Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc.

Opinion by Judge HUG; Concurrence by Judge RYMER.

This case involves an infringement action by Altera Corporation (“Altera”) against Clear Logic Incorporated (“Clear Logic”) under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-14 (“SCPA”). Altera also brought state law claims against Clear Logic for intentionally inducing Altera’s customers to breach their software license agreements with Altera and also for intentional interference with those contractual relations. A jury found for Altera on all claims and a judgment was entered for $30.6 million in damages, $5.4 million in prejudgment interest and $394,791.68 in costs. The district court judge also entered an injunction preventing Clear Logic from engaging in those activities against Altera. We affirm the judgment and the injunction.

I.

Overview

Filling the gap between copyright law and patent law, the SCPA aims to protect the substantial investment of innovative firms in creating the semiconductor chips that are “at the vortex” of the modern information age. H.R.Rep. No. 98-781, at 2 (1984), U.S.Code Cong. & AdmimNews 1984 pp. 5750, 5751; S.Rep. No. 98-425 at 7-9. These chips operate microwave ovens,…

concurring:

I agree that the district court’s instructions did not constitute reversible error on the record presented to us for review. As the district court held, the selection, combination and arrangement of electrical components in the mask works (which it called the “mask work layout design”), including the placement, orientation, and interrelationship of groupings of transistors and interconnection lines are protectible.

However, I write separately for two reasons. First, to emphasize that our decision today does not mean that the SCPA protects chip functionality or provides protection to chips in any way synonymous with the protections provided through patent law. To the extent our opinion or the district court’s rulings pertain to functionality, it is in the context of a case where *1093 the experts differed with each other (and even occasionally with themselves) about what the layout design amounts to, and what the architecture of the semiconductor chips at issue is in relation to the organization of components, groupings of transistors, and interconnecting lines. Based on the state of the evidence, I cannot say that the district court erred in allowing the jury to…

424 F.3d 1079 ALTERA CORPORATION, Plaintiff-counterclaimant-defendant-Appellee, v. CLEAR LOGIC, INCORPORATED, Defendant-counterclaimant-plaintiff-Appellant. No. 03-17323. No. 03-17334. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted April 12, 2005. Filed September 15, 2005. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED David M. Heilbron and C. William Craycroft, Bingham McCutchen LLP, East Palo Alto, CA, for the appellant. Karl J. Kramer, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for the appellee. Sandeep Jaggi, Milpitas, CA, for amicus curiae LSI Logic Corporation. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; James Ware, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-99-21134-JW/PVT. Before: HUG, FERGUSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge HUG; Concurrence by Judge RYMER. HUG, Circuit Judge. 1 This case involves an infringement action by Altera Corporation ("Altera") against Clear Logic Incorporated ("Clear Logic") under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984, 17 U.S.C. §§ 901-14 ("SCPA"). Altera also brought state law claims against Clear Logic for intentionally inducing Altera's customers to breach their software…