AMD would have to do more than point to a document that is titled Patent License Agreement. It would have to demonstrate that it actually has a license by proving that the terms of the license cover the conduct accused of patent infringement.
If a microprocessor is made by a 100% subsidiary such as AMD Saxony and sold by AMD, the Delaware corporation signing the Agreement, proving a license would be a trivial matter. But when the scope of the license is an issue as it will be for 44% owned TFC, then AMD will have to show that the manufacture by TFC is within the scope of the license.
Apparently, AMD is going to assert that TFC is a Subsidiary as defined in the Agreement. That will require establishing the correct meaning of the disputed definition of Subsidiary in the Agreement and proving that the actual TFC structure meets the definition. AMD will have the burden to prove, yes TMC actually is a Subsidiary and therefore the activity is licensed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
