Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Indirect Purchaser 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.

The following is a summary 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.

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

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 States 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.

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

Filing Deadline: Contact SRG

To learn more about this settlement and how SRG can help you in the recovery process, please contact us:

Company

First Name *

Last Name *

Title

Phone

Email Address *

Message

Settlement Recovery Group, LLC (“SRG”) is not the official claims administrator, class counsel or any party in the case. SRG is a third party claims filing service that can be hired to file and track claims. We specialize in helping companies and small businesses file claims to obtain their fair share of settlement money from class action lawsuits once a settlement has been reached. Our services are voluntary and are not required to file a claim; claimants may file a no-cost claim on their own. This summary is for informational purposes only and is based on SRG’s review of publicly available case documents. Official information can be found on the case website and on the court docket. This summary is not and should not be construed as legal, tax, or other professional advice.

​Overview