`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 106-1 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 15422
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Two Latest Developments in Our Patent Dispute with Samsung | The Official NVIDIA Blog
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 106-1 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 15423
`
`BLOG
`
`Home
`
`Auto
`
`Corporate
`
`Gaming
`
`Mobile
`
`Enterprise
`
`Cloud
`
`9 Comments
`
`
`
`2547
`
`
`
`
`
`Share
`
`
`
`CORPORATE
`Two Latest Developments in Our Patent
` Dispute with Samsung
`
`By David Shannon on April 16, 2015
`
`We said we’d keep you updated on the progress of our patent dispute against Samsung, so let me share with
` you several recent developments.
`
`Let’s start with a quick recap.
`
`Back in September, in the first IP lawsuit NVIDIA has initiated since our founding more than two decades ago,
` we sued Samsung and Qualcomm in the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. District Court in
` Delaware for using our GPU patents without fairly compensating us. (See a fuller description of the cases here
` and here.)
`
`Our case in the ITC is scheduled for hearing in late June 2015, and we got a positive sign earlier this month in
` a pretrial decision – known as a Markman ruling – in which the presiding judge ruled in favor of NVIDIA’s
` preferred construction of nearly all of the disputed language in our claims. In this case, we’re asking the U.S.
` to block imports of certain Galaxy phones and tablets – including Samsung’s newly shipping Galaxy S6 and
` Edge – into the U.S.
`
`Samsung had subsequently sued us in the ITC, as well as in U.S. District Court in Virginia – known as the
` “rocket docket” for its very fast time to trial.
`
`Two things have happened in recent days that are worth being aware of.
`
`First, we have now countersued Samsung in the U.S. District Court in Virginia, citing four graphics patents
`
`http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/16/update-patent-samsung/[4/23/2015 1:19:11 PM]
`
`
`
`Two Latest Developments in Our Patent Dispute with Samsung | The Official NVIDIA Blog
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 106-1 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 15424
` beyond the seven cited in the ITC and Delaware cases. (The four patents are described in our latest filing
` here.) These newly asserted patents in our countersuit are scheduled to be decided at the same time as
` Samsung’s case against us.
`
`And, second, U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne has set a date of Jan. 11, 2016, for the trial to begin in
` Virginia. This will focus on Samsung’s asserted six patents against NVIDIA, and two patents against our
` customer Velocity Micro, as well as on our four patents asserted against Samsung.
`
`NVIDIA has spent more than $9 billion in R&D since 1993 when we began to create what is now 7,000 patent
` assets comprising the richest portfolio of graphics IP in the world. Our IP strategy is to earn an appropriate
` return on our investment by licensing our graphics cores or by licensing our patents. Samsung’s unwillingness
` to negotiate forced us to go to the courts.
`
`There will likely be more legal back and forth in the months ahead in these very important cases, and we’ll do
` our best to keep you informed.
`
`Categories: Corporate
`
`Similar Stories
`
`http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/16/update-patent-samsung/[4/23/2015 1:19:11 PM]
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
