AMD Files Patent Infringement Complaint Against LG, MediaTek, Sigma Designs, and Vizio


Late last month, AMD filed a legal complaint against a number of companies accusing them of infringing its patents covering graphics processing technologies. The company requested the United States International Trade Commission (US ITC) to investigate the matter and, if the ITC finds in their favor, ban products based on chips that infringe on AMD’s intellectual property rights.

In its complaint, AMD asserts that products by LG, MediaTek, Sigma Designs and Vizio infringe three patents, two of which were originally filed by ATI Technologies (which AMD acquired in 2006) in early 2000s and one filed by AMD itself. The patents in question cover fundamental aspects of contemporary graphics processing, such unified shaders (‘133), parallel pipeline graphics system (‘506), as well as a graphics processing architecture employing unified shaders (‘454). In addition, the lawsuit mentions an in-progress patent application covering GPU architectures with unified shaders (‘967) that is also claimed to be infringed by two of the defendants.

Notably, all the defendants license their GPU technologies from third party developers such as ARM and Imagination. As case law involving IP infringement is generally weak – it’s more difficult to sue over ideas as opposed to physical products – AMD is going after product manufacturers instead. As a result, instead of accusing IP vendor ARM of using its intellectual property, AMD is taking a legal action against MediaTek, LG, Sigma and Vizio, all of whom either make chips that AMD believes use their IP, or use said chips as part of finished consumer goods.

Overall the case draws some immediate parallels with a case filled by NVIDIA in the latter part of 2014, where the company filed complaints with the US ITC over accused patent infringement by Qualcomm and Samsung. Like AMD’s case, the core issue was over GPU patents that NVIDIA believed the companies’ products were violating. A side issue in the case that NVIDIA was also trying to get addressed was to figure out who is responsible for patent infringement in devices like smartphones: the handset manufacturer, or the SoC manufacturer. It was a case that NVIDIA essentially lost; the companies settled, but only after Samsung’s counter-suit was more successful in court than NVIDIA’s original suit. That the case was settled out of court also means that there is no significant legal precedent to come out of the case.

As for the AMD case, diving deeper into matters, one of the allegedly infringing products is MediaTek’s Helio P10 SoC for smartphones, which is used by certain handsets from LG (e.g., LG X Power). The chip features the Mali T860MP2 GPU licensed from ARM and is not developed by MediaTek itself. Another SoC that allegedly infringes AMD’s patents is Sigma’s SX7 (STV7701) SoC for UHD TVs with HDR support. Details on this SoC are harder to come by, but at a high level this chip appears to use an ARM-developed quad-cluster GPU. Downstream, Vizio uses the SX7 SoC for its advanced televisions, which is why they are one of the defendants in the complaint.

Importantly, AMD’s complaint also states that the infringement is not limited to the named products, but rather that AMD is naming them as examples of infringement. The case could ultimately go beyond the two SoCs, one smartphone, and several TVs (including LG’s 49UH6500 and Vizio’s E43U-D2) named, depending on which side any rulings favor.

AMD claims that the aforementioned SoCs and products not only infringe on its intellectual property, but that those products also damage legitimate licensees of AMD’s IP. To support the claim, AMD made one interesting disclosure: Samsung and GlobalFoundries have licensed its intellectual property covered by the ‘506, ‘454 and ‘133 patents, as well as the ‘967 application. The former has rights to use the IP in its Exynos mobile SoCs (up to 10-nm Exynos 8 Octa 8895 that uses an ARM Mali GPU), whereas the latter has rights to manufacture the appropriate chips.

The List of AMD’s Patents Allegedly Infringed by Defendants
Patent Name Abstract Description Asserted Claims Filing Date Infringing
IC Products*
7,633,506 Parallel pipeline graphics system The parallel pipeline graphics system includes a back-end configured to receive primitives and combinations of primitives (i.e., geometry) and process the geometry to produce values to place in a frame buffer for rendering on screen. 1-9 November 26, 2003 MediaTek Helio P10


7,796,133 Unified shader A unified shader unit used in texture processing in graphics processing device. Unlike the conventional method of using one shader for texture coordinate shading and another for color shading, the present shader performs both operations. 1-13 and 40 December 8, 2003
8,760,454 Graphics processing architecture employing a unified shader A GPU that uses unified shaders 2 – 11 May 17, 2011 MediaTek Helio P10
Patent Application 14/614,967 1-8 June 27, 2016
*The list of infringing products is not limited to two ICs.

In fact, one big unknown right now is just which GPU architectures AMD believes to infringe on their IP. The two named SoCs are ARM Mali based, and given the patents involved (e.g. unified shaders) it looks like AMD takes issue with ARM’s Midgard architecture in particular. Midgard itself is a few years old now, and while it will be shipping in products for years to come, it’s interesting to note that ARM has already released designs based around their new Bifrost architecture, which is radically different from Midgard.

Meanwhile not named in any of the complaints are chips using any generation of Imagination’s PowerVR architectures. As MediaTek is known to use both ARM and Imagination GPU designs – and because AMD is only listing a couple of chips as examples – it’s not clear in AMD’s complaint whether they consider PowerVR to be infringing. However an important clue lies in the fact that in listing the SoCs Samsung is licensed to make, only SoCs using ARM GPUs are mentioned. As a result, our best guess is that this complaint is solely about ARM’s GPU IP.

Looking at the broader picture and possible motivations for why AMD would bring this complaint up now, AMD announced plans to monetize its IP portfolio in late 2014 in a bid to secure new revenue streams and improve overall profitability. As part of the effort, the company inked a deal with Tianjin Haiguang Advanced Technology Investment Co., Ltd (THATIC), who is an investment arm of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, regarding the development of server SoCs last year. Apparently, in addition to finding partners like THATIC, AMD has approached certain technology companies that ship products based on technologies developed by third parties (e.g., ARM) in regards to patent licensing. AMD says that it has already “enforced” its “intellectual property rights” against Samsung and LG and the new family of lawsuits against the latter is a continuation of these efforts.

The AMD complaint requests the US ITC to issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order to stop the infringing products from being imported and sold in the U.S. If the commission finds that the defendants do infringe on AMD’s patents and decides to ban them from the U.S., multiple product lines of LG and Vizio would be affected.

AMD is not a company that goes to court often and it is not a company that brings its litigations to the public attention, which is part of the reason this is only coming to light now. Back in 2005, the chip designer sued Intel alleging the latter of multiple wrongdoings that harmed AMD’s business in the 1990s and the early 2000s, but that was the only public legal process that AMD was involved into in the recent years. By contrast, the legal proceedings against Samsung and LG in the recent years went unnoticed. This also significantly contrasts with NVIDIA, which was quite vocal and public about their 2014 suit against Qualcomm and Samsung.

The litigation against MediaTek, LG, Sigma Designs, and Vizio will not attract as much attention as the AMD vs. Intel fight, but it certainly marks a rare situation when AMD goes to court on the offensive. In the meantime this will be a case worth watching. As AMD already has a license agreement with a major SoC manufacturer (Samsung) in place, it means they aren’t facing an entirely uphill battle. Still, barring an early out of court settlement, it may take years for this case to be fully resolved.


AMD wants some LG, Vizio products banned in US as part of patent infringement complaint

AMD wants some LG, Vizio products banned in US as part of patent infringement complaint

We’re used to hearing about patent infringement cases in the tech world, but recent years have seen most of these high-profile lawsuits involve Apple and Samsung. Now, semiconductor manufacturer AMD has filed a patent complaint. The firm has requested the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) investigate claims that several companies infringed its graphics processing patents.

The complaint, which was filed last month, accuses MediaTek, LG, Vizio, and Sigma Designs of manufacturing products that infringe on two patents filed by ATI (acquired by AMD in 2006) and one from AMD itself. The infringements relate to technologies such as unified shaders, graphics processing architecture, and parallel pipeline graphics systems.

As reported by Anandtech, the unusual part of this complaint is that these companies license their GPU tech from third party developers like Imagination and ARM. But, given that it’s easier to sue over physical products than ideas, AMD is suing the manufacturers instead.

Some of the alleged infringing products include MediaTek’s Helio P10 SoC that’s used in certain LG smartphones, such as the LG X Power, as well as Sigma’s SX7 (STV7701) SoC for UHD TVs with HDR support, which is used by Vizio in its high-end televisions.

AMD points out that both Samsung and GlobalFoundries have licensed its IPs covered by the patents in question. The company states that anyone infringing on its patents damages legitimate licensees of AMD intellectual property.

AMD wants the infringing devices banned from import and sale in the US, which would affect multiple products from LG and Vizio. Expect this case to spend quite a few years in the courts.


AMD hits LG, Vizio products with patent infringement


AMD filed the claim last month, saying that the four companies are manufacturing products that infringe on two patents filed by ATI, and one owned by AMD as well. The patent infringements claim that the companies are infringements with unified shaders, graphics processing architecture, and parallel pipeline graphics systems.

An interesting take on AMD’s pursuit is that MediaTek, LG, Vizio, and Sigma Designs normally license their GPU technology from third-party companies like Imagination and ARM. AMD is now suing the manufacturers direct, versus the physical products that the companies are making. AMD is alleging that the infringed products include MediaTek’s Helio P10 processor that powers a few LG smartphones, while the Sigma Design SX7 (STV7701) processor for 4K TVs with HDR support, something Vizio uses inside of their high-end TVs.

AMD also makes a note about Samsung and GlobalFoundries having licensed the IP covered by the infringed patents, continuing that anyone infringing on its patents damages the legitimate licensees of AMD’s IP. AMD is aiming for the infringing devices banned from import and sale in the US, which would affect many different products between LG and Vizio


Oculus Ordered to Pay $500 Million in ZeniMax Copyright Infringement Case

Oculus Ordered to Pay $500 Million in ZeniMax Copyright Infringement Case
A US jury Wednesday ordered Facebook and creators of its Oculus Rift to pay $500 million (roughly Rs. 3,370 crores) to gaming software firm ZeniMax in a lawsuit that claimed the virtual reality technology was stolen.

The Texas jury made the award in a trial in which Oculus was accused of basing its Rift headset on technology stolen from ZeniMax’s virtual reality software, court documents showed.

The lawsuit claimed Oculus founder Palmer Luckey and his colleagues developed the virtual reality gear using source code illegally obtained from the gaming firm.

The jury dismissed the charge that Oculus stole or misappropriated trade secrets but found Oculus liable for copyright infringement and other violations.

Luckey was ordered to pay $50 million of the award and another former Oculus executive, Brendan Iribe $150 million.

The two executives were accused of violating a non-disclosure agreement with ZeniMax and copying the source code and other documents on a USB storage device.

ZeniMax had sought $4 billion in damages in the case, in which Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg testified to defend his company.

ZeniMax pleased, Oculus appeals
Maryland-based ZeniMax said it was “pleased” about the award for “unlawful infringement of our copyrights and trademarks, and for the violation of our non-disclosure agreement with Oculus pursuant to which we shared breakthrough VR technology that we had developed and that we exclusively own.”

Robert Altman, ZeniMax’s chairman and chief executive, said in the statement: “Technology is the foundation of our business and we consider the theft of our intellectual property to be a serious matter.”

In its statement, Oculus said: “The heart of this case was about whether Oculus stole ZeniMax’s trade secrets, and the jury found decisively in our favor.”
Oculus said it plans to appeal the verdict and was “undeterred” in its efforts to bring virtual reality technology to consumers.

“Our commitment to the long-term success of VR remains the same, and the entire team will continue the work they’ve done since day one – developing VR technology that will transform the way people interact and communicate,” the Oculus statement said.

“We look forward to filing our appeal and eventually putting this litigation behind us.”

Facebook acquired Oculus in 2014 for more than $2 billion and last year began selling the Rift headsets as part of the social network’s push into virtual reality.

According to the ZeniMax allegations, the four founders of Oculus had no expertise or backgrounds in VR other than Palmer Luckey.

But ZeniMax said Luckey “could not code the software that was the key to solving the issues of VR.”

The ZeniMax statement added that “we will consider what further steps we need to take to ensure there will be no ongoing use of our misappropriated technology, including by seeking an injunction to restrain Oculus and Facebook from their ongoing use of computer code that the jury found infringed Zenimax’s copyrights.”

The news came as Facebook was releasing its earnings for the fourth quarter.

Zuckerberg, in his opening statement to analysts, sad Facebook would “keep making big investments in VR content, and I am excited about what is coming in 2017 from games to more immersive experiences.”

Tags: Facebook, Oculus Rift, ZeniMax, Oculus ZeniMax Trial, Wearables, Social, Entertainment, Gaming