The Latest in AT/IP: FTC Rules Against Rambus -- Lack of Disclosure Leads to Finding of Violation of the Sherman Act
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.02.06
The Federal Trade Commission has determined that Rambus, Inc. unlawfully monopolized the markets for four computer memory technologies that have been incorporated into industry standards for dynamic random access memory ("DRAM") chips. While participating in the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC), a standard-setting organization, Rambus failed to disclose to the organization or its members that it was actively working to develop, and possessed, a patent and several pending patent applications that involved specific technologies ultimately adopted in the standards. The FTC found that Rambus' omission constituted deceptive conduct sufficient to violate Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
In rendering its opinion, the FTC explained that members of standard-setting organizations have a good faith duty to disclose intellectual property rights, particularly where membership in an organization expressly requires such disclosure. The FTC held that where disclosure is required, non-disclosure of a patent followed by adoption of that patent into a standard and royalty demands by the non-disclosing patent owner was considered a "material omission" constituting a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act in addition to Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Appeals are expected.
For more information: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/08/rambus.htm
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 06.01.26
California Court Upholds Insurer’s Duty to Defend After Covered Claim Is Dismissed
On April 30, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a significant ruling in an insurance coverage dispute between a commercial general liability insurer and its policyholder. The decision addresses several critical issues in insurance law, including the scope and continuity of the duty to defend and the standard for insurer reimbursement of defense costs in mixed-claim actions. The court ruled largely in favor of the insured, SVO Building One, LLC ("SVO"), and the matter now heads toward settlement or trial on SVO's remaining counterclaims.
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.29.26
California Assembly Passes AB 1776, Sending Major Antitrust Bill to the Senate
Client Alert | 5 min read | 05.29.26
Clover Insurance v. HHS: S.D. of Georgia Holds 20 Star Ratings Measures Unlawful
Client Alert | 3 min read | 05.29.26
