Some Intel chips banned in Germany after company loses patent spat — Alder Lake, Ice Lake, and Tiger Lake chips impacted [Updated]

Intel
(Image credit: Intel)

Update 2/7/2024 1:40pm PT: We added a statement from R2 Semiconductor to the end of the article.

A regional court in Düsseldorf, Germany, ruled Wednesday that Intel infringed a patent of R2 Semiconductor, a U.S.-based company, and subsequently issued an injunction against sales of some of Intel's previous-gen processors in Germany, according to a report by Financial Times. Dell and HP devices could be impacted, too. The ruling prohibits the sales of select Intel processors and devices based on Intel processors in the country. Intel believes its products do not infringe on R2 Semiconductor's patents and has asked a German patent court to invalidate the patent.

The European patent in question covers voltage-regulating technology. R2 Semiconductor asserts that Intel's Core-series Ice Lake, Tiger Lake, Alder Lake, and Xeon Scalable 'Ice Lake Server' processors, as well as consumer laptops and servers containing those processors, infringe on its patents. Intel disclosed last September that R2 Semiconductor asked the court to stop the sale of products powered by these CPUs and recall the products featuring these processors. The company argued that an 'injunction would be a disproportionate remedy.' 

For now, the regional court in Düsseldorf has issued an injunction against sales of Intel's previous-generation CPUs — a decision that Intel plans to appeal. Many Ice Lake and Tiger Lake processors have been discontinued by now, so the sales ban will not harm Intel or its partners significantly. But some PCs still use Intel's 12th Generation Core 'Alder Lake,' and boxed/tray versions of these CPUs are still available. 

The good news for Intel is that its current-generation Core 'Raptor Lake' and 'Raptor Lake Refresh' processors, as well as Core Ultra 'Meteor Lake' CPUs, do not infringe any of R2 Semiconductor's patents, so Intel and its partners can continue to sell these processors, and devices based on them, in Germany with no restrictions. 

Intel argues that R2 Semiconductor's patent has been invalidated in the U.S., which is why it sued the chip giant in Europe and has even gone so far as to accuse R2 Semiconductor of being a patent troll. 

"Intel believes companies like R2, which appears to be a shell company whose only business is litigation, should not be allowed to obtain injunctions on CPUs and other critical components at the expense of consumers, workers, national security, and the economy," Intel told Financial Times

Regarding the lawsuit in Germany, Intel is protecting its customers by covering any legal costs or damages they might face. As of last September, Intel could not make a realistic guess of the possible 'loss or range of losses that might arise from these lawsuits.' 

Intel is also battling R2 Semiconductor in the U.K. and is trying to settle its long-running legal dispute with VLSI.

E2 Semiconductor sent us the following statement from its CEO, David Fisher, after we originally published the article: 

"We are delighted that the highly respected German court has issued an injunction and unequivocally found that Intel has infringed R2’s patents for integrated voltage regulators. R2 has been a semiconductor IP developer, similar to ARM and Rambus, for more than 15 years. Intel is intimately familiar with R2’s business —in fact, the companies were in the final stages of an investment by Intel into R2 in 2015 when Intel unilaterally terminated the process." 

"R2 had asked if a technical paper Intel had just published about their approach to their FIVR technology, which had begun shipping in their chips, was accurate. The next and final communication was from Intel’s patent counsel. That was when it became clear to me that Intel was using R2’s patented technology in their chips without attribution or compensation."

"That is how these lawsuits emerged, and Intel is the only entity R2 has ever accused of violating its patents. It is unsurprising but disappointing that Intel continues to peddle its false narratives rather than taking responsibility for its repeated and chronic infringement of our patents. We intend to enforce this injunction and protect our valuable intellectual property. The global patent system is here precisely for the purpose of protecting inventors like myself and R2 Semiconductor."

Anton Shilov
Freelance News Writer

Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • cyrusfox
    What a wild ride, if already invalidated why do European Courts go along with the Charade...
    Reply
  • derekullo
    The first thing to come to mind of a trial in Düsseldorf ...
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    cyrusfox said:
    What a wild ride, if already invalidated why do European Courts go along with the Charade...
    Because it's a easy way to put screws to Intel.

    One is a EU company, the other is a US company.

    It's obvious which side the EU will favor, the one where the company is clearly part of the EU.
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    Kamen Rider Blade said:
    Because it's a easy way to put screws to Intel.

    One is a EU company, the other is a US company.

    It's obvious which side the EU will favor, the one where the company is clearly part of the EU.
    The plaintiff, R2 Semiconductor, is a US-based company. Literally the first sentence of this article says as much...
    Reply
  • TJ Hooker
    cyrusfox said:
    What a wild ride, if already invalidated why do European Courts go along with the Charade...
    Intel claims the patent has been invalidated in the US. Even if that's true, maybe that doesn't automatically invalidate it everywhere? But I won't pretend to be knowledgeable on international intellectual property law.
    Reply
  • Chung Leong
    TJ Hooker said:
    Intel claims the patent has been invalidated in the US. Even if that's true, maybe that doesn't automatically invalidate it everywhere? But I won't pretend to be knowledgeable on international intellectual property law.
    A rejection of an application in the home country would automatically cancel pending applications in all other countries, I believe. Invalidation is different legally.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    I think the import ban + recall sounds way too drastic. The plaintiff should only be allowed to demand damages comparable to standard licensing fees + punitive damages (which I'm not sure exist as a concept, in Germany's legal system).

    The ability to impose an import ban + recall of unsold inventory would seem to make the system too ripe for abuse (i.e. extortion). As the Gen 13 and Meteor Lake products have shown, it's not as if the technology at issue was fundamental to the product - Intel can still build these CPUs without the allegedly infringing tech, nor is Intel's use of it depriving the plaintiff of any market share or opportunities by doing so.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    TJ Hooker said:
    The plaintiff, R2 Semiconductor, is a US-based company. Literally the first sentence of this article says as much...
    Fair enough, misread that part.

    Then the EU just wants to screw over Intel because they're the Dominant player in CPU's
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Kamen Rider Blade said:
    Then the EU just wants to screw over Intel because they're the Dominant player in CPU's
    Why does this event have to rely on some sort of conspiracy? Maybe the particular details of the court case just happened to go against Intel. Honestly, I worry about you, sometimes.

    I'm no expert on German jurisprudence, but I expect their court system is well-isolated from political interference. Remember: this isn't a case of the German government or EU suing Intel, this is a case between two private parties. So, this turn of events really shouldn't be taken as any kind of government policy or government position regarding Intel.

    On the contrary, recent German subsidies for Intel manufacturing facilities can and should be taken as a sign of Germany's relations with Intel:
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-tsmc-germany-fabs-subsidies
    Reply
  • JTWrenn
    Chung Leong said:
    A rejection of an application in the home country would automatically cancel pending applications in all other countries, I believe. Invalidation is different legally.
    I believe the only difference between a rejection and an invalidation is timing. ie it was found to be improper in some way and rejected after being issues, vs rejected before being issues.


    That being said I don't believe one country invalidating a patent does anything at all for other countries.
    Reply