On a related matter, Mr. Shu noted that, “as previously announced, we expect to receive the initial determination of the administrative law judge in the pending International Trade Commission proceeding, also involving Cypress, in late July. We continue to believe that the evidence presented in that proceeding clearly supported our position that GSI has infringed no valid Cypress patents.”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) announced today that on Friday, July 6, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in San Jose issued a decision upholding the sufficiency of the antitrust claims asserted by GSI in its Complaint against Cypress Semiconductor Corporation. The Complaint, filed on July 22, 2011, charges Cypress with conducting an unlawful combination and conspiracy, by and through the QDR Consortium, to exclude GSI and other competitors from the market for high-performance static random access memory (SRAM) devices known as fast synchronous Quad Data Rate (or QDR) SRAMs and Double Data Rate (or DDR) SRAMs. Cypress had moved to dismiss the Complaint arguing that the claims asserted by GSI failed to state a claim under federal or state antitrust laws. In its decision, the Court rejected virtually all of Cypress’ arguments. The Court held that GSI’s Complaint adequately alleges that the anti-competitive, collusive and conspiratorial conduct of Cypress and certain co-conspirators violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act and also constitutes unlawful restraints of trade and unfair competition under applicable provisions of California law. The Complaint seeks treble damages, in an amount to be determined at trial, a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the continuation of the unfair and illegal business practices and recovery of GSI’s attorneys’ fees and costs. The decision in GSI’s favor will allow GSI to pursue pre-trial discovery on all of the claims alleged. Lee-Lean Shu, GSI’s President and CEO, noted, “We are, of course, pleased with the Court’s ruling. We are confident that the claims we asserted in the Complaint regarding Cypress’ anticompetitive conduct will be proven at trial and will result in a victory, not only for GSI, but also for the QDR SRAM and DDR SRAM market.” GSI’s lead trial lawyer in the case, Arthur Shartsis of Shartsis Friese, responded to the decision stating: “The Court’s sweeping decision is an important validation of the public standard setting process in high-tech industries. GSI believes that competitors may not privately conspire to set standards in a way that harms open competition.”