Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 1 of 7

1 Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126)

Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2 Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298) 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
3 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
4 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Email: rransom@sidley.com
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
5 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)
Email: andrea.jeffries@mto.com Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)
6 Email: fred.rowley@mto.com McKOOL SMITH PC
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
7 Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) Austin, Texas 78701
Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769) Telephone: (512) 692-8700
8 Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 219202) Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com
9 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor Email: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
San Francisco, California 94105
10 Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
11 Email: peter.detre@mto.com
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

Email: rose.ring@mto.com
12 Email: jen.polse@mto.com

13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

MCKOOL SMITH

DALLAS, TEXAS

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
15

16 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-00334 RMW

)
17 )
Plaintiff, ) RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF
vs. MOTION AND MOTION (1) FOR
18 ) LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
19 ) REGARDING UNCONTESTED
Defendants. ) CLAIM LIMITATIONS AND (2) TO
20 SHORTEN TIME
)
21 )
) Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Date: Friday January 16, 2009
22 ) Time: 1:30 p.m.
) Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor
23

24

25

26

27
28
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 2 of 7

1 RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-002298 RMW

)
2 Plaintiff, )
)
3 v. )
4 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,)
et al., )
5 )
Defendants. )
6 )
RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
7
)
8 Plaintiff, )
)
9 vs. )
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., )
10 )
11 Defendants. )
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

)
12

13
MCKOOL SMITH

DALLAS, TEXAS

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 16, 2009 or as soon thereafter as counsel may
14
be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States District
15
Court for the Northern District of California, at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California,
16
Plaintiff Rambus Inc. hereby moves (1) for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment
17
as to claim limitations for which the Court has granted summary judgment or which the
18
Manufacturers have not contested, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and (2)
19
to shorten the time period for briefing of the foregoing motion and underlying motion as set forth
20
in the attached Memorandum.
21
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
22
and Authorities attached hereto, all of the Court’s records and files in this action, and on such
23
other and further written and oral argument and authorities as may be properly presented at or
24
before the hearing on this matter.
25

26

27
28
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 3 of 7

1 Dated: January 13, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

3 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
4 MCKOOL SMITH
5

6
/s/ Pierre J. Hubert
7 Pierre J. Hubert
Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
8

10

11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

12

13
MCKOOL SMITH

DALLAS, TEXAS

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 4 of 7

1
In view of the parties’ continuing inability to finalize the terms under which the
2
Manufacturers will not contest infringement, Rambus hereby moves for leave to file a motion for
3
summary judgment as to claim limitations that are no longer in dispute so that the parties may
4
focus on the limitations that would be argued to the jury for purposes of infringement. Rambus
5
first asked the Manufacturers to stipulate to the claim limitations that need to be tried to jury in
6
early December 2008. Despite repeated requests from Rambus, the Manufacturers did not agree
7
to stipulate. Then, on December 19, 2008, the Manufacturers indicated that they would not
8
contest infringement at all. But as the Court noted at the January 6, 2009 hearing, the
9
Manufacturers’ terms were unworkable. Because the Manufacturers have not yet presented
10
workable terms, Rambus files this motion. In light of the impending trial date, Rambus also
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

moves to shorten time on the briefing, with respect to both the motion for leave and the
12
underlying motion for summary judgment. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant
13
MCKOOL SMITH

Rambus’s motion for leave and to shorten time so as to streamline the trial and avoid
DALLAS, TEXAS

14
unnecessary testimony regarding claim limitations about which there is no legitimate dispute.
15

16 I. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS

17
On December 3, 2008, Rambus proposed that the Manufacturers stipulate as to
18
infringement of certain limitations, so as to streamline the trial. The Manufacturers ignored
19
Rambus’s correspondence. See Declaration of Craig N. Tolliver in Support of Motion for Leave
20
(“Tolliver Decl.”) Ex. 1.
21
On December 9, 2008, Rambus again proposed that the Manufacturers stipulate. Again,
22
the Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s correspondence. See id.
23
Then, on December 19, 2008 the Manufacturers sent a letter to the Court announcing that
24
“[i]n light of the Court’s November 24, 2008 order, which rejected as a matter of law most of the
25
Manufacturers’ noninfringement arguments, the Manufacturers have decided not to contest the
26
remaining infringement issues with respect to the twelve claims-in-suit.” See December 19,
27
2008 Letter from Bobrow, Dkt. No. 2948, 334 Case.
28 1
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 5 of 7

1
In a letter dated December 29, 2008, the Manufacturers subsequently identified
2
“remaining infringement issues,” stating that the remaining categories of claim limitations that
3
the Manufacturers proposed not contesting were (1) the synchronous output limitations, (2) the
4
synchronous sampling limitations, (3) the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations, and (4)
5
the “synchronous” device limitations. See December 29, 2008 Letter from Cherensky, Dkt. No.
6
3003, 334 Case.
7
On December 29, 2008, in view of the Manufacturers’ indications that they would not
8
contest infringement, Rambus again asked the Manufacturers to stipulate as to infringement
9
issues per Rambus’s December 3 email. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1. Micron and Samsung
10
continued to ignore Rambus request altogether. Nanya responded, “We have been in discussions
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

with Mr. Stone regarding a proposal by Nanya and Nanya USA to not contest infringement by
12
the DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM products at trial. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate
13
MCKOOL SMITH

to determine whether to enter into a stipulation regarding the issues set forth in your email below
DALLAS, TEXAS

14
until this is resolved.” Hynix likewise rejected the stipulation “under the circumstances.” See
15
Tolliver Decl. Ex. 2.
16
The Manufacturers proposed a protocol by which infringement would not be tried to the
17
jury. At the hearing on January 6, 2009, the Court recognized the serious problems with the
18
Manufacturers’ proposal and granted them leave to make a new proposal that remedied those
19
problems.
20
As of this date, with trial rapidly approaching, the Manufacturers have not made a new
21
proposal.
22

23 II. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT RAMBUS LEAVE TO FILE THE ATTACHED
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS
24 MEET CERTAIN LIMITATIONS THAT THE MANUFACTURERS DO NOT
DISPUTE ARE MET, IF INFRINGEMENT IS TO BE TRIED
25

26 Rambus brings this motion as part of its ongoing efforts to streamline the issues for trial.

27 The Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s invitations to streamline the infringement issues, only to

28
2
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 6 of 7

1
indicate themselves late last month that that they would not contest infringement at all. The
2
Manufacturers proposed such unworkable terms, however, that the Court granted the
3
Manufacturers leave to make a new proposal. As of this date the Manufacturers have not
4
changed their terms, so Rambus files this motion for leave to file the motion for summary
5
judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A to clarify the remaining infringement issues. The
6
relatively short summary judgment motion simply identifies the claim limitations that would be
7
in dispute at trial for purposes of infringement, taking into account the Court’s November 24,
8
2008 Summary Judgment Order, the Manufacturers’ expert reports, and the Manufacturers’ own
9
admissions.1 The attached motion does not involve substantive argument as to any claim
10
limitation, but instead simply identifies which claim limitations remain in dispute. Rambus
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

believes that the disputed infringement issues identified by this motion are consistent with those
12
identified in the Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter. See Letter, Dkt. No. 3003, at 2-3.
13
MCKOOL SMITH

Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s motion for leave to file the attached
DALLAS, TEXAS

14
motion.
15

16 III. GIVEN THE TIME REMAINING UNTIL TRIAL, THE COURT SHOULD
SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD FOR BRIEFING ON RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR
17 LEAVE AND ON RAMBUS’S UNDERLYING MOTION

18
Resolution of the attached motion will clarify the issues to be tried, and the evidence to
19
be presented, to the jury. Because trial is presently scheduled to begin during the week of
20
January 19, Rambus requests that the Court shorten the briefing time periods both as to this
21
motion for leave and also for the underlying attached motion for partial summary judgment, to
22
the extent the Court grants the motion for leave, as follows.
23
Rambus proposes this schedule for the motion for leave and to shorten time:
24
• Opposition: Due Thursday January 15, 2009;
25
1
26 Because Nanya also has refused to stipulate that its DDR3 parts infringe for the same reasons
as its own DDR2 parts and other Manufacturers’ DDR3 parts despite the Court’s invitation that
27 the parties reach such a stipulation, see Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1, Rambus’s underlying motion also
seeks summary judgment of infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3 parts.
28
3
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3109 Filed 01/13/2009 Page 7 of 7

1
• Reply: Rambus waives its right to a written Reply;
2
• Hearing: Friday January 16, 2009 coinciding with the hearing between
3
the parties already on the Court’s calendar.
4
Rambus also requests that if the Court grants Rambus’s motion for leave and to shorten
5
time, that the Court also shorten time on the briefing and hearing of Rambus’s underlying motion
6
for summary judgment in view of the rapidly approaching trial, subject to the Court’s and the
7
parties’ availability to be discussed at the hearing on Friday January 16th.
8

9 IV. CONCLUSION

10
For the forgoing reasons, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s
11
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS

motion for leave to file the attached motion for partial summary judgment and to shorten time.
12

13 Dated: January 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

MCKOOL SMITH

DALLAS, TEXAS

14 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

15 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
16 MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
17

18

19 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

Pierre J. Hubert
20 Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
21 Austin 47997v6

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
4
RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW