ECD's liquidation trust wants a piece of 3D XPoint rights, suing Micron for fraud, Intel for tortious interference

[R0H1T]

“50 years of crazed, prolific invention”

In a Michigan bankruptcy court, a quietly brutal legal battle is taking place over one of the most innovative new memory technologies in over 25 years.

The suit names both Intel and Micron – who are developing rival products based on similar technology – as defendants. It spans thousands of pages of heavily redacted claims, including alleged breach of contract, and fraudulent transfer.

At its heart are claims about a “highly irregular” transaction that took place in 2015, three days after the chip giants jointly launched a radical new memory class – 3D XPoint – that they claim can be “up to 1,000 times faster than NAND”.

Source

Original thread ~ ECD's liquidation trust wants a piece of 3D XPoint rights, suing Micron for fraud, Intel for tortious interference

Looks like even 3dXP was a stolen tech, seems Intel never fails to disappoint in the worst possible way

 

[eidairaman1]

What is ECDS?

 

[londiste]

ECD - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Conversion_Devices
Why do I have a feeling these things are more complicated than the summary of the lawsuit at the link presents?

Can anyone find the actual referenced document or is that not public information?

 

[R0H1T]

Why do I have a feeling these things are more complicated than the summary of the lawsuit at the link presents?

Yes but the thing is the defendants, in this case Intel & Micron, will likely bury the truth with money as is usually the case. The statement would also apply to any other corporation like AMD, MS et al. The point is law & justice shouldn't be beholden to $ or influence, except it's (almost)always the opposite these days especially when fighting against a faceless Megacorp. Now I know you'd probably say that such sweeping statements are not always right but let's be real here ~ this happens in 99.999% of the cases where big money is at stake.

Can anyone find the actual referenced document or is that not public information?

Unlikely, a lot of the material is redacted in fact.

 

[johnspack]

Tech stagnation, piranhas feeding?

 

[londiste]

From what I see, the timeline looks like this:
- 1999 - Ovonyx is founded based on ECD research and with access to at least some patents. The agreement includes 0.5% of revenues and rights of first refusal which are the crux of the lawsuit.
- 2000 - Intel invests into Ovonyx. I cannot find the actual sum or share with quick search, all the news talk about cooperation and whatnot and that Intel gained preferred stock.
- Ovonyx seems to be a phase change memory R&D powerhouse, in 2000s it has (cross)licensing agreements with Intel, Samsung, Hynix, Qimonda and others.
- 2012 - ECD goes bankrupt and Ovonyx is sold to Micron as part of proceedings.

The lawsuit says the original contract still stands even after Ovonyx is sold. This comes down to legal minutiae in every step of the way. The original contract is likely not a licensing agreement that directly applies to post-sale - "not drafted with a corporate lawyer’s precision" is very likely to mean exactly that. Micron apparently claims court had previously rejected that contract as part of bankruptcy proceedings.

Reading the number of claims in the lawsuit as they are presented in the linked piece, ECDLT are unlikely to be able to prove all of them. I don't know if this is US thing to throw a bunch of claims at the wall and see if it sticks?

Timing also seems a bit too convenient. Lawsuit was filed in summer of 2018. The problem has been going on for 7 years now and Ovonyx' sale to Micron was 4 years ago in 2015. It might have something to do with XPoint starting to reach the market in 2017.

 

[R0H1T]

Micron apparently claims court had previously rejected that contract as part of bankruptcy proceedings.

This one?

Nonetheless, the Court wishes to take a cautious approach to this subject.

For that reason, the Court will give the Movants an opportunity to refile their

Motion, under seal, and in such a new motion explain, specifically and in detail the

reasons why they contend that the relief they seek is necessary. And the Court will

give the other parties in this case, and the United States Trustee, an opportunity to

respond to such a motion, if they wish. Allowing all of this will require an

adjournment of the January 23, 2019 hearing.

http://www.mieb.uscourts.gov/apps/courtOpinions/opinions/_12_12-43166.pdf

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

It might have something to do with XPoint starting to reach the market in 2017.

Its a "oh look its becoming a success, lets try to grab more cash" type thing.

 

[londiste]

This one?

http://www.mieb.uscourts.gov/apps/courtOpinions/opinions/_12_12-43166.pdf

That motion seems to be simply about not making case details public and nothing else.

 

[R-T-B]

Unlikely, a lot of the material is redacted in fact.

That just means that a lot of their claims they are suing over were rescinded.

I don't know if this is US thing to throw a bunch of claims at the wall and see if it sticks?

It is.