Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4152

4152

Ratings: (0)|Views: 143 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jul 27, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/27/2012

pdf

text

original

 
BEIJINGBRUSSELSCENTURY CITY
HONG
KONGJAKARTAt
LONDON
LOS ANGELES
July 26, 2012
0
O'MELVENY
&
MYERS
LLP
2765
Sand Hill
Road
Menlo
Park,
California
94025
TELEPHONE
(65o) 473-2600
FACSIMILE
(650) 473-2601
www.omm.com
VIAE-FILE
& HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Ronald
M.
WhyteUnited States District CourtNorthern District
of
California280
S.
First StreetSan Jose, CA 95113
Re:
Hynix
Semiconductor Inc., et al.,
v.
Rambus
Inc.,
NEWPORT
BEACHNEW YORK
SAN
FRANCISCOSHANGHAISINGAPORETOKYOWASHINGTON,
D.C.
OUR
FII.I•:
:"li~IHI<R
0409022-000001
WRITER'S
IJIRI<CT
IliA!.
(65o) 473-2674
\VRITI<R'S
f':.~Jt\11.
AIJIJIU:SS
kn
i
ssl y@'om m
.com
United States District Court, Northern District
of
California,Case No.
CV
00-20905
RMW
Your Honor:The parties have previously written
to
the Court regarding Administrative Law JudgeEssex's Initial Determination
In the Matter
of
Certain Semiconductor Chips
and
ProductsContaining Same,
United States International Trade Commission, Investigation No. 337-TA-753.
See
Docket Nos. 4125, 4129, 4135, 4137, 4139, 4140, 4143, and 4145-4151. As Mr. Stoneinformed you by letter yesterday, the full Commission has now issued a Notice stating that it hasaffirmed the Initial Determination, including Judge Essex's determination that Rambus's "Barthpatents are unenforceable under the doctrine
of
unclean hands." As explained in my letters to theCourt dated March
16
and 26, 2012 (Docket Nos. 4129 and 4137), Judge Essex's decisioninvolved the application
of
the Federal Circuit's
Hynix
11
and
Micron
II
decisions
to
a factualrecord regarding Rambus's spoliation that overlaps the record in this Court. To Hynix'sknowledge, the Commission's opinion on this matter is not yet available.I also write to bring to the Court's attention an "Order Granting-in-Part Apple's Motionfor an Adverse Inference Jury Instruction," issued yesterday by Magistrate Judge Paul
S.
Grewalin the case
of
Apple
Inc.
v.
Samsung Electronics
Co.,
Ltd., et al.,
Northern District
of
CaliforniaCase No. C 11-1846, attached to this letter as Exhibit
A.
That Order repeatedly cites the Federal
tIn
association with
Tumbuan
&
Partners
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4152 Filed07/26/12 Page1 of 28
 
0'
MELVENY
&
MYERS
LLP
Honorable Ronald
M.
Whyte, July
26,2012-
Page 2
Circuit's decision in
Micron Tech.,
Inc.
v.
Rambus Inc.,
645 F.3d
1311
(Fed. Cir. 2011)
(see,
e.g.,
Order at
p.l6
n.81), as well as a number
of
other authorities discussed in the parties' briefsin the remand proceedings in the
Hynix
v.
Rambus
case.KLN/EnclosureVery truly yours,
Is/ Kenneth
L.
Nissly
Kenneth
L.
NisslyofO'MELVENY
&
MYERS LLPcc: All counsel on ECF Service List (viae-file)
OMM_US:70788901.l
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4152 Filed07/26/12 Page2 of 28
 
 
EXHIBIT A
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4152 Filed07/26/12 Page3 of 28

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->