Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Settlement

Overview

Plaintiffs claim violations of federal antitrust laws regarding the sale of DRAM. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant DRAM manufacturers conspired to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of DRAM sold in the United States. According to class action lawsuits, Plaintiffs believe these Defendants’ activities resulted in overcharges to customers who purchased DRAM indirectly from the named Defendant manufacturers.

Filing Deadline

August 1, 2014

Indirect Purchaser Class

Any person, business or non-governmental entity who, at any time between January 1, 1998 and December 31, 2002 purchased DRAM, or DRAM containing devices, anywhere in the United Sates indirectly from the Defendants, their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates. “Indirectly” means a purchase from any entity other than directly from the listed Defendant manufacturers themselves. Indirect purchases include purchases of DRAM or DRAM containing devices from manufacturers, retailers and resellers.

What is DRAM?

“DRAM” is defined as dynamic random access memory devices and components, including but not limited to, synchronous dynamic random access memory ("SDRAM"), Rambus dynamic random access memory ("RDRAM"), asynchronous dynamic random access memory ("ASYNC") and double data rate dynamic random access memory ("DDR"), including modules containing DRAM, RDRAM, ASYNC, and/or DDR. “DRAM” does not include static random access memory ("SRAM") devices and components.

These Products Contain DRAM:

  • Desktop computers
  • Laptop computers
  • Servers
  • Point of Sales Systems
  • Graphics cards
  • Video game consoles
  • MP3 players
  • Printers
  • Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs)
  • DVD players
  • TiVo/DVRs

 

Defendants

  • Elpida Memory, Inc., Elpida Memory (USA), Inc. (“Elpida”)
  • Hitachi, Ltd. (“Hitachi”)
  • Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc. (“Hynix”)
  • Infineon Technologies AG, Infineon Technologies North America Corp. (“Infineon”)
  • Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (“Micron”)
  • Mitsubishi Electric Corp.; Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc. (“Mitsubishi”)
  • Mosel-Vitelic Corp., Mosel-Vitelic (USA), Inc. (“Mosel”)
  • Nanya Technology Corp., Nanya Technology Corp. USA, Inc. (“Nanya”)
  • NEC Electronics America, Inc., presently known as Renesas Electronics America, Inc. (“NEC”)
  • Samsung Electronics Company Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. (“Samsung”)
  • Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc. (“Toshiba”)
  • Winbond Electronics Corp., Winbond Electronics Corporation America, Inc. (“Winbond”)

 

Proposed Settlements: $310,720,000

 

This summary is provided for informational purposes only, based on SRG’s review of publically available information regarding the settlement. More information can be found on the Court’s docket and on www.dramclaims.com, which is the official settlement website maintained by the claims administrator appointed by the Court.

Questions?

Settlement Recovery Group LLC
480 Washington Blvd., 29th Floor
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Tel: (888) 605-7617
Fax: (866) 519-2861

Send us an email