`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 106-3 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 3 Page|D# 15429
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NVIDIA Receives Favorable Ruling from ITC in Patent Dispute with Samsung, Qualcomm | NVIDIA Blog
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 106-3 Filed 04/24/15 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 15430
`
`BLOG
`
`Home
`
`Auto
`
`Corporate
`
`Gaming
`
`Mobile
`
`Enterprise
`
`Cloud
`
`Share
`
`10 Comments
`
`(cid:31)
`
`(cid:31)616
`
`CORPORATE
`NVIDIA Receives Favorable Ruling from ITC
` in Patent Dispute with Samsung, Qualcomm
`
`By David Shannon on April 6, 2015
`
`The judge presiding over our patent case against Samsung and Qualcomm in the U.S. International Trade
` Commission has returned a pretrial claim construction ruling that favors NVIDIA’s preferred construction on
` nearly all of the claims that were disputed.
`
`This pretrial decision, known as a Markman ruling, is the judge’s determination of the meaning and scope of
` the patent claims. Markman hearings are used in patent cases to define disputed terms of patents before a
` case goes to trial. This is an important step in determining whether Samsung and Qualcomm infringe NVIDIA’s
` asserted patents.
`
`Administrative Law Judge Thomas Pender has now determined what the claim language will mean for the
` hearing and his ultimate decision on the merits of the case.
`
`We’re very pleased with the outcome of the ruling, in which claim constructions favorable to NVIDIA will be
` applied to six out of seven disputed claims when the judge considers the question of Samsung’s and
` Qualcomm’s infringement. This further strengthens the patents we have asserted, and we look forward to a
` full hearing in late June.
`
`As I explained in September when we announced this action, this is the first time in NVIDIA’s 22-year history
` that we have initiated a patent suit. Our 7,000 issued and pending patents include inventions vital to modern
` computing. We have chosen seven of those patents to assert in the ITC case.
`
`Meanwhile, there has been a small development in a related case, in which Samsung sued us and one of our
`
`http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/06/itc-favorable-ruling/[4/23/2015 1:16:12 PM]
`
`
`
`NVIDIA Receives Favorable Ruling from ITC in Patent Dispute with Samsung, Qualcomm | NVIDIA Blog
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 106-3 Filed 04/24/15 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 15431
` customers in Virginia. The judge there has denied our request to move the case to California. This has no
` bearing on the substance of Samsung’s case or Samsung’s asserted patents. We continue to believe Samsung’s
` claims have no merit, and that Samsung’s effort to sue a small company selling NVIDIA-based products in
` Virginia is entirely unwarranted.
`
`Categories: Corporate
`
`Similar Stories
`
`Data in the Fast Lane:
`
`Why Every Day’s Earth
`
`NVIDIA Wins Coveted
`
`NVIDIA Awards $25,000
`
`http://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2015/04/06/itc-favorable-ruling/[4/23/2015 1:16:12 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
