Sie sind auf Seite 1von 4

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4232 Filed01/11/13 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Steven M. Perry (SBN 106154) MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com; steven.perry@mto.com Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: peter.detre@mto.com Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000; Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Email: rransom@sidley.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant.

CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF REGARDING REDACTIONS TO THE SEALED PORTION OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2012 HEARING Date: Time: Ctrm: Judge: December 19, 2012 2:00 p.m. 6 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

19690065.1

BRIEF RE REDACTIONS TO SEALED PORTION OF 12.19.12 HEARING TRANSCRIPT, CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4232 Filed01/11/13 Page2 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I.

INTRODUCTION At the December 19, 2012 hearing in this matter, the Court closed the courtroom

for a short time to hear argument regarding matters that addressed royalty rates and related information that the Court had tentatively recognized to be confidential. See 12/19/12 Hrg Tr. (public version) at 3:25-4:2; 12:7-8; 103:14-21. During the hearing, the Court asked each party to file a brief identifying those portions of the sealed transcript that it believed to contain confidential information warranting an order sealing those portions. Ibid. After conferring with counsel for Hynix, Rambus respectfully submits this brief in response to the Courts request. II. DISCUSSION A. Rambus Believes That The Transcript Can Be Released To The Public With The Exception Of A Few References To Specific Royalty Percentages

Consistent with the Courts concern that as much of the hearing as possible be open to the public, id. at 101:20, Rambus has limited its request for redaction to a few references by counsel for Hynix to its calculations of the effective royalty rates (ERRs) paid to Rambus by certain of its licensees. So that this brief may be public, Rambus will not repeat the ERRs here, but will instead identify their location by page and line in the sealed transcript: Page/Line 4:15 4:20 4:25 5:5 5:8 5:22 5:24. For the Courts convenience, and because counsel for Hynix has confirmed that Hynix does not seek any additional redactions to the relevant pages (4 and 5) of the sealed
19690065.1

-1-

BRIEF RE REDACTIONS TO SEALED PORTION OF 12.19.12 HEARING TRANSCRIPT, CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4232 Filed01/11/13 Page3 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

transcript, Rambus has attached partially redacted versions of those pages as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Steven M. Perry (Perry Decl.), filed herewith. Rambus does not believe that any other calculations or text contained in the sealed portion of the transcript require redaction. Rambuss arguments in support of the sealing order it seeks are set out below. B. The Specific Royalty Percentages Referenced By Hynix Counsel At The Hearing Constitute Trade Secrets Of The Type That The Courts In this Circuit Have Consistently Ordered To Be Sealed.

The Ninth Circuit held in In re Electronic Arts, Inc., 298 Fed. Appx. 568, 569, 2008 WL 4726222 (9th Cir. 2008) (unpublished) that pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms contained in a Licensing Agreement are precise[ly] the types of information that should be sealed upon application by a party. The Court there also noted, in the course of granting a writ of mandamus from a district courts order declining to seal such information, that the information plainly falls within the definition of trade secrets. Id.1 Judge Koh recently follow[ed] the Ninth Circuits guidance in agreeing to seal pricing terms, royalty rates and minimum payment terms contained in Apples licensing agreements with various third parties. See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-0186-LHK, 2012 WL 3283478 at *6 (N.D. Cal., Aug. 9, 2012). Judge Koh found that public disclosure of those patent licensing terms would put Apple at a disadvantage in future licensing negotiations, and she sealed all information related to the payment terms of Apples license agreements. Id. See also In re NCAA StudentAthlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., No. 09-CV-01967 CW, 2012 WL 4944179 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2012) (sealing the payment terms of licensing agreements because their public disclosure might harm the litigants competitive positioning in future negotiations); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, 2012 WL

Rambus cites the unpublished Electronics Arts decision pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1.
19690065.1

-2-

BRIEF RE REDACTIONS TO SEALED PORTION OF 12.19.12 HEARING TRANSCRIPT, CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4232 Filed01/11/13 Page4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

4068633 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2012) (sealing specific portions of expert reports that reveal the actual payment terms in Apples licenses); Powertech Tech., Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., No. C 11-6121 CW, 2012 WL 3283420, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 2012) (sealing details of license agreement); TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. v. Avago Techs., Ltd., No. CV 09-1531, 2011 WL 6182346. at *3-7 (D. Ariz. Dec. 13, 2011) (sealing documents containing sensitive financial information and licensing information); Abaxis, Inc. v. Cepheid, No. 10-CV-02840-LHK, 2011 WL 6002522, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2011) (granting motion to seal exhibit to dispositive motion containing term sheet of licensing negotiations). Further support for an order sealing Hynixs references to its ERR calculations can be found in the various declarations submitted in 2009 and 2010 by Samsung, Elpida and Rambus in the pending San Francisco Superior Court action involving Hynix, Micron and Rambus. Copies of those declarations each of which relates in part to the royalty rates at issue here are attached to the Perry Decl. as Exhibits B-F. III. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court redact the royalty percentages identified in this brief and in Exhibit A prior to releasing the sealed portion of the transcript to the public.

DATED: January 11, 2013

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP By: /s/ Steven M. Perry Steven M. Perry

Attorneys for RAMBUS, INC.

19690065.1

-3-

BRIEF RE REDACTIONS TO SEALED PORTION OF 12.19.12 HEARING TRANSCRIPT, CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW