Intel Accused of Infringing FinFET Patents of the Microelectronics Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences

erek

erek

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 19, 2005
Messages
10,900
"Today we are finding out that Intel has allegedly infringed FinFET patents of Microelectronics Institute of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. On July 28th, the patent review committee has heard an application that accuses Intel of violating a patent 201110240931.5 commonly referred to as FinFET patent. The patent dates back to 2011, and it comes from the Chinese Academy of Sciences, mainly Microelectronics Institute. The Chinese patent holders are asking for as much as 200 million yuan, which roughly translates to 28,664,380 US dollars. Given that this patent infringement is a major one for Intel, it is sure that a company will be pursued extensively in court. All of the Intel's semiconductors use FinFET technology, and if this is true, the violation is rather big. For more in detail reading, please refer to the source which goes through the history of Intel and Microelectronics Institute patent violation filing."

https://www.techpowerup.com/270586/...-institute-of-the-chinese-academy-of-sciences
 
This particular one does sound real and serious. We will probably be hearing about this for at least the next 10 years, unless Intel quickly and quietly pays and buries it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: erek
like this
ManofGod said:
This particular one does sound real and serious. We will probably be hearing about this for at least the next 10 years, unless Intel quickly and quietly pays and buries it.
Click to expand...
The only way the Chinese would know if they were infringing is if they stole the technology to know how Intel is doing it ;).

In all seriousness, Intel was rolling finfet chips off the assembly line in 2011... Same year as this "patent".... Would be hard to imagine they stole it and got it into production within months. More like this company patented an already existing thing. Finfet was invented a long time before the first chips rolled off the line. If this is arbitrated in a Chinese court I can imagine how fair the trial will be for a US based company. The first finfet was manufactured in Japan in 1989... So unless this is referring to a novel method of manufacturing that Intel stole years after they where manufacturing (aka, changes to a new method), I can't imagine this will get very far.

Edit:. Intel announced finfet in May, this patent was submitted in August. That's pretty magical if they managed to design and announce their product before this even submitted but still somehow managed to infringe on it. It seems this school/research facility wrote a broad patent that covered existing technology and with how stupid the parent system is, it gets approved like many others as long as the paperwork is in order. Approval doesn't mean it's enforceable, only the courts can decide that. This is why big companies have a huge advantage. They can afford the legal challenges and can afford to challenge others until they run out of money.
 
Last edited:
It’s a ruse, to defend itself Intel would have to walk them through in a public court on how it’s different during which time they could steel it. And if they don’t defend it they have to pay out Billions, it’s a loose loose that Intel will spend the next decade dealing with if it goes anywhere.
 
Lakados said:
It’s a ruse, to defend itself Intel would have to walk them through in a public court on how it’s different during which time they could steel it. And if they don’t defend it they have to pay out Billions, it’s a loose loose that Intel will spend the next decade dealing with if it goes anywhere.
Click to expand...
It's not billions, they are looking for 28 million USD. Who knows with patents, you end up with a judge and jury who know nothing about tech, as long as they use bug words and double speak they would have a chance of winning. Intel was already rolling chips off their assembly line before this patent was submitted... Would be hard to prove infringement I would think (at least in a US court).
 
This seems off, unless the Chinese patent system is retroactive? Like first company to think “oh man we should patent that” wins?
 
deruberhanyok said:
This seems off, unless the Chinese patent system is retroactive? Like first company to think “oh man we should patent that” wins?
Click to expand...
No, the patent system (US included) is just a paperwork farm. If your paperwork is good, patent issued. It's up to the patent holder to prove in court that their patent is legitimate. The patent office doesn't check on the validity or enforceability of the patent (for the most part). This is how apple is able to get a patent for icons with round edges that have been done by Xerox for 40 years. Then it's into the courts hands with jurors with zero clue about tech trying to make a decision on if a patent has prior work or if it is different enough and if the accused tech is infringing on the new patent.
 
Ready4Dis said:
No, the patent system (US included) is just a paperwork farm. If your paperwork is good, patent issued. It's up to the patent holder to prove in court that their patent is legitimate. The patent office doesn't check on the validity or enforceability of the patent (for the most part). This is how apple is able to get a patent for icons with round edges that have been done by Xerox for 40 years. Then it's into the courts hands with jurors with zero clue about tech trying to make a decision on if a patent has prior work or if it is different enough and if the accused tech is infringing on the new patent.
Click to expand...
You've got it backwards. If you have a issued patent, the presumption is that it is valid - and someone else has to prove it is invalid. The patent office does check on validity. They examine the patent application under the laws of the corresponding jurisdiction for subject matter eligibility, novelty, and obviousness (inventive step). Sometimes they do miss something - or the law changes later.

This is why during enforcement proceedings - invalidity is used as a strategic defense. non-patent holder has to prove invalidity.
 
Ready4Dis said:
It's a US patent... Chinese company filed in 3 countries (US being one of those).
Click to expand...
So? The Chinese constantly steal American IP. It might as well be their national pastime. Now I'm supposed to care if after decades of abuse against American companies that the same happens to a Chinese company.

LOL, please hold my drink so I don't spill any from laughing too hard.
 
sc5mu93 said:
You've got it backwards. If you have a issued patent, the presumption is that it is valid - and someone else has to prove it is invalid. The patent office does check on validity. They examine the patent application under the laws of the corresponding jurisdiction for subject matter eligibility, novelty, and obviousness (inventive step). Sometimes they do miss something - or the law changes later.

This is why during enforcement proceedings - invalidity is used as a strategic defense. non-patent holder has to prove invalidity.
Click to expand...
Maybe I misspoke, I was trying to say it's up to the patent holder to prove infringement. The other things brought up during proceedings is whether there is prior work which the defense would be trying to prove whole the patent holder would be trying to disprove/argue.

Edit:. I was being overly simplistic, they DO some minor checks but nothing extensive. They leave a lot for the courts to decide. They also miss a lot of things that would be obvious to a lot of people in said field. I've seen so many rediculous patents get approved, its hard to think they put much effort forth (and with little funding and an over abundance of filings, it's hard to put the blame soley on them).
 
TordanGow said:
So? The Chinese constantly steal American IP. It might as well be their national pastime. Now I'm supposed to care if after decades of abuse against American companies that the same happens to a Chinese company.

LOL, please hold my drink so I don't spill any from laughing too hard.
Click to expand...
I didn't ask anyone to care and I'm not holding your drink. I was simply clearing up miss information. Please feel free to laugh as much or as little as you feel.
 
Ready4Dis said:
It's not billions, they are looking for 28 million USD. Who knows with patents, you end up with a judge and jury who know nothing about tech, as long as they use bug words and double speak they would have a chance of winning. Intel was already rolling chips off their assembly line before this patent was submitted... Would be hard to prove infringement I would think (at least in a US court).
Click to expand...
28 Million... Intel may not even decide to fight that, I mean they will look it over to determine merit, but they could probably negotiate that down to a closed door settlement for less than 10.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Maybe I misspoke, I was trying to say it's up to the patent holder to prove infringement. The other things brought up during proceedings is whether there is prior work which the defense would be trying to prove whole the patent holder would be trying to disprove/argue.

Edit:. I was being overly simplistic, they DO some minor checks but nothing extensive. They leave a lot for the courts to decide. They also miss a lot of things that would be obvious to a lot of people in said field. I've seen so many rediculous patents get approved, its hard to think they put much effort forth (and with little funding and an over abundance of filings, it's hard to put the blame soley on them).
Click to expand...
I disagree. Patent examiners do quite a bit of work and argument for each case that comes across their desk. Backlogs aside, there is a reason it usually takes a long time for patents to issue - if at all.
In the US, Public PAIR provides you access to see the search terms that examiners use to find references that teach all of the features of the patent applications they review. I recognize it is not 100% exhaustive because that would be very difficult (especially when different languages are taken into account), but it is in no way a "minor check."
 
Lakados said:
28 Million... Intel may not even decide to fight that, I mean they will look it over to determine merit, but they could probably negotiate that down to a closed door settlement for less than 10.
Click to expand...
This would be my guess, but paying will just mean more will do so in the future.
 
sc5mu93 said:
I disagree. Patent examiners do quite a bit of work and argument for each case that comes across their desk. Backlogs aside, there is a reason it usually takes a long time for patents to issue - if at all.
In the US, Public PAIR provides you access to see the search terms that examiners use to find references that teach all of the features of the patent applications they review. I recognize it is not 100% exhaustive because that would be very difficult (especially when different languages are taken into account), but it is in no way a "minor check."
Click to expand...
Sure, they do some research, but it's people not in the field half the time that really don't know what they're even looking at. They have about 1 patent examiner per office, nowhere near sufficient enough to do true research. Again, I'm not saying it's their fault, just that it's not sufficient to do a good job 99% of the time.

"When a patent is challenged as invalid, district courts agree that it was in fact invalid 42.6% of the time."
https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/05/01/a-little-more-than-forty-percent/

Want to know when they are challenged? Mostly when the patent filer tries to sue. A quick Google search can find many research papers on the amount of invalid patents being approved. I don't work there and can only go by what I see, but from my view it looks as though more than a few are slipping through.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2426321
"Concerns regarding the Agency’s over-granting tendencies have recently spurred the Supreme Court to take a renewed interest in substantive patent law and have driven Congress to enact the first major patent reform act in over sixty years.". This was a few years back, the supreme court was tiring of the amount of bullshit patents, lol.
Qoute from the same research:. "Our findings not only provide policymakers with much needed evidence that the PTO is indeed granting too many invalid patents but also provide policymakers with the first empirical evidence that the Agency’s workload woes are biasing the PTO towards allowing patents."

Do a search and you can find tons of these examples, but when the supreme court and Congress finally see it... That means it's been happening for a long time.
 
This is what corporate legal department gets paid for. Nothing new about these things especially from academia. Either way it is decided in American court. It is arguably better than full time patent shrills.

Also China pays billions in US patent royalties, they could pay more but its not insubstantial. In the past and even now a lot of companies don't bother to patent stuff in China. I work for a top US bank in HK and I was recently talking to some of our AI research guys on a new product and they totally forgot about patenting it in China...and this is a bank that is spending billions to expand there.
 
Ready4Dis said:
Sure, they do some research, but it's people not in the field half the time that really don't know what they're even looking at. They have about 1 patent examiner per office, nowhere near sufficient enough to do true research. Again, I'm not saying it's their fault, just that it's not sufficient to do a good job 99% of the time.
Click to expand...
Categorically false. Quick wiki says 8,185 examiners at USPTO. 5 offices (DC, Detroit, Dallas, Denver, San Jose). That also doesn't involve international searching agents for PCT filed applications.

Ready4Dis said:
"When a patent is challenged as invalid, district courts agree that it was in fact invalid 42.6% of the time."
https://www.patentprogress.org/2018/05/01/a-little-more-than-forty-percent/

Want to know when they are challenged? Mostly when the patent filer tries to sue. A quick Google search can find many research papers on the amount of invalid patents being approved. I don't work there and can only go by what I see, but from my view it looks as though more than a few are slipping through.
Click to expand...
Patent applications are challenged most during the application process - also call "Examination." After grant, no one is going to spend the money to invalidate a patent if it is not being used offensively against them. So yeah - challenged most (in litigation) when patent filer tries to sue. As I said before - its a defensive strategy - the patent holder has the presumption of validity - and target has to seek invalidity to save themselves. But seriously 100% of patent applications are "challenged" during examination prior to grant. And this is not just a "minor check" as you described previously.

Ready4Dis said:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2426321
"Concerns regarding the Agency’s over-granting tendencies have recently spurred the Supreme Court to take a renewed interest in substantive patent law and have driven Congress to enact the first major patent reform act in over sixty years.". This was a few years back, the supreme court was tiring of the amount of bullshit patents, lol.
Qoute from the same research:. "Our findings not only provide policymakers with much needed evidence that the PTO is indeed granting too many invalid patents but also provide policymakers with the first empirical evidence that the Agency’s workload woes are biasing the PTO towards allowing patents."

Do a search and you can find tons of these examples, but when the supreme court and Congress finally see it... That means it's been happening for a long time.
Click to expand...
Do some make it through? Sure. Is it fool proof? Nope. As with all systems that involve humans, there will be error. That is why there are processes to correct it. AIA fixed some errors and introduced new ones. Just like the Alice decision regarding subject matter eligibility earlier this decade. Law is ALWAYS in a state of change.
 
1596483462137.png
 
Sounds to me like the move a few years back away from a "First Use" to a "First to File" system might have implications in this case.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sounds to me like the move a few years back away from a "First Use" to a "First to File" system might have implications in this case.
Click to expand...
for clarification, America Invents Act switched the USA from First to INVENT (not Use) to "First to File."
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
Sounds to me like the move a few years back away from a "First Use" to a "First to File" system might have implications in this case.
Click to expand...
Yup in a move that totally secure billion dollars corporation rights over literally everything because they can pay the patent fees without batting an eyelash just of ideas they come up with without actually seeing if they're feasible.
 
Ready4Dis said:
This would be my guess, but paying will just mean more will do so in the future.
Click to expand...
Depends who’s backing it, some times these suits aren’t so much of an actual lawsuit but a cost of doing big business in China... So think of it more as a government sanctioned shakedown.
 
Delicieuxz said:
Which countries filed the most tech patents in various categories, per year:

View attachment 267035

https://vdata.nikkei.com/en/newsgraphics/patent-wars/
Click to expand...
I did some research into this a while back, and while true Chinese entities have been filing more in the tech space, what is interesting is how local they are. When I looked into it, only about 5% of all Chinese national first filings are filed anywhere else. Compared to approximately 60% of US first filings get filed elsewhere.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top