Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., 178 F. Supp. 3d 1022

Background

In 2005 Intel disclosed highly confidential implementation details of its cache-coherence (CSI/QPI) technology to Sanmina under multiple NDAs and an Intel‑Sanmina Agreement (ISA) that included a covenant not to sue for CSI‑related patent claims.
Sanmina’s Project Isis developed related cache‑coherence patents but produced no commercial products; Sanmina later sold the patents to Memory Integrity, which expressly assumed Sanmina’s obligations under existing agreements, including the covenant not to sue.
Memory Integrity sued Intel for infringement of five patents (the ’636, ’409, ’121, ’206, and ’254 patents) directed to cache‑coherence techniques used in multiprocessor systems.
Intel moved for summary judgment, arguing the ISA’s covenant bars Memory Integrity’s claims because the accused functionality allegedly practices CSI‑enabling information Intel disclosed to Sanmina.
Key disputed issues were (1) enforceability and clarity of the ISA (esp. the term “CSI Patent Claim”), (2) whether the disclosed materials qualify as “CSI Enabling Information” (useful + confidential), and (3) whether Memory Integrity’s infringement contentions rely, at least in part, on those disclosures.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Enforceability: Is the ISA unenforceable for omission or vagueness ("CSI Patent Claim" undefined)?	Memory Integrity: omission of an express definition renders the contract incomplete or fatally vague.	Intel: term is clear in context (legal claim based on CSI Patent Rights); parties completed negotiation and treated ISA as binding.	Court: ISA enforceable; "CSI Patent Claim" unambiguous in context.
Scope/temporal reach of “CSI Enabling Information”: must it remain confidential now for covenant to apply?	Memory Integrity: covenant should not apply if information later became public; present tense in definition suggests ongoing confidentiality required.	Intel: definition refers to confidentiality at time of disclosure; ISA unambiguously protects Intel even if info later becomes public.	Court: "is" refers to status at disclosure; covenant survives even if info later becomes public; alternatively, evidence shows specifics remain confidential.
Whether disclosed materials satisfied ISA definition of CSI Enabling Information (useful + confidential)	Memory Integrity: Intel failed to show disclosures were useful to Sanmina or were actually confidential (or remained so).	Intel: testimony and documents (Sanmina architect Morton, NDAs, RS documents) show disclosures were useful and treated as highly confidential.	Court: Intel established usefulness and confidentiality at disclosure; no genuine dispute.
Whether Memory Integrity’s infringement claims are based on disclosed information	Memory Integrity: contentions not shown to rely on the same disclosed implementations; accused products could infringe independently.	Intel: Memory Integrity’s admissions and infringement contentions confirm reliance (source snooping, hashing, Cache Box, probe behavior, snoop filtering).	Court: Admissions and contentions conclusively show claims rest at least in part on disclosed CSI Enabling Information; covenant bars the claims.

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment: scintilla rule / jury functions)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (no genuine issue when record could not lead rational trier to find for nonmovant)
Rhone‑Poulenc Basic Chem. Co. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 616 A.2d 1192 (Del. 1992) (contract construction is question of law)
Eagle Indus., Inc. v. DeVilbiss Health Care, Inc., 702 A.2d 1228 (Del. 1997) (extrinsic evidence only if contract ambiguous)
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (deference to uncontested testimony on summary judgment)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (patent claim construction is a question of law)