Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 10

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, CA 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, CA 94105
10 Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
11 Email: peter.detre@mto.com
Email: rose.ring@mto.com
12 Email: jen.polse@mto.com
13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
16

17 RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW

18 Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S EVIDENTIARY
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OF
19 vs. SUSAN ROEDER, JOHN BEYNON,
KRISTIN CORNUELLE, AND STEVEN
20 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., CHERENSKY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT
OF MANUFACTURERS’ MOTIONS FOR
21 Defendants. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR FOR
APPLICATION OF ISSUE PRECLUSION
22

23
Date: January 30, 2009
24 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 6
25 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
26

27

28
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 2 of 10

1
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW
2
Plaintiff,
3
vs.
4
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
5 et al.,
6 Defendants.
7
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,
11
Defendants.
12

13 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al., CASE NO.: CV 00-20905 RMW

14 Plaintiffs,
15 vs.
16 RAMBUS INC.,
17 Defendant.
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 3 of 10

1 Rambus Inc. hereby submits the following evidentiary objections to the declarations of
2 Susan Roeder, John Beynon, Kristin Cornuelle, and Steven Cherensky filed on January 19, 2009,
3 in connection with the Manufacturers’ respective motions for entry of judgment and/or summary
4 judgment and Nanya’s motion for application of collateral estoppel.
5 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF SUSAN ROEDER IN SUPPORT OF HYNIX’S
6 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON UNCLEAN HANDS CLAIMS, ETC.
7 Paragraph 6 & Exhibit E: Rambus objects to paragraph 6 and Exhibit E of the Roeder
8 Declaration on the grounds that the Memorandum Opinion attached as Exhibit E was vacated in
9 its entirety by the Federal Circuit. See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc., 523 F.3d
10 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit specifically held that the court’s findings constituted
11 an “impermissible advisory opinion” that was “issued without jurisdiction.” Id. at 1380. Where a
12 higher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has no precedential
13 value. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979). Citation to and
14 reliance on the district court’s opinion in the Samsung action is therefore improper.
15 Paragraph 7 & Exhibit F: Rambus objects to paragraph 7 and Exhibit F of the Roeder
16 Declaration on the grounds that the Opinion of the Commission attached as Exhibit F was set
17 aside by the D.C. Circuit. See Rambus, Inc. v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Where a
18 higher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has no precedential
19 value. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979). Citation to and
20 reliance on the FTC’s opinion is therefore improper.
21 Paragraph 8 & Exhibits G: Rambus objects to paragraph 8 and Exhibit G of the Roeder
22 Declaration on the grounds that the Order Reversing and Vacating Initial Decision attached as
23 Exhibit G was set aside by the D.C. Circuit. See Rambus, Inc. v. FTC, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir.
24 2008). Where a higher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has
25 no precedential value. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979).
26 Citation to and reliance on the FTC’s order is therefore improper.
27 Paragraph 11 & Exhibit J: Rambus objects to paragraph 11 and Exhibit J of the Roeder
28 Declaration on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Exhibit J is a memorandum from Joel
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-1- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 4 of 10

1 Karp to Rambus’s executive staff that reflects communications from Dan Johnson, Rambus’s
2 outside counsel. See Rambus’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion In Limine to Bar
3 Manufacturers from Using Certain Privileged Rambus Documents (filed Jan. 31, 2008) at 12-14
4 (discussing “Exhibit N,” the Conduct Trial version of Roeder Decl. Exh. J). This document was
5 first ordered produced by this Court in Hynix I, pursuant to the Court’s January 31, 2005 order
6 piercing Rambus’s privilege. As Rambus has previously established, and the Court has agreed,
7 Rambus has consistently undertaken efforts reasonably designed to protect its privileges in the
8 face of this Court’s piercing order (and similar orders by other courts). See, e.g., Rambus’s
9 Motion in Limine to Bar Manufacturers From Using Certain Privileged Rambus Documents (filed
10 Jan. 22, 2008) at 7-8; Rambus’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion In Limine to Bar
11 Manufacturers from Using Certain Privileged Rambus Documents (filed Jan. 31, 2008) at 2-9;
12 Order Denying Rambus’s Motion in Limine to Bar Manufacturers from Using Exhibits C & O
13 (filed Feb. 2, 2008) (“Order”) at 4-5. In light of this showing, and given the Court’s rejection of
14 Hynix’s unclean hands defense, the Court concluded prior to the Conduct Trial that “the
15 ‘crime/fraud’ exception can no longer be said to justify the production of privileged documents.”
16 See Order at 3. The Court therefore concluded that Rambus’s privilege had been restored, and
17 barred the Manufacturers from using certain privileged documents during the Conduct Trial. See
18 Conduct Trial Tr. (Feb. 11, 2008) at 819:15-820:11. Indeed, the Court specifically concluded that
19 portions of Exhibit J were privileged and therefore precluded the Manufacturers’ use of those
20 portions of the exhibit. Id. at 820:6-820:11.
21 Because Rambus’s privilege claims remain intact, use of this exhibit is improper, as is
22 Hynix’s public filing of the document. Rambus therefore objects to both the use and public filing
23 of the exhibit. Rambus further requests that the Court strike the exhibit, direct that it be filed
24 under seal, and/or take any and all other actions that the Court deems necessary or appropriate to
25 ensure the continued preservation of Rambus’s privilege claims.
26 Paragraph 14 & Exhibit M: Rambus objects to paragraph 14 and Exhibit M of the Roeder
27 Declaration on the grounds that the news article attached as Exhibit M, which is apparently being
28 offered for its truth, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. The Ninth Circuit has long held that
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-2- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 5 of 10

1 newspaper and magazine articles that are offered for the truth of their contents are inadmissible
2 hearsay. See, e.g, Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 643 (9th Cir. 1991); see also In re
3 Cypress Semiconductor Securities Litig., 891 F. Supp. 1369, 1374 (N.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d sub
4 nom Eisenstadt v. Allen, 113 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1997). Rambus further objects to paragraph 14
5 and Exhibit M on the grounds that the article attached as Exhibit M provides no foundation for its
6 statements, including without limitation to the extent it purports to summarize sales data from
7 numerous third-party companies. Finally, Rambus objects on the grounds that the information
8 reflected in the article attached as Exhibit M is based on “scientific, technical, or other specialized
9 knowledge,” including without limitation to the extent it purports to summarize sales data from
10 numerous third-party companies, articulate the reason for purported losses, and offer predictions
11 for the future, and therefore constitutes improper expert opinion testimony in violation of Rules
12 701 and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
13 Paragraph 15 & Exhibit N: Rambus objects to paragraph 15 and Exhibit N of the Roeder
14 Declaration on the grounds that the news article attached as Exhibit N, which is apparently being
15 offered for its truth, constitutes inadmissible hearsay. The Ninth Circuit has long held that
16 newspaper and magazine articles that are offered for the truth of their contents are inadmissible
17 hearsay. See, e.g, Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 643 (9th Cir. 1991); see also In re
18 Cypress Semiconductor Securities Litig., 891 F. Supp. 1369, 1374 (N.D. Cal. 1995), aff’d sub
19 nom Eisenstadt v. Allen, 113 F.3d 1240 (9th Cir. 1997). Rambus further objects to paragraph 15
20 and Exhibit N on the grounds that the article attached as Exhibit N provides no foundation for its
21 statements, including without limitation to the extent it purports to summarize sales data from
22 Hynix and other third-party companies. Finally, Rambus objects on the grounds that the
23 information reflected in the article attached as Exhibit N is based on “scientific, technical, or
24 other specialized knowledge,” including without limitation to the extent it purports to summarize
25 sales data from various companies, articulate the reason for purported losses, and offer
26 predictions for the future, and therefore constitutes improper expert opinion testimony in violation
27 of Rules 701 and 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
28
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-3- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 6 of 10

1 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JOHN BEYNON IN SUPPORT OF MICRON’S

2 MOTION SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF UNENFORCEABILITY
3 Paragraph 16 and Exhibit 15: Rambus objects to paragraph 16 and Exhibit 15 of the
4 Beynon Declaration on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Exhibit 15 is an internal Blakely
5 Sokoloff document that was prepared in light of communications between Rambus and Blakely
6 Sokoloff attorney Lester Vincent (see Hynix Unclean Hands Trial Tr. (Oct. 24, 2005) at 826:6-
7 827:18 (discussing HTX 327, the Hynix I trial exhibit version of Beynon Decl. Exhibit 15)); the
8 document itself also reflects internal Blakely Sokoloff communications (see, e.g., Exhibit 15 at
9 601-0005). This document was first ordered produced by this Court in Hynix I, pursuant to the
10 Court’s January 31, 2005 order piercing Rambus’s privilege. As Rambus has previously
11 established, and the Court has agreed, Rambus has consistently undertaken efforts reasonably
12 designed to protect its privileges in the face of this Court’s piercing order (and similar orders by
13 other courts). See, e.g., Rambus’s Motion in Limine to Bar Manufacturers From Using Certain
14 Privileged Rambus Documents (filed Jan. 22, 2008) at 7-8; Rambus’s Supplemental Brief in
15 Support of Motion In Limine to Bar Manufacturers from Using Certain Privileged Rambus
16 Documents (filed Jan. 31, 2008) at 2-9; Order Denying Rambus’s Motion in Limine to Bar
17 Manufacturers from Using Exhibits C & O (filed Feb. 2, 2008) (“Order”) at 4-5. In light of this
18 showing, and given the Court’s rejection of Hynix’s unclean hands defense, the Court concluded
19 prior to the Conduct Trial that “the ‘crime/fraud’ exception can no longer be said to justify the
20 production of privileged documents.” See Order at 3. The Court therefore concluded that
21 Rambus’s privilege had been restored, and barred the Manufacturers from using certain privileged
22 documents during the Conduct Trial. See Conduct Trial Tr. (Feb. 11, 2008) at 819:15-820:11.
23 Because Rambus’s privilege claims remain intact, use of this exhibit is improper, as is
24 Micron’s public filing of the document. Rambus therefore objects to both the use and public
25 filing of the exhibit. Rambus further requests that the Court strike the exhibit, direct that it be
26 filed under seal, and/or take any and all other actions that the Court deems necessary or
27 appropriate to ensure the continued preservation of Rambus’s privilege claims.
28
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-4- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 7 of 10

1 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KRISTIN S. CORNUELLE IN SUPPORT OF

2 NANYA’S MOTION FOR APPLICATION OF ISSUE PRECLUSION
3 Paragraph 2: Rambus objects to paragraph 2 of the Cornuelle “Issue Preclusion”
4 Declaration pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Although Ms.
5 Cornuelle purports to calculate the number of exhibits cited in the Delaware Court’s January 9th
6 opinion that are not cited in this Court’s unclean hands opinion in Hynix I, she provides no
7 analysis of the substance of these exhibits or their significance (if any) to the findings of the
8 Delaware Court. Absent such an analysis, Ms. Cornuelle’s calculations are both irrelevant and
9 misleading. Rambus also objects to paragraph 2 on the grounds that it lacks foundation and is
10 argumentative, including without limitation to the extent it asserts that Judge Robinson “relied
11 on” certain exhibits.
12 Paragraph 6 & Exhibit D: Rambus objects to paragraph 6 and Exhibit D Cornuelle “Issue
13 Preclusion” Declaration on the grounds that the Memorandum Opinion attached as Exhibit D was
14 vacated in its entirety by the Federal Circuit. See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.,
15 523 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit specifically held that the court’s findings
16 constituted an “impermissible advisory opinion” that was “issued without jurisdiction.” Id. at
17 1380. Where a higher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has
18 no precedential value. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979).
19 Citation to and reliance on the district court’s opinion in the Samsung action is therefore
20 improper.
21 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF KRISTIN S. CORNUELLE IN SUPPORT OF
22 NANYA’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON UNCLEAN HANDS CLAIMS
23 DEFENSE
24 Paragraph 5 & Exhibit D: Rambus objects to paragraph 5 and Exhibit D of the Cornuelle
25 “Summary Judgment” Declaration on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Exhibit D is a
26 presentation to Rambus’s Board of Directors that Joel Karp and Neil Steinberg, Rambus’s in-
27 house counsel, prepared together. See Rambus’s Supplemental Brief in Support of Motion In
28 Limine to Bar Manufacturers from Using Certain Privileged Rambus Documents (filed Jan. 31,
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-5- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 8 of 10

1 2008) at 7-9 (discussing “Exhibit H and I,” the Conduct Trial versions of Cornuelle Summ. Jmt.
2 Decl. Exh. D). This document was first ordered produced by this Court in Hynix I, pursuant to
3 the Court’s January 31, 2005 order piercing Rambus’s privilege. As Rambus has previously
4 established, and the Court has agreed, Rambus has consistently undertaken efforts reasonably
5 designed to protect its privileges in the face of this Court’s piercing order (and similar orders by
6 other courts). See, e.g., Rambus’s Motion in Limine to Bar Manufacturers From Using Certain
7 Privileged Rambus Documents (filed Jan. 22, 2008) at 7-8; Rambus’s Supplemental Brief in
8 Support of Motion In Limine to Bar Manufacturers from Using Certain Privileged Rambus
9 Documents (filed Jan. 31, 2008) at 2-9; Order Denying Rambus’s Motion in Limine to Bar
10 Manufacturers from Using Exhibits C & O (filed Feb. 2, 2008) (“Order”) at 4-5. In light of this
11 showing, and given the Court’s rejection of Hynix’s unclean hands defense, the Court concluded
12 prior to the Conduct Trial that “the ‘crime/fraud’ exception can no longer be said to justify the
13 production of privileged documents.” See Order at 3. The Court therefore concluded that
14 Rambus’s privilege had been restored, and barred the Manufacturers from using certain privileged
15 documents during the Conduct Trial. See Conduct Trial Tr. (Feb. 11, 2008) at 819:15-820:11.
16 Indeed, the Court specifically concluded that portions of Exhibit D were privileged and therefore
17 precluded the Manufacturers’ use of those portions of the exhibit. Id. at 819:19-819:21
18 (discussing “Exhibit I,” the Conduct Trial version of Cornuelle Summ. Jmt. Decl. Exh. D).
19 Because Rambus’s privilege claims remain intact, use of this exhibit is improper, as is
20 Nanya’s public filing of the document. Rambus therefore objects to both the use and public filing
21 of the exhibit. Rambus further requests that the Court strike the exhibit, direct that it be filed
22 under seal, and/or take any and all other actions that the Court deems necessary or appropriate to
23 ensure the continued preservation of Rambus’s privilege claims.
24 To the extent the Court overrules Rambus’s privilege objection, Rambus further objects to
25 Exhibit D pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the exhibit does not
26 support Nanya’s assertion that Nanya was a “specific litigation target” (see Nanya’s Motion for
27 Summary Judgment Re: Unclean Hands, at 5:9); on the contrary, if anything, it tends to refute any
28 such assertion. See Exhibit D at 468-0006.
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-6- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 9 of 10

1 Paragraph 7 and Exhibit F: Rambus objects to paragraph 7 and Exhibit F of the

2 Cornuelle “Summary Judgment” Declaration on the grounds of hearsay and lack of foundation.
3 Rambus further objects to paragraph 7 and Exhibit F pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal
4 Rules of Evidence, as the letter reflected in Exhibit F does not support the assertion for which
5 Nanya cites it (i.e., that Rambus “met with Nanya in Taiwan,” see Nanya’s Motion for Summary
6 Judgment Re: Unclean Hands, at 5:17-5:18).
7 OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF STEVEN CHERENSKY IN SUPPORT OF
8 SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY OR,
9 IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
10 Rambus generally incorporates herein its Opposition To Samsung’s Motion To Take
11 Judicial Notice And To Re-Open The Record Of The Unclean Hands September Trial Solely To
12 Admit Evidence Related To Collateral Estoppel. In addition, Rambus asserts the following
13 objections to the Cherensky Declaration:
14 Paragraph 2 and Exhibit 1: Rambus objects to paragraph 2 and Exhibit 1 of the
15 Cherensky Declaration on the grounds that the district court’s oral statements in the Infineon
16 matter were not final and were never reduced to writing or reflected in an entered judgment.
17 Accordingly, those statements have no preclusive effect, and reliance upon them here is
18 inappropriate. See Order Denying Hynix’s Motion to Dismiss Patent Claims for Unclean Hands
19 on the Basis of Collateral Estoppel (filed Apr. 22, 2005).
20 Paragraphs 6 through 10 and Exhibits 5 through 9: Rambus objects to paragraphs 6
21 through 10 and Exhibits 5 through 9 of the Cherensky Declaration on the grounds that the
22 Samsung court’s ruling regarding unclean hands was vacated in its entirety by the Federal Circuit.
23 See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc., 523 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal
24 Circuit specifically held that the court’s findings constituted an “impermissible advisory opinion”
25 that was “issued without jurisdiction.” Id. at 1380. Where a higher court vacates the judgment of
26 a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has no precedential value. See County of Los Angeles v.
27 Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979). Citation to and reliance on materials relating to or
28 underlying the district court’s now-vacated opinion in the Samsung action is therefore improper.
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-7- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 10 of 10

1 Paragraph 23 and Exhibit 22: Rambus objects to paragraph 23 and Exhibit 22 of the
2 Cherensky Declaration on the ground that the chart reflected in Exhibit 22 lacks foundation.
3 Rambus further objects to paragraph 23 and Exhibit 22 pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules
4 of Evidence, including on the grounds that both the miniature size of the icons and typeface in the
5 chart and the subtlety of the shading make the chart unhelpful (even assuming, without
6 conceding, that it is accurate).
7 Paragraph 24 and Exhibit 23: Rambus objects to paragraph 24 and Exhibit 23 of the
8 Cherensky Declaration on the ground that the chart reflected in Exhibit 23 lacks foundation.
9 Rambus further objects to paragraph 24 and Exhibit 23 pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules
10 of Evidence, including on the grounds that it fails to account for all accused products in the
11 referenced actions and is inaccurate in certain other respects (e.g., in that it does not reflect that
12 Hynix’s DDR3 products are subject to the jury’s verdict in the Hynix I action).
13 Paragraph 25 and Exhibit 24: Rambus objects to paragraph 25 and Exhibit 24 of the
14 Cherensky Declaration pursuant to Rules 402 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, as the
15 exhibit does not support Samsung’s assertion that “Rambus itself has stated that the result in
16 Delaware was reached on the same facts as Hynix I.”
17 Paragraph 26 and Exhibit 25: Rambus objects to paragraph 26 and Exhibit 25 of the
18 Cherensky Declaration pursuant to Rule 801 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, on the grounds
19 that the testimony reflected in Exhibit 25 constitutes inadmissible hearsay.
20 Paragraph 31: Rambus objects to paragraph 31 on the grounds that it lacks foundation
21 and is argumentative, including without limitation to the extent it asserts that certain exhibits were
22 “relied upon” by Micron “to establish key elements of Rambus’s unclean hands.”
23
DATED: January 26, 2009 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
24 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
25

26 By: /s/ Rollin A. Ransom

ROLLIN A. RANSOM
27
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
28
RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISO
-8- MFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONS
CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905