“We remain confident in our position on the merits of the case and look forward to prevailing at the trial in March,” said Shu. “In fact," he added, "on January 19, 2012, we filed motions for summary determination seeking a pre-trial ruling that GSI and the other respondents do not infringe any of the Cypress patents asserted against them.”About GSI Technology Founded in 1995, GSI Technology, Inc. is a leading provider of high performance static random access memory, or SRAM, products primarily incorporated in networking and telecommunications equipment. Headquartered in Sunnyvale, California, GSI Technology is ISO 9001 certified and has worldwide factory and sales locations. For more information, please visit www.gsitechnology.com.
GSI Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: GSIT) today responded to Cypress Semiconductor Corp.’s January 18, 2012 press release regarding the status of pending patent litigation between the two companies. Lee-Lean Shu, GSI’s President and CEO, noted, “In its most recent press release, Cypress has once again chosen to make misleading statements in the press rather than fight the lawsuit on the merits before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Their press release states: 'Cypress expands its patent infringement complaint.' In truth," said Shu, "contrary to Cypress’ report, the judge in the ITC proceeding specifically denied Cypress’ request to expand its complaint – Order No. 20: Denying Complainant Cypress Semiconductor Corp.’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint (dated January 4, 2012). Further, the only recent order allowing the expansion of the pleadings in the proceeding was an order allowing GSI to amend its responsive pleading – Order No. 22: Granting Respondents’ Motion for Leave to Amend Their Responses to the Second Amended Complaint and Notice of Investigation (dated January 9, 2012). “The facts are that GSI has had a remarkable series of victories during the pre-trial phase of the ITC proceeding,” continued Shu. "In another recent order, for example, the judge also denied a motion by Cypress that would have expanded the scope of Cypress’ discovery. In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has issued initial office actions rejecting a number of claims of the Cypress patents as invalid on the basis of prior art, as GSI announced in November." “It continues to be Cypress’ strategy to attempt to intimidate customers and prospective purchasers of GSI’s technologically superior products by making misleading statements about developments in the patent litigation,” said Didier Lasserre, GSI’s Vice President of Worldwide Sales. “As the March 2012 trial date approaches, Cypress seems to be ratcheting up these efforts,” he added.