ITC rules that Samsung and Qualcomm did not infringe on NVIDIA's GPU patents

ITC rules that Samsung and Qualcomm did not infringe on NVIDIA's GPU patents
The ITC has ruled that Samsung and Qualcomm did not infringe on patents owned by chipmaker NVIDIA. The suit was filed last year, and revolves around patents on GPU chips owned by NVIDIA. The latter took the issue to the ITC, requesting that Samsung devices using Qualcomm's Adreno graphic processor, ARM's Mali GPU, or Power VR's graphics design be banned from sale in the U.S.

Judge Thomas Pender said that Samsung did not infringe on a couple of NVIDIA's patents, but did infringe on a third. However, the judge ruled that patent to be invalid because it was not considered a new invention. NVIDIA developed the first graphics processing chip, and started marketing it back in 1999. The company claims that it should have been paid licensing fees by both Samsung and Qualcomm.

Qualcomm includes the Adreno GPU with its Snapdragon chipsets, used on smartphones including several Samsung models. Samsung is said to be working on its own GPU which might be employed on its Exynos chipsets as soon as 2017. Currently, Samsung uses ARM's Mali GPUs on its Exynos chips.

source: Reuters



1. shahrooz

Posts: 792; Member since: Sep 17, 2013

less patent trolling == a better world for us

5. hemedans

Posts: 760; Member since: Jun 01, 2013

More copycat = less innovation =more core and ram

9. tedkord

Posts: 17418; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

True. Fortunately, per the judges ruling, there was no copying here.

12. vincelongman

Posts: 5730; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

According to the Judge there was copying on one patent, but the judge ruled that patent to be invalid Nvidia did "invent" the "GPU" with their GeForce 256 in 1999 Before Nvidia's "GPU" there were separate graphics chips and coprocessors Nvidia basically integrated them into one "Graphics Processing Unit" Which is why Judge Thomas Pender said "Samsung did not infringe two Nvidia patents, and while it did infringe a third, he ruled that patent is invalid because it was not a new invention compared with previously known patents." IMO there was no copying because Samsung's Exynos are "SoC" Which are CPU, GPU and memory all integrated in one chip, very different to Nvidia's GPU patent But I'm no lawyer

14. willard12 unregistered

From my understanding Exynos was not in question. Samsung was named in the suit because their devices were using a Qualcomm GPU that nvidia claimed infringed. So, nvidia sued both. I could be wrong.

19. vincelongman

Posts: 5730; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

PA got it wrong, check the source Nvidia only tried to sue Samsung It was for using SoCs with Qualcomm GPUs (in Snapdragon SoCs), ARM GPUs (in Exynos SoCs) and Imagination GPUs (in Exynos SoCs)

11. hung2900

Posts: 966; Member since: Mar 02, 2012

I dont know why nVIDIA sue Apple for using imagination's GPu also. And not other manufacturer using Qualcomm's SoC I smell some rotten fruit.

15. xtremesv

Posts: 299; Member since: Oct 21, 2011

Perhaps Apple already paid royalties to Nvidia but with this ruling no more.

18. vincelongman

Posts: 5730; Member since: Feb 10, 2013

I highly doubt it This patent is on the GPU, so basically every OEM for computers, phones, tablets, game consoles, ... would have to pay, but I've never heard of any of them paying royalties for this patent

20. xondk

Posts: 1904; Member since: Mar 25, 2014

True, but not entirely a lot of innovation builds on existing technology, and with the enormous amount of patents of late, it quickly becomes near insane, because a lot of times people can come up with something on their own, that is the same as others have come up with, but even if they use it in a new way, or use it as just a part of something it would be infringing, patents are needed but its become far too convoluted.

6. combatmedic870

Posts: 986; Member since: Sep 02, 2015

Well if it's a valid claim then it is. Patents are made for a reason and actually help push innovation. Imagine if you wanted to utilize something patented. The company that owns the patents says no. Soooo you go and create your own(without violating patents) but it's better faster, smaller, lighter and actually cheaper to produce.

10. Finalflash

Posts: 4063; Member since: Jul 23, 2013

Yea, "imagine" being the keyword there. Because your little dream does not exist in reality. It goes more along the following lines: Person invents something. Bigger troll corporation thinks its vague patent filed years ago and stored in their patent vault very very vaguely resembles your invention. Troll sues inventor and drowns him in legal costs forcing a settlement. Troll wins, inventor dies of cancer.

13. xdza1979

Posts: 296; Member since: Aug 08, 2015

Apple next.

2. Dude2014

Posts: 448; Member since: Feb 12, 2014

If Nvidia was Apple, that would be a different story.

7. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

If They Didn't Infringe Then They Didn't, Wouldn't Matter Who Filed The Suit.

3. AnTuTu

Posts: 1620; Member since: Oct 14, 2012

In your face Nvidia hahaha

4. blazee

Posts: 414; Member since: Jan 02, 2012

"However, the judge ruled that patent to be invalid because it was not considered a new invention." How does apple get away suing companies, using patents that are not new inventions??

8. Arch_Fiend

Posts: 3951; Member since: Oct 03, 2015

Paying Off The Judge Of Course.

16. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Took the words right out of my mouths. I think Apple contribution in campaign funding might have help impressively.

17. hanabi

Posts: 177; Member since: Oct 08, 2015

that's why they sue others in california

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.