Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3858 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 1 of 4

1 Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329) Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126)
Steven M. Perry (State Bar No. 106154) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2 Sean Eskovitz (State Bar No. 241877) 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)
steven.perry@mto.com; sean.eskovitz@mto.com Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)
6 McKOOL SMITH PC
Peter A. Detre (State Bar No. 182619) 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
7 Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976) Austin, Texas 78701
Jennifer L. Polse (State Bar No. 219202) Telephone: (512) 692-8700
8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com;
9 San Francisco, California 94105 ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
10 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
Email: peter.detre@mto.com;
11 carolyn.luedtke@mto.com; jen.polse@mto.com
12 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 SAN JOSE DIVISION
15 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., ) Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., )
16 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and ) RAMBUS INC.’S
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR ) ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
17 DEUTSCHLAND GmbH, ) CONSIDER WHETHER CASES
) SHOULD BE RELATED
18 Plaintiffs, ) PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL
vs. ) RULE 3-12
19 RAMBUS INC. , )
Defendants. )
20 )
)
21 )
)
22 )
)
23 )
)
24 )
)
25 )
)
26 )
27

28
Case Nos. CV 00-20905 RMW, C 05-00334 RMW, RAMBUS INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
C 05-002298 RMW and C 06-00244 RMW CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12
Austin 44888v7
 Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3858 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-00334 RMW

)
2 Plaintiff, )
vs. )
3 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX )
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX )
4 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING )
AMERICA INC., )
5 )
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., )
6 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, )
INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., )
7 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, )
L.P., )
8 )
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, )
9 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION )
U.S.A., )
10 Defendants. )
)
11 )
)
12 )
13 RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 05-002298 RMW
)
14 Plaintiff, )
vs. )
15 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., )
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, )
16 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., )
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, )
17 L.P., )
Defendants. )
18 )
)
19 )
)
20
RAMBUS INC., ) Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
21 )
Plaintiff, )
22 vs. )
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON)
23 SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., )
Defendants. )
24 )
)
25 )
26

27

28
Case Nos. CV 00-20905 RMW, C 05-00334 RMW, RAMBUS INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
C 05-002298 RMW and C 06-00244 RMW CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12
 Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3858 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 3 of 4

1 As required by Civil Local Rule 3-12, Rambus submits this Administrative Motion
2 to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related. Civil Local Rule 3-12(b) provides that a party
3 must file an Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related if the party
4 believes the action may be “related” to another action pending in the District. As defined by the
5 Rule, “[a]n action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same
6 parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears likely that there will be an unduly
7 burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted
8 before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a).
9 Rambus recently filed Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 08-03343
10 JCS, in the Northern District of California on July 10, 2008. As required by the Rule, Rambus
11 moves the Court to consider whether or not Case No. 08-03343 and the above-captioned Pending
12 Cases--Case Nos. CV 00-20905 RMW (Hynix I) and C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-002298 RMW and
13 C 06-00244 RMW (together the Coordinated Cases)--are “related” such that reassignment of
14 Case No. 08-03343 to this Court would be appropriate.
15 For the Court’s consideration of whether Case No. 08-03343 and the Pending
16 Cases are “related,” Rambus notes that it is the patentee plaintiff in Case No. 08-03343 and in all
17 of the Pending Cases except Hynix I where Rambus is the patentee declaratory judgment
18 defendant, and six of the seventeen patents asserted in Case No. 08-03343 have also been asserted
19 in the Coordinated Cases. Also, thirteen other patents that are still asserted in one or more of the
20 Pending Cases are not asserted in Case No. 08-03343. Moreover, generally speaking, the accused
21 products in the Pending Cases include Hynix memory, Nanya memory, Samsung memory and
22 memory controllers, and Micron memory and memory controllers, and the accused products in
23 Case No. 08-03343 include NVIDIA memory controllers.
24 Rambus recognizes and appreciates that the Court has spent a substantial amount
25 of time and resources on the related cases currently pending before the Court, providing the Court
26 with a unique perspective. In light of all the circumstances, Rambus believes that the Court is in
27 the best position to assess whether the purposes of Local Rule 3-12 will be served by deeming
28
Case Nos. CV 00-20905 RMW, C 05-00334 RMW, RAMBUS INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
C 05-002298 RMW and C 06-00244 RMW -1- CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12
Austin 44888v7
 Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3858 Filed 08/07/2008 Page 4 of 4

1 this matter a “related” case, so Rambus brings all of these issues to the Court’s attention for the
2 Court’s determination.1
3

4
DATED: August 7, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
5
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
6
McKOOL SMITH PC
7
By: /s/ Pierre J. Hubert
8

9 Attorneys for Rambus Inc.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 1
Accordingly, it is Rambus’s understanding that the provision of Local Rule 7-11(a) regarding a
28 stipulation is not applicable.
Case Nos. CV 00-20905 RMW, C 05-00334 RMW, RAMBUS INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
C 05-002298 RMW and C 06-00244 RMW -2- CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-12