NVIDIA Chip

NVIDIA has announced that the company is taking both Samsung and Qualcomm to court for infringing on 7 patents covering computer graphics. The popular GPU manufacturer is asking the International Trade Commission and US district court in Delaware to enforce product bans to the US and request compensation. This move is a serious push in NVIDIA licensing its patents and technology.

One of the patents covers the GPU in general, which places all processing power and functionality onto a single chip, as well as shaders and multithreaded parallel processing tech. The company has detailed numerous Android-based Samsung products on its blog, which include the Galaxy Note 4 and Galaxy S5, NVIDIA notes that the company has repeatedly approached Samsung for licensing negotiations to take place, but was told it's down to Samsung suppliers.

That all said, should a decision be made in NVIDIA's favor, it could be a serious blow to Samsung looking at just how many devices are included. We'll have to see how this pans out, but Samsung should be used to the courts by now when it comes to patents.

Source: NVIDIA, (2), via: SlashGear

 

Reader comments

NVIDIA takes Samsung and Qualcomm to court over patent infringements

46 Comments

When you are making as much money as they were/are it is a natural target.

Posted via Android Central App

That at best is a nonsense comment. Nvidia is no patent troll and are doing what they feel is correct. Apple makes much more money than Sammy and Nvidia isn't knocking on their door... Yet :)

Posted via the Android Central App

It's entirely possible that Apple is just paying the "licensing" fee.  I realize nVidia might have a patent on "using the GPU for processing" but that really seems like another in this ongoing saga of patents that are *much* too vague.

I think you can blame the slow adoption rate on carrier variants example the one x unlocked had Tegra 3 the carrier variant had Qualcomm chips

Posted via Nexus 7 2013 or Galaxy S5

It's a sad world look at Nvidia and it's overall pathetic standing with those patents.

If you look deeply into their trove of patents you can't help but be sick to you're stomach.

All of their software patents are pretty much common place every manufacturer or chipset maker uses these patents so why single out Qualcomm and Samsung.

This is going nowhere of any true significance I myself can destroy this lawsuit alone and I'm not any kind of attorney.

Times must be real hard for Nvidia today.. 

From my Galaxy Note 3 on T-Mobile via Android Central App

Just after they were done with Apple, here comes another one.

Samsung's just a court magnet these days. Poor Sammy...

IMHO, NVIDIA should stop being a damn pussy and push for manufacturers to use their Tegra chips. They should've tried to negotiate with Samsung to have Tegra-powered devices instead of suing the hell out of them Apple-style.

I say let Nvidia make their money then negotiate with manufacturers. Especially Sammy make going to court do much will get them to be more innovative.

I've had nothing but ensuing products for the past 3 years and just recently got the Galaxy note pro.

~My $0.02~

So, with your logic, a person has a right to steal my intellectual property if I am unable to get them to buy it? It seems like NVIDIA went to some strides here to try and negotiate out of court and it didn't appear to be worth Samsung's effort to do so.

Actually, no,

What I'm trying to say that NVIDIA should attempt to get into a patent licensing agreement with Samsung and Qualcomm. Judging by the article, it hasn't worked too well.

Well, I do hope they solve this quickly. Litigation gives no benefit to consumers.

From the article, Samsung told them that nvidia would need to talk to their suppliers (ARM, Qualcomm, and Imagination) about licensing. Samsung wasn't asked about licensing or patent issues for in-house tech, just stuff they buy from others.

Well, that explains why they are using Qualcomm too.

But why only Qualcomm and Samsung? Is it because they're the top dogs?

Which is Samsung passing the buck. Which is why I stated Samsung doesn't appear to be interested in a casual resolution. At the end of the day, the company that smacks their brand on something is liable for the entire thing regardless of supplier arrangements.

So, if I buy a car that includes some patented technology that was licensed by the vehicle manufacturer, and then re-sale that car (think "car dealership"), should I have to pay the patent license again?

If you use someone patented technology for say, door locks, that is a blatant ripoff of another company, then yes, you should pay. Either that or just buy the product from the patent holder. Using your logic, buying stolen property shouldn't have any repercussions, but it does.

Normally I am against a lot of patent trolling, but I don't see nVidia as trolling. People are using their tech. They tried to come to an agreement with no luck, so they are suing.

I read yesterday they did approach sam and Sam said not my problem it's the ones we get the technology from ie Intel !

Posted via the Android Central App

Intel and Nvidia are in bed with each other, yet fight like a married couple. without Intel....Nvidia wouldn't EXIST. I find it so funny all these lawsuits being thrown around currently...

Posted via Android Central App

Intel and Nvidia aren't in bed with each other, they have been back and forth in court with each other over the years.

"Nothing I shoot ever gets back up again."

That's right Nvidia, take those copy cats to court and make them pay. Love the infighting that's taken place in the android world.

Well I previously was hoping for NVidia to become a success in the SoC space, but if they would rather litigate than innovate, then I don't want them to continue in this industry.

They did innovate, but what is the point of innovating if people don't buy your product and instead buy the cheaper clone?

Cant make products people want to use? Sue!!

Nvidia Socs suck, their chipsets sucked, they should stick to PC GPUs and cheating at benchmarks.

Dunno, maybe, depending on how you look at it, but im not interested in a shield like device anyway.

However I do like devices with decent software support, hardware thats not broken, and companies that arent trying to fragment Android gaming with exclusives and custom code.

Well im not sure whats broken in the K1, but im sure something will be. It will be the first 'tegra' not to have something if it doesn't.

Nvidia will get bored of it soon enough.. I predict, 6 months?

Fragmenting Android gaming is EXACTLY what the shield does, its the very purpose of its existence!

So you don't use any device other than nexus devices? Because there isn't a single manufacturer that doesn't change something, even if it is small.

I don't care one bit who uses who's technology, as long as the product fits my needs and my budget then I could care any less what manufacturers name is pasted in the front. To me they are all the same, and people here fighting and arguing over phones and who's tech it is and what tech it uses, just seem to have too much time on their hands.

Posted via Android Central App

Poor Sammy. Becoming a target magnet just about for any tech company. I suppose it can only be expected, if one is the biggest manufacturer in the world who keeps on churning different innovative products like there's no tomorrow.

Posted via the Android Central App

I can't see nVidia doing this without a good case. I think Samsung's going to be paying up. Of course they wouldn't willingly do it without being forced. That would be bad business.

Even Dyson was chomping at Sammy's hind quarters not to long ago. Their lawyers must own an island each *. *

Posted via the Android Central App

It would probably be pretty fun to be a lawyer fpr a company like samsung...money is always rolling, pracrically unlimited, and theres a team to work with u if u get worn out, and ur case keeps hitting headlines! Haha maybe i better consider that branch of law

Posted via the Android Central App

Some of those patents should be invalidated as obvious extensions to prior art. You're not supposed to be able to patent "obvious" improvements, and simply implementing what already existed in a smaller, more integrated form factor is obvious given the march of technology.

But the USPTO would allow a patent on a gum wrapper if you claimed computer software was involved somehow.