ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: 05-CV-4340CP
COURT FILE NO.: 10-CV-15178CP
DATE: February 6, 2013
BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
– and –
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CANADA INC., MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. o/a CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, MOSEL VITELIC CORP., MOSEL VITELIC INC. and ELPIDA MEMORY, INC.
Defendants
Jonathan J. Foreman and Robert L. Gain for the Plaintiffs
Adam D. H. Chisholm for Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. O/A Crucial Technologies
Eric Hoaken and Emrys Davis for NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Canada, Renesas Electronics Corporation, and Renesas Electronics America, Inc.
Christine Kilby for Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation USA
Eliot Kolers for Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Corporation and Infineon Technologies North American Corporation
John P. Brown for Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc.
Christopher Naudie for Elpida Memory Inc.
AND BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
– and –
HITACHI LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), HITACHI CANADA LTD., MITSUBISHI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION, MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC SALES CANADA INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA, INC., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA, NEC CORPORATION, NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC CANADA, RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION fka NEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. fka NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., RENESAS ELECTRIONICS CANADA LTD., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS INC., TOSHIBA OF CANADA LIMITED, WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
Defendants
HEARD: January 24, 2013
Proceedings under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992
PERELL, J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
A. INTRODUCTION
[1] There are two motions before the court. The first is for approval of partial settlements in two related class actions under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992 and for ancillary relief. The second motion is for approval of Class Counsels’ fee.
[2] Procedurally, the motions are brought pursuant to the Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multijurisdictional Class Action. Similar motions were heard simultaneously in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec via video conference.
[3] Justice Masuhara of the Supreme Court of British Columbia chaired the conference from Vancouver. I was in Toronto, and Justice Gagnon of the Superior Court of Québec was in Montreal.
[4] There is no dispute that the Canadian Judicial Protocol for the Management of Multijurisdictional Class Actions should apply, and I so order.
[5] For the reasons that follow, I approve the settlements.
[6] I also approve Class Counsel’s fee, but not as requested. Class Counsel sought $7,131,595.59, all inclusive. I am awarding $4,180,345.59, all inclusive.
B. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Background to the Settlement Approval Motion
[7] In the first class action under the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, Khalid Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation sue: Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies Corporation, Infineon Technologies North America Corporation, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. o/a Crucial Technologies, Mosel Vitelic Corp., Mosel Vitelic Inc. and Elpida Memory, Inc.
[8] In the second class action, Mr. Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics sue: Hitachi Ltd. Hitachi America, Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Hitachi Canada Ltd., Mitsubishi Electronics Corporation, Mitsubishi Electronic Sales Canada Inc., Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation USA, NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Canada, Renesas Electronics Corporation fka NEC Electronics Corporation, Renesas Electronics America, Inc. fka NEC Electronics American Inc., Renesas Electronics Canada Ltd., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America Electronics Components Inc., Toshiba of Canada Limited, Winbond Electronics Corporation and Winbond Electronics Corporation America.
[9] There is a companion action in British Columbia in which Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. is the representative plaintiff. The British Columbia action is known as Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies Inc.
[10] There is a companion action in Québec in which Option Consummateurs and Claudette Cloutier are the representatives. The Québec action is known as Option Consommateurs c. Infineon Technologies Inc.
[11] There are also parallel proceedings in the United States.
[12] All the actions concern allegations that the Defendants conspired to fix prices in DRAM (dynamic random access memory) devices. The second action in Ontario is in effect a device to add defendants as co-conspirators to the conspiracy alleged in the first class action. The claims in the various actions are for: (a) breach of Part IV of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-34; (b) civil conspiracy; and (c) tortious interference with economic interests.
[13] Harrison Pensa LLP and Sutts, Strosberg LLP in Ontario are working cooperatively with the law firms of Camp Fiorante Matthews Mogerman in British Columbia and Belleau Lapointe, LLP in Québec. Collectively, they are Class Counsel.
[14] Once proceedings had commenced, Class Counsel agreed that the British Columbia action and the Québec action would be prosecuted to certification. The Ontario action was held back.
[15] On May 5, 2008, after a seven-day certification hearing, the British Columbia Superior Court dismissed the motion for certification in Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Infineon Technologies Inc., the British Columbia action. The Plaintiffs appealed.
[16] On February 23, 2010, the British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the motions judge and certified the class action against all the Defendants. The Defendants applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal, but the application for leave was dismissed on June 3, 2010.
[17] On August 16, 2010, the British Columbia action was set down for trial for 80 court days commencing September 10, 2012. However, on June 13, 2012, the trial date was tentatively adjourned to the fall of 2014, subject to any agreement between the parties.
[18] On April 15, 2011, the British Columbia Court of Appeal denied certification of two proposed class actions, Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2011 BCCA 187 and Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2011 BCCA 186 (“Microsoft”). Those cases changed the law in British Columbia with respect to whether indirect purchasers have a cause of action for anti-competitive conduct. The plaintiffs in Sun-Rype and Microsoft sought and were granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
[19] It should be noted that the as yet unresolved Supreme Court of Canada appeals have ratcheted up the risk of the various DRAM class actions being decertified as against the non-settling defendants.
[20] On November 15, 2011, the Plaintiffs in British Columbia, Ontario, and Québec actions entered into a settlement agreement with Elpida Memory, Inc. (“Elpida Japan”) and Elpida Memory (USA) Inc. (collectively “Elpida”). Under the terms of the agreement, Elpida agreed to pay $5,750,000 plus interest in exchange for a full release of claims.
[21] The Elpida Settlement contained what is known as a Most Favoured Nation or MFN clause. Pursuant to its MFN clause, Elpida is entitled to a refund of portions of its settlement fund payment if its settlement is greater than specified settlement sums paid by certain specified co-defendants. In other words, if the Plaintiffs settle for less than the confidential thresholds, the Plaintiffs must refund the difference.
[22] On November 16, 2011, the Québec Court of Appeal authorized the Québec action against all the Defendants. The Defendants appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The appeal was heard on October 17, 2012 along with the appeals of Sun-Rype Products Ltd. v. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 2011 BCCA 187 and Pro-Sys Consultants Ltd. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2011 BCCA 186. The Supreme Court has reserved judgment in all three appeals.
[23] On March 28, 2012, I certified the Ontario class action for the purposes of a settlement between Khalid Eidoo and Cygnus Electronics Corporation and Elpida. See Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG 2012 ONSC 1987.
[24] On June 20, 2012, I approved the Elpida settlement after a fairness hearing. See Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, **2012 ONSC 3801**. I signed the approval order on June 20, 2012 with reasons to follow. The reasons were issued on June 27, 2012. See Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2012 ONSC 3801.
[25] In July 2012, the Plaintiffs in both Ontario actions brought motions for: (1) court approval of a distribution protocol and for the appointment of a claims administrator; and (2) for court approval of Class Counsels’ fee.
[26] On July 25, 2012, I appointed Bruneau Group as Claims Administrator. I approved the distribution protocol, which, apart from the payment of Class Counsel’s fees involved no distribution to Class Members.
[27] Given the costs of distribution, at the time of the Elpida settlement, it made economic sense to defer any distribution to class members until there were more funds to distribute. See Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2012 ONSC 4375.
[28] Also in July 2012, Class Counsel sought Court approval of a fee request in the amount of $1,753,750.00, which at the time was a multiple of 0.52 of the docketed time of Class Counsel. Class Counsel also requested payment of applicable taxes and reimbursement of disbursements of $502,432.85. I approved Class Counsel’s fee request of $2,256,182.85, all inclusive. See Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2012 ONSC 4375.
[29] With one settlement achieved, Class Counsel set about: (1) preparing for the appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada of the Québec class action; (2) preparing for the trial in British Columbia; and (3) engaging in more settlement negotiations.
[30] After further vigorous arms-length and hard fought settlement negotiations, four more groups of Defendants have agreed to settle the claims being made against them; namely: (1) Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. doing business as Crucial Technologies (collectively “Micron;” (2) NEC Corporation, NEC Corporation of America, NEC Canada, Renesas Electronic Corporation and Renesas Electronics America Inc. (collectively, “NEC”); (3) Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation USA (collectively, “Nanya”); and (4) Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Hitachi Power Systems Canada Ltd. and Renesas Electronics Canada Ltd. (collectively “Hitachi/Renesas Canada”).
[31] More particularly, on July 24, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a formal settlement agreement with Nanya whereby Nanya agreed to pay $325,000 and to provide cooperation in the prosecution of the litigation against the remaining defendants. The Nanya Settlement Agreement does not contain a MFN clause and did not trigger the MFN in the Elpida Settlements.
[32] On October 16, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a formal settlement agreement with Micron whereby Micron agreed to pay $17,500,000 and to provide cooperation in the prosecution of the litigation against the remaining Defendants. The Micron Settlement Agreement does not trigger the MFN in the Elpida Settlement.
[33] The Micron Settlement contains a time-limited MFN clause. During the currency of the Micron MFN, if the Plaintiffs settle for less than the confidential threshold for certain Defendants, the Plaintiffs must pay Micron the difference between the confidential threshold and the triggering settlement amount.
[34] On November 28, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a formal settlement agreement with NEC whereby NEC agreed to pay $2,750,000 and to provide cooperation in the prosecution of the litigation against the remaining Defendants. The NEC Settlement Agreement does not contain a MFN clause and does not trigger the MFN in the Elpida or Micron Settlements.
[35] On December 18, 2012, the Plaintiffs entered into a formal settlement agreement with Hitachi/Renesas Canada whereby Hitachi/Renesas Canada agreed to pay $2,750,000 and to provide cooperation in the prosecution of the litigation against the remaining Defendants. The Hitachi and Renesas Canada Settlement Agreement does not contain a MFN clause and does not trigger the MFN in the Elpida or Micron Settlements.
[36] The Settlement Agreements all provide that: (a) the Settlement Amounts will be held in an interest-bearing trust account for the benefit of Class Members; (b) the cost of disseminating the notice of certification and settlement approval are to be paid out of the Settlement Amounts; and, (c) that the Opt Out deadline expired on June 2, 2012.
[37] Together, the Settlement Agreements total $23.325 million. This brings the total recovery to over $29 million.
[38] If the Settlement Agreements are approved by the Courts, Class Counsel is seeking orders for the appointment of the Bruneau Group as Claims Administrator under the Settlement Agreements, and for the settlement funds to be transferred to the Bruneau Group to be held in trust for the benefit of the Settlement Class.
[39] On December 3, 2012, the British Columbia Court made an order, amongst other things, certifying the action for settlement purposes as against Nanya, Micron, and NEC approving the notice of settlement approval hearing, and providing for multijurisdictional case management.
[40] On December 20, 2012, I made an order, amongst other things, certifying the two Ontario actions for settlement purposes as against Nanya, Micron, NEC, and Hitachi/Renesas Canada. See Eidoo v. Infineon Technologies AG, 2012 ONSC 7299.
[41] Class Counsel from across the country, who are very experienced with class action litigation, recommend these settlements. The Representative Plaintiffs recommend these settlements.
[42] The deadline for objecting to the settlement agreements passed on January 22, 2013. Since notice of the fairness hearing was published, Class Counsel received many inquiries from Class Members. The inquiries pertained to indicating an interest in applying for compensation, seeking information about the distribution of the proceeds, and about when there would be a distribution of the settlement proceeds.
[43] There was only one objection to the settlement. Mr. W.S. McMullen from Calgary Alberta strongly objected to the proposed settlement which he viewed as a “fee grab ($9 million plus) by lawyers… with no possibility of fair compensation to the actual individuals or companies who have been injured.”
[44] Mr. McMullen was sceptical that with the considerable passage of time since the alleged conspiracy occurred when the DRAM devices were installed between 1999-2002, it was unlikely that many Class Members would be able to substantiate their claims. He is pessimistic that he will receive any compensation and aggrieved that Class Counsel did not alert Class Members about the litigation earlier than the notices of certification. He anticipates and even suggests that any recovery by paid to a nationally recognized charity and that Class Counsel’s fee be pro-rated for failing to identify promptly the injured parties who have claims in the class actions.
[45] During the argument of the settlement approval hearing, I suggested to Class Counsel that it was understandable that Mr. McMullen’s might be sceptical about any recovery since the only funds distributed under the Elpida settlement were $2.3 million to Class Counsel and the only funds proposed to be distributed under the four additional settlements was another $7.1 million with the balance of the funds being held in trust.
[46] The answer I received was that Class Counsel were keen to begin the work of developing a distribution plan. I found this “trust us” answer unsatisfactory and particularly so after Class Counsel revealed that there would be enormous challenges to developing a fair distribution scheme given that some Class Members were large corporations or public authorities while other Class Members were like Mr. McMullen with small claims and difficulties in substantiating them.
[47] I very much appreciated that Mr. McMullen brought his concerns to the Court and it is unfortunate that more class members with concerns do not come forward.
[48] In any event, I was left in the difficult position of having to determine the fairness of the proposed settlements without knowing how the settlement funds would actually be distributed apart from the $9 million sought by Class Counsel.
2. Background to the Fee Approval Motion
[49] Class Counsel seek Court approval of a national Class Counsel fee of $6,997,500 plus applicable taxes and disbursements of $134,095.59. The total fee and disbursement request is $7,131,595.59.
[50] Class Counsel’s request is made pursuant to contingency fee retainer agreements that were entered into between “Ontario Class Counsel” and each of the Representative Plaintiffs.
[51] The Ontario Fee Agreements, which were previously approved by this Court, provide for a fee payable of up to 30% of the value of any settlement plus disbursements and applicable taxes. A legal fee of $6,997,500 represents 30% of the amount of the four settlements for which approvals are sought.
[52] Since commencing the Proceedings, Class Counsel have docketed $4,532,767.05 worth of legal services at their regular hourly rates. They have incurred disbursements of $636,528.44 since commencing the various class actions.
C. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL
[53] To approve a settlement of a class proceeding, the court must find that in all the circumstances the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of those affected by it: Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance, [1998] O.J. No. 1598 (Gen. Div.) at para. 9; Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society, [1999] O.J. No. 3572 (S.C.J.) at paras. 68-73.
[54] In determining whether to approve a settlement, the court, without making findings of facts on the merits of the litigation, examines the fairness and reasonableness of the proposed settlement and whether it is in the best interests of the class as a whole having regard to the claims and defenses in the litigation and any objections raised to the settlement: Baxter v. Canada (Attorney General) (2006), 2006 41673 (ON SC), 83 O.R. (3d) 481 (S.C.J.) at para. 10.
[55] When considering the approval of negotiated settlements, the court may consider, among other things: (a) the likelihood of recovery or likelihood of success; (b) the amount and nature of discovery, evidence or investigation; (c) settlement terms and conditions; (d) recommendation and experience of counsel; (e) future expenses and likely duration of litigation and risk; (f) recommendation of neutral parties; (g) if any, the number of objectors and nature of objections; (h) the presence of good faith, arms-length bargaining and the absence of collusion; (i) the degree and nature of communications by counsel and the representative parties with Class Members during the litigation; and (i) information conveying to the court the dynamics of and the positions taken by the parties during the negotiation: Dabbs v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (1998), 1998 14855 (ON SC), 40 O.R. (3d) 429 (Gen. Div.) at 440-44, aff'd (1998), 1998 7165 (ON CA), 41 O.R. (3d) 97 (C.A.), leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused Oct. 22, 1998, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 372; Parsons v. The Canadian Red Cross Society, [1999] O.J. No. 3572 (S.C.J.) at paras. 71-72; Frohlinger v. Nortel Networks Corp., 2007 696 (ON SC), [2007] O.J. No. 148 (S.C.J.) at para. 8; Kelman v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., 2005 803 (ON SC), [2005] O.J. No. 175 (S.C.J.) at paras. 12-13; Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. (2005), 2005 8751 (ON SC), 74 O.R. (3d) 758 (S.C.J.) at para. 117; Sutherland v. Boots Pharmaceutical plc, [2002] O.J. No. 1361 (S.C.J.) at para. 10.
[56] Putting aside the absence of a distribution scheme, in my opinion, the four settlements are at least as good as the Elpida settlement, which I approved. Indeed, viewed collectively, in this high risk and vigorously contested litigation, they are arguably better settlements than the Elpida Settlement.
[57] The absence of distribution scheme, however, raises a serious problem in determining whether approving these settlements is in the best interests of those affected by them. Nevertheless, in the circumstances of these class actions, I have no doubt that it would not be in the best interests of the class members to reject these settlements because of the absence of a distribution plan.
[58] In this regard, it must be recalled that the settlements are not just monetary contributions from the settling defendants. Under the settlements, the settling defendants provide cooperation in the prosecution of the litigation against the remaining defendants. Thus, in addition to removing a reasonable and fair alternative to litigation rejecting the settlements would increase the risk of the litigation as it resumes against all of the defendants.
[59] Thus, in my opinion, notwithstanding the absence of a distribution plan, the settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class as a whole.
D. FEE APPROVAL
[60] As noted above, Class Counsel seeks a fee based on 30% of the value of the four settlements. The also seek payment of the disbursements not covered by the previous fee approval award.
[61] A fee calculated on the basis of 30% percent of the recovery may ultimately be fair in this litigation; however, in my opinion, at this juncture of the litigation without Class Counsel having completed the work of a distribution plan, a 30% fee is not fair and reasonable.
[62] For the reasons that follow, I shall award Class Counsel a fee of 20% calculated against the five settlements achieved to date ($29 million) plus disbursements to date. I shall deduct from this award the fee award already made for the Elpida settlement.
[63] Thus, 20% of $29 million plus disbursements to date equals $6,436.528.44. Deducting the Elpida award yields an award of $4,180,345.59, all inclusive.
[64] The fairness and reasonableness of the fee awarded in respect of class proceedings is to be determined in light of the risk undertaken by the lawyer in conducting the litigation and the degree of success or results achieved: Maxwell v. MLG Ventures Ltd. (1996), 1996 8039 (ON SC), 30 O.R. (3d) 304 (Gen. Div.); Windisman v. Toronto College Park Ltd., [1996] O.J. No. 2897 (Gen. Div.); Serwaczek v. Medical Engineering Corp., [1996] O.J. No. 3038 (Gen. Div.); Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society (2000), 2000 22386 (ON SC), 49 O.R. (3d) 281 (S.C.J.).
[65] Where the fee arrangements are a part of the settlement, the court must decide whether the fee arrangements are fair and reasonable, and this means that counsel are entitled to a fair fee, which may include a premium for the risk undertaken and the result achieved, but the fees must not bring about a settlement that is in the interests of the lawyers, but not in the best interests of the Class Members as a whole: Sparvier v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 SKQB 533, [2006] S.J. No. 752 (Q.B.) at para. 43, aff’d 2007 SKCA 37, [2007] S.J. No. 145 (C.A.).
[66] Fair and reasonable compensation must be sufficient to provide a real economic incentive to lawyers to take on a class proceeding and to do it well: Gagne v. Silcorp Ltd. (1998), 1998 1584 (ON CA), 41 O.R. (3d) 417 (C.A.); Parsons v. Canadian Red Cross Society (2000), 2000 22386 (ON SC), 49 O.R. (3d) 281 (S.C.J.); Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., [2005] O.J. No. 1117 (S.C.J.) at paras. 59-61.
[67] Factors relevant in assessing the reasonableness of the fees of Class Counsel include: (a) the factual and legal complexities of the matters dealt with; (b) the risk undertaken, including the risk that the matter might not be certified; (c) the degree of responsibility assumed by Class Counsel; (d) the monetary value of the matters in issue; (e) the importance of the matter to the class; (f) the degree of skill and competence demonstrated by Class Counsel; (g) the results achieved; (h) the ability of the class to pay; (i) the expectations of the class as to the amount of the fees; (j) the opportunity cost to Class Counsel in the expenditure of time in pursuit of the litigation and settlement: Vitapharm Canada Ltd. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., [2005] O.J. No. 1117 (S.C.J.) at para. 67; Endean v. Canadian Red Cross Society, 2000 BCSC 971, [2000] B.C.J. No. 1254 (S.C.); Wamboldt v. Northstar Aerospace (Canada) [2009] O.J. No. 2583 (S.C.J.) at para. 33.
[68] Having regard to these factors, I regard only a 20% fee as fair and reasonable.
[69] Class Counsel may receive a greater or lower percentage on future applications for fee approvals.
E. CONCLUSION
[70] For the above reasons, I approve the four settlements and what might be described as an interim fee award of $4,180,345.59.
Perell, J.
Released: February 6, 2013
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
‑ and ‑
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES AG, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION, INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION, HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CANADA INC., MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. o/a CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGIES, MOSEL VITELIC CORP., MOSEL VITELIC INC. and ELPIDA MEMORY, INC.
Defendants
AND BETWEEN:
KHALID EIDOO and CYGNUS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION
Plaintiffs
- and –
HITACHI LTD., HITACHI AMERICA, HITACHI ELECTRONIC DEVICES (USA), HITACHI CANADA LTD., MITSUBISHI ELECTRONIC CORPORATION, MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC SALES CANADA INC., MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA, INC., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA, NEC CORPORATION, NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA, NEC CANADA, RENESAS ELECTRONICS CORPORATION fka NEC ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. fka NEC ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., RENESAS ELECTRIONICS CANADA LTD., TOSHIBA CORPORATION, TOSHIBA AMERICA ELECTRONICS COMPONENTS INC., TOSHIBA OF CANADA LIMITED, WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AND WINBOND ELECTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
Defendants
REASONS FOR DECISION
Released: February 6, 2013/Perell, J.