Recommended Free Tools
Hitachi’s reply to Rambus was a counteraction in a patent-infringement dispute, not a separate regulatory complaint. Hitachi alleged that Rambus had used information from JEDEC standards work without making disclosures required by JEDEC rules, then used patents and licensing demands to restrict competition in synchronous-memory technology. The companies settled their dispute in June 2000; their settlement did not resolve the broader questions later addressed in Federal Trade Commission proceedings.
What did Hitachi accuse Rambus of doing?
Rambus sued Hitachi on January 18, 2000, alleging infringement of chip-timing patents. On March 24, Hitachi filed a federal-court counteraction alleging Sherman Act violations, patent invalidity, and misuse of information obtained through participation in JEDEC, the standards organization involved in developing synchronous-memory specifications. Hitachi also sought to transfer the case to Northern California.
Hitachi’s allegations linked Rambus’s standards participation to its patent and licensing strategy. Hitachi argued that Rambus learned about proposed synchronous-memory standards at JEDEC meetings, then revised or prepared patent applications to cover technology under discussion without making disclosures Hitachi said the JEDEC rules required. It also argued that Rambus’s licensing terms could require chip companies to license additional technology and that Rambus’s lawsuits threatened to make its technology the dominant—or sole—standard for synchronous DRAM.
In its brief, Hitachi put the competitive concern this way: “If Rambus has its way, there will be no competition in the technology market for synchronous DRAM technology.” That was Hitachi’s contention, not a finding made in the case.
Why did Hitachi invoke antitrust law?
Hitachi’s theory was that the alleged nondisclosure mattered beyond a private disagreement over patent rights. If a company participating in a standards process withheld relevant patent information, and the standards process then selected technology covered by those patents, the company could later seek royalties from businesses that had adopted the standard. Hitachi argued that Rambus’s asserted patents, licensing demands, and infringement lawsuits could therefore undermine competition in the market for synchronous-memory technology.
The dispute turned on several connected questions:
- Patent validity and priority: Were Rambus’s patent claims valid, or could Hitachi defeat them on patent-law grounds?
- JEDEC disclosure duties: What information did JEDEC rules require participants to disclose, and did those duties apply to Rambus’s patents or applications?
- Effect on standards adoption: Did any alleged nondisclosure affect which technology JEDEC selected?
- Competitive harm: Did Rambus’s licensing and litigation strategy restrict competition or give it excessive power over technology used in synchronous DRAM?
- Remedy: What relief, if any, was appropriate under patent law or the Sherman Act?
Hitachi’s counteraction alleged a theory; it did not establish that Rambus violated JEDEC rules or antitrust law. The parties settled before the merits of their individual dispute were resolved in a judgment.
Rank #2
- Lawyer Gifts For Men Women -- Perfect lawyer gift for women and men, future lawyer, new Attorney, Paralegal, it’s ideal for birthdays, Christmas, or even as a law school graduation gift. law school supplies, gifts for lawyers.
- Attorney Bookmarks For Women -- The Perfect Bookmark for Aspiring Legal Minds.It's a meaningful gift to show your appreciation and encouragement for those Attorney in life. Because every great lawyer was once just… in progress!
- Law School Graduation Gifts -- A great law student gift or law school graduation gift, it’s also ideal for paralegals and future lawyers who appreciate a touch of legal humor. It comes with a gift packaging box, ready for giving.
- Paralegal Gifts/Law Student Gifts -- A fun yet functional gift for paralegal, lawyers students, this attorney bookmark is a thoughtful reminder of their journey. Made of high quality stainless steel, sturdy and durable.
- Future Lawyer Bookmark Gifts -- Meaningful gifts for hardworking law student or future attorney, because every page turned brings them closer to their dream! If you have any questions about this bookmarks just contact us at any time.
What happened to the Hitachi–Rambus lawsuit?
Hitachi and Rambus announced on June 23, 2000, that they had settled their legal dispute. The settlement ended their individual litigation, but the available account does not state its terms. It should not be treated as a ruling that either side’s allegations were correct.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How did the later FTC proceedings relate to Hitachi’s allegations?
The Federal Trade Commission later pursued a related theory about Rambus’s participation in JEDEC and the effect of alleged nondisclosure on SDRAM-related markets. That was a separate regulatory proceeding, and its findings changed as the case moved through different stages.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minute| Date | Procedural event | What it established |
|---|---|---|
| January 18, 2000 | Rambus sued Hitachi over alleged infringement of chip-timing patents. | The start of the companies’ patent dispute. |
| March 24, 2000 | Hitachi filed its counteraction, alleging Sherman Act violations, patent invalidity, and misuse of information obtained through JEDEC participation; it also sought transfer to Northern California. | Hitachi’s allegations and requested venue change, not a court finding. |
| June 23, 2000 | The companies announced a settlement. | Their individual dispute was settled; the settlement terms are not stated here. |
| June 19, 2002 | The FTC filed an administrative complaint alleging that Rambus deceived JEDEC and obtained anticompetitive advantages in SDRAM-related markets. | The FTC’s allegations in a separate proceeding. |
| February 2004 | An FTC administrative law judge issued an initial decision dismissing the complaint. | The judge found the alleged deception and antitrust theories unproved at that stage. |
| August 2006 | The FTC announced a contrary Commission finding that Rambus had unlawfully obtained monopoly power through concealment connected to JEDEC standards. | A Commission finding that differed from the 2004 initial decision. |
| February 2007 | The FTC issued a final opinion and order describing allegations that Rambus withheld patent and application information during JEDEC standard-setting. | A later procedural stage of the FTC case, not part of the settled Hitachi–Rambus lawsuit. |
In 2002, FTC Bureau of Competition Director Joseph J. Simons summarized the agency’s concern: “If you take part in a standards process, be mindful to abide by the ground rules and to participate in good faith.” The later FTC actions concern the agency’s own case; they do not retroactively turn Hitachi’s 2000 allegations into findings in Hitachi’s lawsuit.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- Built-in Storage Tray Keeps Essentials Organized: The integrated tray on the base holds pens, sticky notes, earbuds and reading glasses within arm's reach, helping you avoid searching for supplies while cooking or studying and keeping your desk or kitchen counter tidy and accessible
- 360° Rotation Base with Secure Page Clips: Spring-loaded clips hold cookbooks, textbooks and magazines firmly open for hands-free use while cooking, studying or typing; the 360-degree rotating base with adjustable height and angle helps you find a comfortable viewing position and reduces neck strain from holding heavy books
- Sturdy Metal Frame for Cookbooks, Tablets & 13" Laptops: Made of premium metal construction for strong stability, the stand securely holds thick cookbooks, tablets and up to 13-inch laptops; non-slip base pads keep it steady on kitchen counters, office desks and bedside tables during page turns and typing
- Ready to Use in Seconds & No Assembly Required: Pull it out of the box and start reading immediately. Folds flat to just 1.9" for easy storage in drawers or bookshelves when not in use. Great for dorms, small apartments, or anyone who hates complicated setup
- Rounded Edges and Non-Slip Base for Safe Daily Use: Smooth rounded edges protect hands and surfaces from scratches; non-slip silicone pads keep the stand firmly in place on countertops and desks, and it is built for long-lasting daily use in kitchens, offices and classrooms
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
