configured to interface said
`
`multiqueue storage device with one or more handshaking signals (e.g., data link packets and/or
`
`12
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0012
`
`

`

`command set of the Radeon Pro SSG), wherein said multiqueue storage device and said interface are
`
`configured to allow back-to-back reads of variable size data packets (e.g., via sequential read requests
`
`and/or burst read requests, and/or a Scatter Gather List of the Radeon Pro SSG).
`
`52.
`
`Claim 18 of the ’226 patent applies to each Accused ’226 Product at least because
`
`each of those products contain infringing NVME compliant memory; and/or contain a multiqueue
`
`storage device with similar infringing functionality.
`
`53.
`
`AMD has induced infringement of, and continues to induce infringement of, one or
`
`more claims of the ’226 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), either literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by, among other things, actively inducing others, including its customers, to make, use,
`
`sell, offer to sell, and/or import (including import products made by a patented process) in or into the
`
`United States without authorization the Accused ’226 Products, as well as products containing the
`
`same. AMD knowingly and intentionally instructs its customers, OEMs, foundry suppliers,
`
`distributors, and/or other third parties to infringe at least through user manuals, product
`
`documentation, and other materials, such as those located on AMD’s website at www.amd.com/en.
`
`Additional non-limiting examples
`
`include
`
`the materials found on AMD’s websites at
`
`www.amd.com/en/chipsets/str40 and www.amd.com/en/chipsets/x570.
`
`54.
`
`AMD has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’226 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c), either literally and/or
`
`under the doctrine of equivalents, by, among other things, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
`
`in or into the United States the Accused ’226 Products, which constitute a material part of the
`
`invention of the ’226 patent, knowing the Accused ’226 Products to be especially made or especially
`
`adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce
`
`suitable for substantial noninfringing use.
`
`13
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0013
`
`

`

`55. Monterey has sustained and is entitled to recover damages as a result of AMD’s
`
`infringement.
`
`56.
`
`AMD’s infringement of the ’226 patent has been knowing, deliberate, and willful,
`
`beginning at least as early as the date Monterey filed the complaint in this action and therefore at least
`
`the date by which AMD knew of the ’226 patent and knew that its conduct constituted and resulted
`
`in infringement of the ’226 patent. AMD nonetheless has committed—and continues to commit—
`
`acts of direct and indirect infringement despite knowing that its actions constituted infringement of
`
`the valid and enforceable ’226 patent, despite a risk of infringement that was known or so obvious
`
`that it should have been known to AMD, and/or even though AMD otherwise knew or should have
`
`known that its actions constituted an unjustifiably high risk of infringement of that valid and
`
`enforceable patent. AMD’s conduct in light of these circumstances is egregious. AMD’s knowing,
`
`deliberate, and willful infringement of the ’226 patent entitles Monterey to increased damages under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 and to attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`285.
`
`herein.
`
`COUNT THREE
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’134 PATENT
`
`57. Monterey incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth
`
`58. Monterey is the assignee and lawful owner of all right, title, and interest in and to the
`
`’134 patent.
`
`59.
`
`60.
`
`The ’134 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`The ’134 patent generally concerns memory devices, and is more specifically related
`
`to non-interruptible burst read and write access features, as described in JEDEC standard JESD212
`
`GDDR5 SGRAM and similar versions of the JEDEC GDDRx standards.
`
`14
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0014
`
`

`

`61.
`
`The ʼ134 patent provides a faster and more efficient way for burst read and write
`
`access over conventional DRAM devices existing when the patent was filed in early 2000. A
`
`conventional DRAM may need an interrupt to perform data refreshes. Prior to the ʼ134 patent,
`
`DRAM memory devices had a burst mode that had the possibility of needing to continually perform
`
`interrupts to perform data refreshes.
`
`62.
`
`The ’134 patent teaches, among other things, a fixed burst memory that can have non-
`
`interruptible bursts, hide required DRAM refreshes inside a known fixed burst length, free up the
`
`address and control busses for multiple cycles, and operate at higher frequencies without needing
`
`interrupts to perform refreshes of data.
`
`63.
`
`AMD products use memory devices that are compliant with the JESD212 GDDR5
`
`SGRAM standard and similar versions of the JEDEC GDDRx standards that incorporate the
`
`innovations of the ʼ134 patent’s non-interruptible fixed burst length.
`
`64.
`
`AMD has directly infringed, and continues to directly infringe, one or more claims of
`
`the ’134 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), either literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents, by,
`
`among other things, making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing in or into the United
`
`States without authorization products covered by one or more claims of the ’134 patent, including,
`
`but not limited to, products that comply with the JEDEC standards JESD212 GDDR5 SGRAM and
`
`similar versions of the JEDEC GDDRx standards that use non-interruptible burst read or write
`
`operations, such as the Radeon RX 580 graphics card and other products in the Radeon, Radeon Pro,
`
`Embedded Radeon, Mobility Platforms, Instinct, FireStream, and the FirePro product families; the
`
`Neo and Liverpool graphics processors; other AMD semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and
`
`products that are compliant with the JESD212 GDDR5 SGRAM standard or similar versions; and all
`
`other semiconductor devices, integrated circuits, and products with similar infringing technology
`
`15
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0015
`
`

`

`(“the Accused ’134 Products”).
`
`65.
`
`As one non-limiting example, AMD infringes claim 1 of the ’134 patent since the
`
`AMD Radeon RX 580 semiconductor device contains DDR3 SGRAM memory controllers that
`
`operate in conformance with JEDEC’s DDR3 SGRAM standard. For example, the AMD Radeon
`
`RX 580 contains a circuit comprising:
`
`a.
`
`a memory comprising a plurality of storage elements (e.g., banks of storage
`
`elements of the Radeon RX 580);
`
`b.
`
`each configured to read and write data in response to an internal address
`
`signal (e.g., stored bits of memory bank addressed and defined by internal addresses of the Radeon
`
`RX 580);
`
`c.
`
`a logic circuit configured to generate a predetermined number of said
`
`internal address signals (e.g., generating addresses based on bank addresses, row addresses, and
`
`column addresses of the Radeon RX 580) in response to an external address signal (e.g., read
`
`and/or write signals of the Radeon RX 580), a clock signal (e.g., clock signal of the Radeon RX
`
`580), and one or more control signals (e.g., control signal of the Radeon RX 580);
`
`d.
`
`wherein said generation of said predetermined number of internal address
`
`signals is non-interruptible (e.g., burst reads or writes cannot be terminated or interrupted in the
`
`Radeon RX 580).
`
`66.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’134 patent applies to each Accused ’134 Product at least because each
`
`of those products either complies with the same JEDEC JESD212 GDDR5 SGRAM standard, or
`
`similar versions of the JEDEC standard, which result in infringing features (e.g., non-interruptible
`
`burst oriented read or write operations of the Accused ’134 Products) found in the JESD212 GDDR5
`
`SGRAM standard.
`
`16
`
`Patent Owner Monterey Research, LLC
`Ex. 2004, 0016
`
`

`

`67.
`
`AMD has induced infringement of, and continues to induce infringement of, one or
`
`more claims of the ’134 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), either literally and/or under the doctrine of
`
`equivalents, by, among other things, actively inducing others, including its customers, to make, use,
`
`sell, offer to sell, and/or import in or into the United States without authorization the Accused ’134
`
`Products, as well as products containing the same. AMD knowingly and intentionally instructs its
`
`customers, OEMs, foundry suppliers, distributors, and/or other third parties to infringe at least
`
`through user manuals, product documentation, and other materials, such as those located on AMD’s
`
`website at www.amd.com/en. A more specific non-limiting example includes the materials found on
`
`AMD’s website at www.amd.com/en/products/graphics/radeon-rx-580#product-specs.
`
`68.
`
`AMD has contributed to the infringement of, and continues to contribute to the
`
`infringement of, one or more claims of the ’134 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c