Rambus, Inc.'S Reply in Support of Rambus'S Motion For Leave To File Motion and Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim Limitations

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3170 Filed 02/02/2009 Page 1 of 9
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 REPLY IN
18 vs. SUPPORT OF RAMBUS’S MOTION
) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
19 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., ) AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL
) SUMMARY JUDGMENT
20 Defendants. ) REGARDING UNCONTESTED
) CLAIM LIMITATIONS
21 )
) Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
22 Date: February 5, 2009
) Time: 9:00 a.m.
23 ) Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor
)
24
25
26
27
28
Rambus’s Reply in Support of Rambus’s Motion for Leave to File Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim Limitations
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
Austin 48388v5
1 RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-002298 RMW

)
2 Plaintiff, )
)
3 v. )
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 )
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
Austin 48388v5
1
The Manufacturers’ opposition fails to meet their burden of coming forward with
2
evidence on the merits to counter Rambus’s motion for summary judgment.1 Indeed, the
3
Manufacturers do not even address most of the claim limitations that are the subject of Rambus’s
4
motion. Their only arguments on the merits consist of (1) an argument going to a single claim
5
limitation based on their having mistaken one limitation for another; and (2) Nanya’s argument
6
with respect to its DDR3 product, following Nanya’s refusal to enter into a stipulation with
7
respect to this product pursuant to the Court’s invitation. That is the sum total of the
8
Manufacturers’ opposition on the merits of the underlying motion.
9
Rather than addressing Rambus’s motion on the merits, the Manufacturers spend the bulk
10
of their Opposition complaining that the motion is duplicative of a motion in limine, or untimely.
11
First, Rambus’s underlying motion is a summary judgment motion, not a motion in limine.
12
Absent this motion or some other mechanism, Rambus would need to spend substantial trial time
13
MCKOOL SMITH
satisfying its burden of proving infringement by presenting evidence of infringement with

DALLAS, TEXAS
14
respect to claim limitations that cannot, and will not, be contested by the Manufacturers’ experts.
15
Second, the Manufacturers should not be heard to argue that Rambus’s motion came when “trial
16
was scheduled to begin less than one week later” because week over week, the Manufacturers
17
have ignored repeated requests from Rambus to reach an appropriate stipulation on the present
18
issues following receipt of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, with Rambus’s first request
19
coming approximately one week after the Court’s order on summary judgment. Rambus
20
respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for partial summary judgment, so that
21
Rambus need present to the jury only the infringement-related evidence that is actually disputed
22
by the parties.
23
24
25
26 1
The parties agreed that the Manufacturers would oppose Rambus’s underlying motion on the
27 merits in addition to opposing Rambus’s motion for leave. See email from Hynix’s counsel,
attached to the Declaration of Craig Tolliver (“Tolliver Decl.) filed concurrently here with, Ex. 1.
28 1
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
Austin 48388v5
1 I. CONTRARY TO THE MANUFACTURERS’ ARGUMENTS, RAMBUS’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DIFFERENT FROM ITS MOTION
2 IN LIMINE; IT IS NECESSARY TO AVOID WASTE OF TIME AT TRIAL; AND
IT IS TIMELY
3
A. Rambus’s Motion is Different from Its Motion in Limine, and Would Greatly
4 Reduce the Number of Issues to Be Presented to the Jury
5
The Manufacturers spend most of their Opposition chastising Rambus for filing what the
6
Manufacturers call a “useless” motion. Although the Manufacturers pretend not to appreciate the
7
distinction between the present motion and Rambus’s motion in limine, Rambus’s present
8
motion would obviate the need for Rambus to spend a substantial amount of trial time presenting
9
infringement-related evidence that the Manufacturers’ experts cannot and will not dispute.
10
The Manufacturers point to the substantial similarities between Rambus’s present Motion
11
and Rambus’s motion in limine no. 7 in an attempt to convince the Court that Rambus’s present
12
motion is unnecessary. See Mnfrs. Opp. at 1. However, while the two motions address many of
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
the same claim limitations, the relief sought is different. The motion in limine, of course, targets
14
what arguments the Manufacturers may raise in opposing infringement, whereas Rambus’s
15
motion for summary judgment seeks judgment as a matter of law as to certain limitations that the
16
Manufacturers’ experts cannot and will not dispute. Absent the Court granting the latter motion,
17
Rambus would still need to meet its burden on infringement by introducing evidence of
18
infringement as to all the claim limitations, disputed or not. Rambus sought leave to file the
19
present motion in order to avoid taking the jury’s and the Court’s time with infringement
20
evidence relating to claim limitations that the Manufacturers’ cannot and will not contest.
21
The Manufacturers next argue that Rambus’s motion, in part, seeks an entry of summary
22
judgment for claim limitations that the Court already held to be infringed. See Mnfrs. Opp. at 2.
23
The Manufacturers are correct, but again miss the point. As Rambus explained in its motion, the
24
Court, in its summary judgment ruling, granted summary judgment as to certain of the
25
Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments, but with the exception of claim 16 of the ’285
26
Patent, on which the Court granted summary judgment in its entirety, did not expressly identify
27
the claim limitations resolved by the Court’s order. Rambus’s present motion simply sets forth
28
2
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
1
the claim limitations that the Manufacturers can no longer contest in light of the Court’s order.
2
While Rambus agrees that the Court’s summary judgment ruling is dispositive as to these
3
limitations, Rambus seeks to streamline the trial by identifying and resolving disagreements,
4
should any exist, as to how the Court’s summary judgment holdings map onto the actual claim
5
language.
6
Rambus believes that the parties should have been able to reach agreement as to the claim
7
limitations resolved by the Court’s summary judgment. Indeed, the Manufacturers, when
8
proposing not to contest infringement, filed letters with the Court identifying the very same
9
remaining disputed infringement issues as Rambus identifies in its current motion. See Rambus
10
Mot., Attachment A, at 1-2, 5. Unfortunately, the Manufacturers refused Rambus’s repeated
11
invitations to enter into a stipulation, necessitating the present motion. See Rambus Mot.,
12
Attachment A, at 5-6; see also Section I(B), infra.
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
14 B. Rambus’s Motion Is Timely
15
The Manufacturers should not be heard to argue that Rambus’s motion came when “trial
16
was scheduled to begin less than one week later.” For weeks the Manufacturers ignored repeated
17
requests from Rambus to reach an appropriate stipulation on the present issues following receipt
18
of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, with Rambus’s first request coming approximately one
19
week after the Court’s order on summary judgment, as set forth in Rambus’s motion for leave
20
and again below.
21
The Court ruled on Rambus’s original motion for summary judgment of infringement on
22
November 24, 2008. With the exception of claim 16 of the ’285 Patent, for which the Court
23
granted summary judgment, the Court’s partial summary judgment ruling of infringement
24
focused on claim features and/or arguments relating to those claim features, rather than the
25
corresponding claim language. See November 24, 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 1611, cv-244 Case.
26
Accordingly, Rambus sought to reach agreement with the Manufacturers as to the specific claim
27
limitations subject to the Court’s ruling.
28
3
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
1
As explained in Rambus’s opening brief, Rambus first provided the Manufacturers with a
2
proposed stipulation on December 3, 2008, seeking to reach agreement as to the claim limitations
3
that remained in dispute in view of the Court’s Order and the noninfringement arguments raised
4
in the Manufacturers’ own expert reports served on September 26, 2008. See Rambus Mot. For
5
Leave at 1. The Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s request altogether. See id.
6
Rambus re-forwarded the same stipulation and asked for a response on December 9,
7
2008. The Manufacturers again ignored Rambus’s request. See id.
8
On December 19, 2008, the Manufacturers sent the first of several letters to the Court in
9
which they advised that the Manufacturers did not plan to contest infringement and proposed a
10
protocol to remove infringement as an issue from the case. See id. at 2. After the deficiencies in
11
the Manufacturers’ protocol were revealed, Rambus re-forwarded the stipulation yet again on
12
December 29, 2008, again asking for a response. Micron and Samsung again ignored Rambus
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
altogether. Nanya and Hynix both responded in a vague manner, stating that it would not be
14
“appropriate” to enter into the stipulation or that the stipulation could not be agreed to “under the
15
circumstances.” See id. at 2.
16
Given this background, the Manufacturers should not be heard to argue that Rambus’s
17
motion came “less than one week” before trial (which it did not) or otherwise is untimely.
18
Following the November 24, 2008 Order, the parties should have been able to reach agreement
19
as to what the Court’s ruling covered, and Rambus approached the Manufacturers on that point.
20
After it became apparent that the Manufacturers’ proposal to not contest infringement was
21
untenable, and after the Manufacturers repeatedly ignored Rambus’s attempt to work towards an
22
agreement, Rambus promptly filed its motion for leave with the Court.2
23
24
25 2
To the extent the Manufacturers argue that Rambus’s motion comes after the deadline for
summary judgment briefing, the Manufacturers completely ignore that Rambus’s earlier
26 summary judgment briefing did, in fact, separately identify individual limitations as bases for
summary judgment. See Dkt. 725, -334 Rambus’s Consolidated Reply; Dkt. 725-2 Exhibit
27 (identifying and collecting limitations of claims as bases for summary judgment).
28
4
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
1 II. RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED

BECAUSE THE MANUFACTURERS’ OPPOSITION RAISES NO GENUINE
2 DISPUTE ON THE MERITS
3 The parties agreed that the Manufacturers’ opposition would involve not just the motion
4 for leave to file the summary judgment motion, but also the underlying summary judgment
5 motion. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1 (January 15, 2009 email from T. Brown to P. Detre) (Hynix’s
6 counsel stating his understanding that the briefing would involve both motions). The
7 Manufacturers, however, failed to raise any legitimate substantive dispute with Rambus’s
8 motion, despite the Manufacturers’ burden on opposing a motion for summary judgment.
9 The first part of Rambus’s motion concerns claim limitations subject to the Court’s
10 partial summary judgment ruling, as the Manufacturers now admit. See Mnfrs. Opp. at 2. The
Manufacturers do not dispute that the claim limitations identified in Rambus’s motion are
11
12 covered by the Court’s summary judgment ruling. To the contrary, the Manufacturers readily
MCKOOL SMITH
agree that the claim limitations identified by Rambus have been resolved:
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
14 First, it seeks to have the Court enter partial summary judgment for
those claim elements highlighted in Exhibit B to its motion. To what
15 end? The Court has already entered partial summary judgment of
infringement of these claim elements.
16
Mnfrs. Opp. at 3. Rambus’s motion therefore should be granted as to the “resolved” claim
17
limitations, listed with particularity in Exhibit B to Rambus’s Motion. See Rambus Mot.,
18
Attachment A, at Ex. B (List of Resolved Claim Limitations, appended to Rambus’s brief).
19
With regard to the second part of Rambus’s motion, relating to the uncontested claim
20
limitations, the Manufacturers raise only one issue. The Manufacturers state that they contested
21
the “receiving the operation code . . . synchronously with respect to an external clock signal”
22
language in claim 16 of the ‘863 Patent, referring to page 42 of the Hoffman expert report. See
23
Mnfrs. Opp. at 3. Page 42 of Hoffman’s report, however, contends that the products do not
24
“[receive] data synchronously with respect to the external clock signal,” and refers to section
25
VI.B.1. of his report. See Dkt. No. 2344, Ex. A (Hoffman Report) at 42, ¶ 120 (emphasis
26
added). Section VI.B.1 of his report contains Mr. Hoffman’s opinion regarding the timing
27
relationship between the external clock, the data strobe, and data to be input during a write
28
5
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
1
operation -- not the receipt of an operation code. See id. at 16. While, Mr. Hoffman has a
2
separate section of his report that concerns the sampling of an operation code in response to the
3
rising edge of an external clock, see Dkt. No. 2344, Ex. A (Hoffman Report) at 29, he does not
4
dispute that the operation code is received synchronously with respect to the external clock.3
5
The Manufacturers’ argument with respect to the single claim limitation that they address is
6
simply mistaken. The Manufacturers identify no other alleged deficiency relating to the
7
uncontested claim limitations identified by Rambus, despite the Manufacturers’ burden.
8
Accordingly, the Court should grant Rambus’s motion pertaining to the uncontested claim
9
limitations. See Rambus Mot., Attachment A, at Ex. A (List of Uncontested Claim Limitations).
10
11 III. THE COURT ALSO SHOULD GRANT RAMBUS’S MOTION AS TO NANYA’S

DDR3 DEVICES
12
As the Court previously recognized, Rambus did not possess a Nanya DDR3 datasheet at
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
the time of its original motion, but now does. See Rambus Mot. at 10-11. Mr. Murphy relied on
14
the Nanya DDR3 datasheet in his expert report analysis regarding infringement, an analysis
15
which he is prepared to present at trial. See id. In response to Rambus’s motion, Nanya offers
16
no reason why its DDR3 device should be treated differently from the other Manufacturers’
17
DDR3 devices. Nor can Nanya explain why its own DDR3 product would not be subject to the
18
Court’s summary judgment determination, just as the other devices were adjudicated to infringe
19
based on nearly identical datasheet evidence. As with Rambus’s attempts to reach agreement
20
with the Manufacturers as to uncontested claim limitations discussed above, Nanya simply
21
ignored repeated requests from Rambus that it enter into a stipulation pursuant to the invitation
22
in the Court’s November 24, 2008 order. In view of the parties’ unsuccessful attempts to reach a
23
stipulation, the Court should grant Rambus’s motion as to Nanya’s DDR3 device.
24
25
26 3
Mr. Hoffman admits that his argument that operation codes are not received in response to the
rising edge of an external clock signal pertains only to two claims -- not claim 16 of the ’863
27 Patent, the claim discussed on the page of his report referenced by the Manufacturers. See id.
28
6
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244
1
IV. CONCLUSION
2
For the foregoing reasons, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s
3
summary judgment motion attached to its motion for leave at Attachment A, so that the
4
infringement issues for trial are streamlined.
5
7 Dated: February 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted,
8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
9 MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
10
11
/s/ Pierre Hubert
12
Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
MCKOOL SMITH
DALLAS, TEXAS
13
Austin 48388v3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7
Case Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244

Rambus, Inc.'S Reply in Support of Rambus'S Motion For Leave To File Motion and Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim Limitations

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

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

Rambus, Inc.'S Reply in Support of Rambus'S Motion For Leave To File Motion and Motion For Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim Limitations

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3170 Filed 02/02/2009 Page 1 of 9

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

13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

satisfying its burden of proving infringement by presenting evidence of infringement with

1 I. CONTRARY TO THE MANUFACTURERS’ ARGUMENTS, RAMBUS’S

14 B. Rambus’s Motion Is Timely

1 II. RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED

11 III. THE COURT ALSO SHOULD GRANT RAMBUS’S MOTION AS TO NANYA’S

7 Dated: February 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted,

8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen