GSI Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: GSIT) today reported that the International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) has determined to review the initial determination of Chief Administrative Law Judge Charles E. Bullock in the patent litigation between GSI and Cypress Semiconductor Corp. pending before the ITC. The ITC remanded the case to Judge Bullock to consider arguments by GSI and the other respondents in the case that the patents at issue are invalid and unenforceable and to rule on these arguments prior to the Commission’s review.
The ITC investigation was instituted in July 2011 in response to a complaint filed by Cypress. Cypress’ complaint alleged that GSI products, including its Sigma DDR and SigmaQuad families of static random access memory (“SRAM”) products, infringe four Cypress patents and sought an order excluding the allegedly infringing SRAMs, and products containing them, from entry into the United States and permanent orders directing GSI and other respondents (a customer and a distributor) to cease and desist from selling these products in the United States. An evidentiary hearing before Judge Bullock took place in March 2012.
In his initial determination, issued on October 25, 2012, Judge Bullock held that the importation of GSI’s SRAM products, and products containing them, and the sale within the United States of such products, have not violated applicable federal law with respect to any of the four patents that Cypress had alleged were infringed. Because he found that the accused products do not infringe any of the asserted patent claims, Judge Bullock did not consider or rule on the additional arguments of GSI and the other respondents that the Cypress patents are invalid and unenforceable. Detailed findings in support of Judge Bullock’s determination were subsequently released.
On November 7, 2012, Cypress filed a petition for review of the initial determination by the full Commission, and GSI and the other respondents filed a contingent petition for review seeking a ruling on the invalidity and unenforceability arguments as well as additional bases for finding non-infringement.