( ESNUG 547 Item 10 ) ------------------------------------------- [03/09/15]
Subject: Sonics CEO publicly calls out Arteris on NoC patent lawsuit FUD
> SURVEY QUESTION #2:
>
> "What type of IP (hard/soft/VIP) INTERESTED you at DAC?
> For what specific protocals/uPs/memories/standards?
> What company made the IP you're interested in?"
>
>
> Hard IP: Sonics SGN or Arteris FlexNoc
>
> Leaning Sonics because they still have R&D.
>
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
>
> Curious if/how Janac rebuilt.
>
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
>
> SGN and CoreLink
>
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
>
> Sonics
>
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
>
> Came to DAC to figure out AMBA 3, AMBA 4, AMBA 5, CHI, AXI,
> AHB, APB, and the 6 CoreLinks ARM has.
>
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
>
> We're designing to Cortex-M7's. Choosing CoreLink or SGN.
>
> ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
>
> Entertaining to watch the Sonics people and the Arteris people
> pretend the other company didn't exist in the ARM pavillion.
>
> - from http://www.deepchip.com/items/dac14-06.html
From: [ Grant Pierce of Sonics ]
Hi, John,
We were pleasantly surprised to see all those chip designer mentions of our
Sonics SGN NoC in your "DeepChip Best of DAC'14" user survey. Thanks!
For the last few months I have been visiting with customers, distributors,
and partners. I was appalled, but not surprised to learn how customers are
being lied to in the marketplace today.
Arteris continues to spread blatant misinformation about the state of the
Sonics vs. Arteris patent infringement lawsuit. We have heard directly from
8 customer companies (3 Asia, 3 Europe, 2 US) -- some even up to the officer
level -- that Arteris is telling the SoC world that our legal case is over,
and that it no longer matters in the licensing of Arteris' NoC products.
This is an outrageous lie.
Arteris is also telling the SoC design community incorrect information about
the supposed "legal protections" that our patent licensing agreement with
ARM provide to Arteris' NoC customers that use ARM processor cores in their
designs. Again, more blatant lies.
I've decided to let the facts speak for themselves on this.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
SONICS VS. ARTERIS LAWSUITS FACT SHEET:
As of February 2015 --
Sonics files suit against Arteris for infringing seven Sonics patents
Fact: Sonics is suing Arteris and Arteris is actively involved as defendant
in the legal case brought by Sonics against Arteris in November 2011.
The case was filed in the United States District Court, Northern
District of California. The judge has allowed the case to be put on
hold (stayed) until the patent re-examinations are completed.
Fact: Both Sonics and Arteris must provide information to the judge in a
"Joint Status Report" every 6 months. The most recent report was
filed in February of 2015. The report is signed by the lawyers of
both companies.
Fact: With the past and continued sale of its NoC products in the market
place, Sonics asserts that Arteris continues to infringe upon the
seven Sonics patents.
Arteris' suit vs. Sonics on two Arteris patents was dismissed by the court
Fact: Arteris brought a legal case against Sonics in January 2012. Sonics
rejected those claims.
Fact: Arteris' case against Sonics has been dismissed by the court and
since the Arteris patents are now owned by Qualcomm, Qualcomm
entered into a covenant not to sue in July 2014.
Fact: This Sonics-Qualcomm agreement has no effect on Sonics case against
Arteris which is still being litigated. Given that Arteris has sold
all of its patents to Qualcomm, Sonics believes this provides some
additional protection against future claims by Qualcomm and Arteris.
Arteris seeks to re-examine the patents asserted by Sonics against Arteris
Fact: Arteris attempted, but failed, to put all seven of the Sonics patents
named in Sonics lawsuit against Arteris into re-examination with the
US Patent Office. Sonics Patent No. 6,182,183 in its entire and
original form overcame the challenge by Arteris in the Patent Office.
Fact: Those six remaining patents that are subject to re-examination are
still in process at the US Patent Office.
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
I find it distasteful that I have to call out Arteris on this, but I felt
your readers should know the truth -- instead of the Arteris FUD -- about
the legal cases that are ongoing between our two companies.
- Grant Pierce
Sonics, Inc. Milpitas, CA
---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Related Articles:
Sonics CEO calls out Arteris CEO on their rumored Qualcomm deal
Hogan compares Sonics SGN vs. ARM NIC 400 vs. Arteris FlexNoC
Arteris CEO corrects Jim Hogan's commercial NoC comparison chart
Join
Index
Next->Item
|
|
