The U.S. International Trade Commission found late on Monday that Nvidia and many of its customers had infringed patents held by Rambus. Nvidia indicated that it will post a bond to continue supplying its chips.

Specifically, the ban applies to "certain synchronous dynamic random access memory controllers and products containing the same," reportedly found within the GeForce, Quadro, nForce, Tesla and Tegra lines, as part of the original 2008 complaint, filed after Rambus filed suit earlier that year.

The ruling shouldn't affect consumers too much. The ITC determined that Nvidia or its customers could pay a bond of 2.65 percent to allow the products to be shipped. That would equate to about a $12 premium on the price of a GeForce GTX 480, Nvidia's top-of-the line desktop graphics card, which costs about $459.99.

Nvidia will pay the bond, Bloomberg reported.

The decision follows the ruling of an ITC administrative law judge, a neutral party, which found that the products shipped by Nvidia and the others named in the suit violated three patents: 6,470,405; 6,591,353; and 7,287,109.

It's not clear whether Nvidia will foot the bill for its customers as well, or just on the chips that it brings into the United States. The other respondents that would be subject to the ruling include Asustek, Asus, BFG Technologies, Biostar Microtech and Biostar Microtech International, Diablotek, EVGA, G.B.T. Inc. and Giga-Byte Technology, Hewlett-Packard, MSI Computer and Micro-Star International, Palit Multimedia and Palit Microsystems, Pine Technology (Macao Commercial Offshore), and Sparkle.

"The ITC's decision is another demonstration of the value of our continued commitment to innovation," said Thomas Lavelle, senior vice president and general counsel at Rambus, in a statement. "We are extremely pleased with the ITC's decision to issue a Limited Exclusion Order, signaling the strength of our innovation efforts beyond the Farmwald-Horowitz patents of our founders. The value of our patented inventions has been recognized by our current licensees, and we will continue our efforts to license others."

Editor's Note: A previous version of this story misidentified the Federal Trade Commission as the source of the ruling. It is the U.S. ITC.