3148 A

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3148-2 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 15
EXHIBIT A
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3148-2
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 2 of 15
48
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
RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
16 )
Plaintiff, ) RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF
17 vs. MOTION AND MOTION FOR
) PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., ) REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS
18
) THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR
19 Defendants. ) SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
)
20 ) Date: TBD
) Time: TBD
21 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
)
22 )
RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-002298 RMW
23 )
Plaintiff, )
24 v.
)
25 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,)
et al., )
26 )
Defendants. )
27 )
28 RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING

CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED
OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Austin 47636v7
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 3 of 15
48
1 RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 06-00244 RMW

)
2 Plaintiff, )
vs.
)
3
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., )
4 )
Defendants. )
5
6
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ____________ or as soon thereafter as counsel may be
7
heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States District Court
8
for the Northern District of California, at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff
9
Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) hereby moves for partial summary judgment as to claim limitations for
10
which the Court has granted summary judgment or which the Manufacturers have not contested,
11
for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum.

12
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points
13
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
and Authorities attached hereto, all of the Court’s records and files in this action, and on such
14
other and further written and oral argument and authorities as may be properly presented at or
15
before the hearing on this matter.
16
Dated: January 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
17
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
18
19 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
20 MCKOOL SMITH
21
22 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

Pierre J. Hubert
23 Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
24
25
26
27
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING
28 CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED
Austin 47636v7
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 4 of 15
48
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2
I. INTRODUCTION
3
As the Manufacturers acknowledge in their December 19, 2008 letter to the Court (Dkt.
4
No. 2948, 334 Case), the Court “rejected as a matter of law most of the Manufacturers’
5
noninfringement arguments” in its November 24, 2008 Order granting in part Rambus’s motion
6
for summary judgment. Indeed, late last month, the Manufacturers themselves proposed that
7
they would not contest (but not concede) infringement at trial. As the Manufacturers outlined in
8
their December 29, 2008 letter to the Court, (Dkt. No. 3003, 334 Case), only four categories of
9
claim limitations remain in dispute following the Court’s summary judgment ruling (and that
10
therefore were subject to the Manufacturers’ proposal to not contest infringement at trial). Those
11
four categories are

12
13 (1) the synchronous output limitations;

MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
14
(2) the synchronous sampling limitations;
15
16 (3) the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations; and
17
(4) and the “synchronous” device limitations.
18
19 Rambus agrees with the Manufacturers’ assessment of the claim limitations still at issue for
20 purposes of infringement.
21
Because it now appears likely that infringement will be tried, Rambus files the present
22
motion in order to streamline the remaining infringement issues for trial by identifying the
23
specific claim limitations that remain in dispute.1 The motion is based on the Court’s prior
24
1
25 In its November 24 order, the Court already summarily adjudicated that certain limitations are
present in the accused products. Rambus includes these limitations in this Motion only to seek a
26 single comprehensive order regarding all claim limitations as to which summary adjudication is
appropriate so as to eliminate any doubt as to what remains a matter of disputed material fact for
27 trial.
1
Austin 47636v7
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 5 of 15
48
1
summary judgment ruling, the infringement issues raised by the Manufacturers’ experts, and the
2
Manufacturers’ own recent admissions to the Court. The time has passed for the Manufacturers
3
to offer genuine issues of fact relating to claim limitations that (a) were not contested by the
4
Manufacturers in their experts’ reports and/or (b) were resolved in Rambus’s favor by the
5
Court’s November 24, 2008 summary judgment ruling. In other words, Rambus is entitled to
6
summary adjudication that all claim limitations -- other than those that fall within the four
7
categories identified in the Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter to the Court -- are present
8
in the accused products.
9
Accordingly, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court issue an order of partial
10
summary judgment of infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted in Exhibits A and B to
11
Rambus’s motion, which Rambus believes the parties agree are not subject to dispute, such that
12
at trial the Manufacturers may dispute infringement only as to the claim limitations identified in
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
bold-faced type in Exhibit C.2
14
Finally, Rambus also hereby moves for summary judgment as to infringement of claim
15
16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3 given that despite Rambus’s efforts, Nanya has been
16
unwilling to agree to “a stipulation with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 SDRAMs to prevent
17
unnecessary issues from having to be tried to the jury” as the Court suggested. (See November
18
24, 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 1611, 244 Case at 37.)
19
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
20
On November 2, 2007, the Manufacturers filed their opposition to Rambus’ motion for
21
summary judgment of infringement. In that opposition, the Manufacturers raised eleven specific
22
non-infringement arguments. (See November 24, 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 1611, 244 Case at 37;
23
24
2
On December 3, Rambus filed a related motion in limine regarding the undisputed and resolved
25 claim limitations and also provided the Manufacturers with a draft stipulation (Dkt. No. 2705,
Ex. 2) regarding the claim limitations, in the hope that the parties could resolve this issue without
26 the need to file papers with the Court. The Manufacturers did not respond substantively to
Rambus’s draft stipulation, but instead presented the Court with a December 19 letter in which
27 the Manufacturers proposed a scenario under which they would not contest infringement.
2
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 6 of 15
48
1
see also Manufacturers’ Opposition to Rambus’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal
2
Infringement, Dkt. No. 661, 334 Case, at i (listing non-infringement arguments)).
3
On September 26, 2008, the Manufacturers served expert reports on non-infringement
4
issues pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil
5
Procedure. Each manufacturer served a separate report: Hynix served a report of David L.
6
Taylor; Nanya served a report of Nader Bagherzadeh; Micron served a report of William K.
7
Hoffman, and Samsung served a report of Michael Runas. With few exceptions, the experts
8
expressed the same or very similar opinions as to the limitations they contend are not present in
9
the accused products. Indeed, the parties’ various experts raised some subset of the same non-
10
infringement arguments that had been raised by the Manufacturers in their summary judgment
11
opposition, and abandoned some of the summary judgment arguments. (See Rambus Mot. to
12
Preclude Manufacturers’ Rebuttal Expert Reports, Dkt. No. 2344, 334 Case, at 5-7 (explaining
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
which of the eleven arguments were raised by the various Manufacturers’ experts in their
14
reports)). Because the Manufacturers’ experts adopted a subset of the summary judgment non-
15
infringement arguments, which did not cover all claim limitations, the Manufacturers’ experts
16
were consistent in not contesting the presence of certain limitations in the accused products. The
17
Manufacturers’ expert reports do not contest infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted
18
in Exhibit A attached hereto.
19
Prior to deposing the Manufacturers’ non-infringement experts, on October 3, 2008,
20
Rambus filed a motion to strike the expert reports as duplicative pursuant to the Joint Case
21
Management Order. The Court ordered the Manufacturers to identify a lead expert on issues for
22
which there was overlap. On November 6, the Manufacturers provided Rambus with their
23
selection of lead experts on various topics. See Declaration of Craig N. Tolliver in Support of
24
Rambus’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Tolliver Decl.”) Ex. 1 (November 6 email
25
from Manufacturers identifying lead experts and topics). As would be expected, the non-
26
infringement issues for which the Manufacturers designated a lead expert involved only the
27
3
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 7 of 15
48
1
arguments that one or more of the experts had identified in his expert report as providing a basis
2
for a finding of non-infringement. The Manufacturers did not designate any of the claim
3
limitations shown in Exhibit A as disputed by a lead expert. Compare Ex. A with Tolliver Decl.
4
Ex. 1.
5
On November 24, 2008, the Court issued its Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part
6
Rambus’s Motions For Summary Judgment of Infringement (“SJ Order”). In its SJ Order, the
7
Court granted summary judgment of infringement as to claim 16 of the ‘285 patent. Dkt. No.
8
1611 at 41. In the course of addressing claim 16, and in a separate portion of the SJ Order, the
9
Court addressed the Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments as to other elected claims.
10
Specifically, the Court granted partial summary judgment over the Manufacturers’ arguments
11
relating to five claim limitations of the elected claims, conclusively rejecting the Manufacturers’
12
arguments that: (1) commands received by the accused products do not identify the type of read
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
or write to perform (argument number 1 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); (2) accused
14
products receive commands not requests (argument number 2 in the Manufacturers’ opposition
15
brief); (3) accused products do not receive bits that specify a read, write, or any other type of
16
action (argument number 3 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); (4) burst length value
17
received by the mode register of the accused products does not specify the total amount of data
18
transferred on the data bus (argument number 4 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); and (5)
19
the accused products do not sample an operation code as a result of a rising or falling edge
20
transition of an external clock (argument number 8 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief). Id.
21
(“The court grants partial summary judgment over the Manufacturers’ arguments related to claim
22
construction disputes. . . The disputes resolved are the arguments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 in
23
the Manufacturers’ opposition brief.”).3 Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the text of each elected
24
claim with the resolved claim limitations highlighted.
25
3
Although not one of the “numbered” arguments, the Manufacturers also argued that Rambus
26 did not offer evidence of indirect infringement of the method claims. See Manufacturers’ Joint
Opposition to Rambus’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement, Dkt. No. 661,
27 at i (Table of Contents listing the aforementioned argument as argument “C,” instead of as a
4
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 8 of 15
48
1
Because certain claim limitations are undisputed by the Manufacturers’ experts, and other
2
limitations raised by the Manufacturers’ experts have been resolved in Rambus’s favor by
3
summary judgment, there is a reduced set of claim limitations as to which a legitimate dispute
4
can be raised by the Manufacturers. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is the text of each of the
5
elected claims with the undisputed and resolved claim limitations highlighted and the limitations
6
to be resolved at trial shown in bold-faced type.
7
On December 3, Rambus sent the Manufacturers a proposed stipulation seeking their
8
agreement that the Manufacturers would not present evidence or argument at trial as to the
9
uncontested and resolved limitations, and that such limitations would be deemed, for purposes of
10
the patent trial, to be present in the accused products. (Tolliver Decl. Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 2.)
11
On December 19, 2008, the Manufacturers provided a letter to the Court in which they
12
stated, “In light of the Court’s November 24,2008 order, which rejected as a matter of law most
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
of the Manufacturers’ noninfringement arguments, the Manufacturers have decided not to contest
14
the remaining infringement issues with respect to the twelve claims-in-suit.” (See 12/19/08 Ltr.
15
from Bobrow, Dkt. No. 2948, 334 Case.)
16
On December 29, 2008, the Manufacturers provided an additional letter to the Court
17
regarding their proposal for the Manufacturers to not contest infringement. (See 12/29/08 Ltr
18
from Cherensky, Dkt. No. 3003, 334 Case). In that letter, the Manufacturers listed the four
19
categories of claim limitations that the Manufacturers would not contest at trial, thus indicating
20
which claim limitations the Manufacturers believed to have remained at issue following the
21
Court’s SJ Order. See id. Those four categories are the synchronous output limitations, the
22
synchronous sampling limitations, the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations, and the
23
“synchronous” device limitations. See id. Those are the same categories that the Manufacturers
24
would be allowed to argue at trial if this motion is granted. See Section IV(C), infra.
25
26
numbered argument). The Court rejected this argument at page 24 of its Summary Judgment
27 Order.
5
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 9 of 15
48
1
On December 29, 2008, in view of the Manufacturers’ indications that they would not
2
contest infringement, Rambus again asked the Manufacturers to stipulate as to infringement
3
issues per Rambus’s December 3 email. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 4. Micron and Samsung
4
continued to ignore Rambus request altogether. Nanya responded, “We have been in discussions
5
with Mr. Stone regarding a proposal by Nanya and Nanya USA to not contest infringement by
6
the DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM products at trial. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate
7
to determine whether to enter into a stipulation regarding the issues set forth in your email below
8
until this is resolved.” Hynix likewise rejected the stipulation “under the circumstances.” See
9
Tolliver Decl. Ex. 5.
10
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
11
12 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that
MCKOOL SMITH
there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
14 judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect
15 the outcome of the case. Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, No. C-07-04330 RMW, 2008 WL 4820755
16 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2008) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
17 (1986)). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable
18 jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.
19 The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those
20 portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine
21 issue of material fact. Jordan v. Graziani, No. C 03-2414 RMW (PR), 2008 WL 3823032 at *2
22 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2008) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the
23 moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by
24 its' own affidavits or discovery, “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
25 trial.” Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the
26 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Celotex).
27
6
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 10 of 15
48
1 IV. ARGUMENT
2 A. Partial Summary Judgment Should Be Granted As To Claim Limitations To

Which The Manufacturers Are Precluded From Offering Expert Testimony
3
Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each expert report must
4
contain, inter alia, “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis
5
and reasons for them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). As discussed above, while the
6
Manufacturers’ experts disputed that the accused products met several claim limitations, none of
7
them opined that the accused products do not meet the claim limitations shown in Exhibit A.4
8
Further, at their depositions, the experts confirmed that their expert reports were complete, and
9
contained all of the opinions as to which they might testify at trial, subject to the Manufacturer’s
10
designation of lead experts as to certain issues. See, e.g., Tolliver Decl. Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 3
11
(Hoffman 11/20/08 Depo. at 11:9-12); Ex. 4 (Bagherzadeh 11/19/08 Depo. at 18:13-18); Ex. 5
12
(Runas 11/13/08 Depo. at 11:5-8, 11:19-22); Ex. 6 (Taylor 11/25/08 Depo. at 18:14-18).
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
It is well established that an expert’s Rule 26 report sets the bounds of his testimony at
14
trial. See, e.g., Laser Design Int'l, LLC v. BJ Crystal, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21329, *9
15
(N.D. Cal. 2007) (stating that Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to the expert disclosure requirements
16
“by forbidding the use at trial of any information required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is
17
not properly disclosed”). Accordingly, none of the Manufacturers’ experts may opine that the
18
accused products do not meet the limitations identified in Exhibit A. Likewise, none of the
19
Manufacturers’ experts may now present any additional evidence in opposition to this motion
20
that would go beyond their Rule 26 Report. See, e.g. Dkt. No. 2555 (Case Management Order),
21
at 13-14. Given (a) that the Manufacturers cannot advance non-infringement arguments
22
23
4
On December 12, the Manufacturers filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 1591) to Rambus’s Motion
24 in limine no. 7 regarding undisputed and resolved claim limitations, a motion that raised issues
substantially similar to those in the present motion. Based on that Opposition, the Manufacturers
25 do not appear to dispute Rambus’s identification of the claim limitations that were not contested
by the Manufacturers’ experts, with the possible exception of the “memory device” issue. The
26 Manufacturers have since conceded that they will not present any new noninfringement issues
based on the Court’s clarification of the “memory device” term. See Dkt. No. 2946 (Letter from
27 M. Powers addressed to the Court, dated December 18, 2008)
7
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 11 of 15
48
1
regarding the issues in this case without expert testimony, see Centricut, LLC v. ESAB Group,
2
Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (in a case involving complex technology, party cannot
3
satisfy its burden on infringement issue by offering evidence from non-expert witness where
4
opposing party has offered expert testimony), and (b) that Rambus proved the existence of the
5
undisputed limitations in the accused products through its expert, Robert Murphy, see Dkt. No.
6
2425, Ex. 7 (Murphy Opening Report Regarding Infringement), the failure of any of the
7
Manufacturers’ experts to rebut the infringement analysis of Rambus’s expert deprives the
8
manufacturers of any basis upon which to argue for the existence of a genuine issue of material
9
fact as to these claim limitations.5 .
10
11 B. The Manufacturers Are Precluded From Offering Evidence Or Argument

Contesting Claim Limitations As To Which The Court Granted Summary
12 Judgment
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
In rejecting the Manufacturers’ five non-infringement arguments identified above in
14
Section II, the Court disposed of the Manufacturer experts’ arguments pertaining to the claim
15
limitations identified in Exhibit B. Indeed, as already stated, the Manufacturers’ expert reports
16
raised only a subset of the same arguments presented to the Court in their opposition to
17
Rambus’s motion. See Section II, supra; see also, e.g., Tolliver Decl. Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 7
18
(Hoffman 9/26/08 Report) at page i (Table of Contents section VI, listing non-infringement
19
arguments corresponding to a subset of the Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments
20
presented to the Court in opposition to summary judgment).
21
It is undisputed that the Manufacturers’ cannot offer evidence or argument contrary to the
22
Court’s SJ Order. And they also cannot offer evidence or argument as to non-infringement that
23
is not supported by a proper expert disclosure. Accordingly, partial summary judgment is
24
5
25 Indeed, the Court granted summary judgment of infringement with respect to claim 16 of Patent
No. 6,266,285, which contains a number of claim limitations not disputed by the Manufacturers
26 in their summary judgment opposition or expert reports, such as “section of memory,” “plurality
of memory cells,” and “receiving an external clock signal” limitations. See 11/24/08 Order at 9
27 (reciting claim 16).
8
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 12 of 15
48
1
appropriate because the Manufacturers will not be able marshal evidence to contest the claim
2
limitations identified in Exhibit B at trial.
3
The Manufacturers’ December 12 opposition (Dkt. No. 1591) to Rambus’s substantially
4
similar motion in limine appears to raise only a single dispute with Rambus’s identification of
5
the infringement issues that have been resolved by the Court on summary judgment.6 The
6
Manufacturers assert that “Rambus is attempting to limit the evidence and/or argument that the
7
Manufacturers may present with respect to noninfringement argument Nos. 7 and 9.” See
8
Opposition to MIL No. 7, Dkt. No. 1591, at 4. That dispute, however, relates to the scope of the
9
arguments that the Manufacturers may present as presented in Rambus’s MIL No. 11 and not as
10
to whether the corresponding claim limitations remain at issue. Rambus’s MIL No. 7 and the
11
present motion clearly state that the Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments nos. 7 and 9,7
12
relating to whether an external clock signal governs read/write operations, remain at issue and
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
the attached Exhibits reflect the same.
14
15 C. There Are A Limited Number Of Claim Limitations As To Which The

Manufacturers Will Be Able To Properly Offer Evidence And Argument
16
17 In light of the foregoing, there are only a handful of claim limitations as to which the
18 Manufacturers may offer evidence and/or argument to support their defense of non-infringement
19 consistent with the Court’s rulings and their expert disclosures. Those limitations are identified
20 in bold-faced type in Exhibit C. The only non-infringement arguments relating to those
21 limitations disclosed in the Manufacturers’ expert reports are those that correspond to arguments
22
6
23 This motion for summary judgment differs slightly from Rambus’s prior motion in limine in
that the current motion interprets the Court’s SJ Order as resolving all issues relating to the
24 variable latency limitations, not just the variable latency limitation at issue in claim 16 of the
’285 Patent. The Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter now have admitted that all variable
25 latency limitations are subject to the Court’s SJ Order. See Dkt. No. 3003.
7
The Manufacturers’ argument No. 7 is that “[t]he accused products do not output data (for read
26 operations) as a result of a rising or falling edge transition of an external clock,” and No. 9 is that
“[t]he accused products do not receive an external clock signal which governs the timing of read
27 and write operations.”
9
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 13 of 15
48
1
numbered 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Manufacturers’ opposition brief to Rambus’s infringement
2
summary judgment motion, and are as follows:
3
• (5) Write operations performed by the accused products do not have a known
4
timing relationship with respect to an external clock;
5
• (6) Read operations performed by the accused products do not have a known
6
timing relationship with respect to an external clock;
7
• (7) The accused products do not output data (for read operations) as a result of a
8
rising or falling edge transition of an external clock; and
9
• (9) The accused products do not receive an external clock signal which governs
10
the timing of read and write operations.8
11
It appears that the Manufacturers do not disagree with this list of disputed issues, because
12
their December 29, 2008, letter to the Court listed the same issues as being subject to dispute.
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
(See 12/29/08 Ltr from Cherensky, Dkt. No. 3003).
14
In order to streamline the case and reduce the number of disputes before the jury, and in
15
order to avoid burdening the jury with extraneous issues on which there would be no evidence to
16
support a verdict in the Manufacturers’ favor in any event, Rambus respectfully requests that the
17
Court enter an order of partial summary judgment of infringement as to the claim limitations
18
highlighted in Exhibits A and B to Rambus’s motion, such that the Manufacturers may dispute
19
infringement only as to the claim limitations identified in bold-faced type in Exhibit C.
20
21 D. In View of Nanya’s Refusal to Stipulate as to Claim 16 of the ‘285 Patent and

Nanya DDR3 Per the Court’s November 24 Order, Rambus Also Moves for
22 Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claim 16 of the ‘285 Patent by
Nanya DDR3
23
24 As the Court noted in its summary judgment order, Rambus did not yet possess a Nanya
25 DDR3 datasheet when it moved for summary judgment under the Court’s Markman-related
8
26 The Manufacturers’ argument no. 10 regarding variable latency is not included as a non-
infringement argument given the Manufacturers’ admission that such limitations are covered by
27 the Court’s SJ Order and therefore not subject to dispute at trial. See n.6, supra.
10
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 14 of 15
48
1
summary judgment deadline. For that reason, the Court found Rambus had not met its burden of
2
proof with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 part’s infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent. Nanya’s
3
DDR3 datasheet has since become available, and Mr. Murphy opined as to infringement of
4
Nanya’s DDR3 part in his expert report. See Expert Report of Robert Murphy (Body), attached
5
as Exh. 7 to Raz Decl. at Dkt. No. 2425, 334 Case, Paragraphs 205-209, 217, 221; excerpt from
6
Exhibit S to Expert Report of Robert Murphy (Claim Chart for ‘285 Patent Claim 16) attached as
7
Tolliver Decl. Ex. 2; excerpt from Exhibit V to Expert Report of Robert Murphy (Nanya DDR3
8
Datasheet) attached as Tolliver Decl. Ex. 3. Nanya has raised no substantive argument as to why
9
its DDR3 part would not infringe claim 16 of the ‘285 patent in light of the Court’s November
10
24, 2008 ruling, and the limitations in that claim were not among those identified by the
11
Manufacturers in their December 29, 2008 letter as remaining in dispute.
12
Pursuant to the Court’s order that “the Court anticipates that Nanya and Rambus can
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
reach a stipulation with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 SDRAM,” Rambus has attempted to negotiate
14
a stipulation of infringement with respect to Nanya DDR3 so that infringement of claim 16 of the
15
‘285 patent by that part does not need to be presented to the jury. Nanya, however, declined
16
Rambus’s request to stipulate that its DDR3 products infringe this claims for the same reasons as
17
both the other Manufacturers’ DDR3 parts and Nanya’s own DDR2 parts. See Tolliver Decl. Ex.
18
4.
19
Given that the parties are unable to obtain agreement, Rambus moves for summary
20
judgment of infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3, on the basis of Mr.
21
Murphy’s analysis of the Nanya DDR3 datasheet that was not in Rambus’s possession at the
22
time of the motion for summary judgment briefing, the Manufacturers’ failure to raise any
23
remaining disputed limitations that would impact claim 16 of the ‘285 patent, and the reasoning
24
of the Court’s November 24, 2008 summary judgment order. Rambus submits that there can be
25
no genuine dispute that Nanya’s DDR3 infringes claim 16 of the ‘285 patent, for the same
26
27
11
3109-2 Filed 01/26/2009
01/13/2009 Page 15 of 15
48
1
reasons that the Court found infringement of that claim in view of the other Manufacturers’
2
DDR3 and Nanya’s DDR2.
3
4 V. CONCLUSION
5
Based on the foregoing, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court issue an order of
6
partial summary judgment of infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted in Exhibits A
7
and B to Rambus’s motion, such that the Manufacturers may only argue infringement as to the
8
claim limitations identified in bold-faced type in Exhibit C.
9
10
11 Dated: January 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
12 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

14 MCKOOL SMITH
15
16
17 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

Pierre J. Hubert
18 Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
12

3148 A

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

3148 A

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3148-2 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 15

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

13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28 RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING

1 RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 06-00244 RMW

for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum.

19 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

22 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

four categories are

13 (1) the synchronous output limitations;

16 (3) the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations; and

18 jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id.

26 moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Celotex).

2 A. Partial Summary Judgment Should Be Granted As To Claim Limitations To

11 B. The Manufacturers Are Precluded From Offering Evidence Or Argument

15 C. There Are A Limited Number Of Claim Limitations As To Which The

20 in bold-faced type in Exhibit C. The only non-infringement arguments relating to those

21 D. In View of Nanya’s Refusal to Stipulate as to Claim 16 of the ‘285 Patent and

11 Dated: January 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

12 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

13 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

17 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen