Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Micron Motion SJ

Micron Motion SJ

Ratings: (0)|Views: 46 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jan 20, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

06/14/2009

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
M
ICRON
S
M
OTION
F
OR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
O
F
U
NENFORCEABILITY
B
ASED ON
C
OLLATERAL
E
STOPPEL
 
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
C
 
06-00244
 
RMW
[
Counsel Listed On Signature Page
]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. andMICRON SEMICONDUCTORPRODUCTS, INC.,Defendants.Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
MICRON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITYBASED ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Hearing Date: January 30, 2009Time: 2:00 pmCourtroom: 6, 4th FloorJudge: Ronald M. Whyte
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3121 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 1 of 28
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
M
ICRON
S
M
OTION
F
OR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
O
F
U
NENFORCEABILITY
B
ASED ON
C
OLLATERAL
E
STOPPEL
 
i
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
C
 
06-00244
 
RMW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................1II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.........................................................................................................3A. The Delaware And ‘244 Actions Are Closely Related...........................................31. Conduct Issues............................................................................................32. Rambus’s Unclean Hands And Spoliation Of Evidence.............................43. Patent Issues................................................................................................5B. Judge Robinson’s Ruling That Rambus Engaged In Bad-Faith SpoliationThat Prejudiced Micron...........................................................................................6III. MICRON IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT.......................................................9A. Judge Robinson’s Findings And Conclusions Must Be Given FullCollateral Estoppel Effect In This Action...............................................................91. Rambus Had A Full And Fair Opportunity To Litigate UncleanHands And Spoliation...............................................................................102. The Unclean Hands And Spoliation Issues Were Actually LitigatedIn Delaware...............................................................................................103. Judge Robinson’s Ruling Is Final For Purposes Of CollateralEstoppel.....................................................................................................144. Rambus Is A Party Both Here And In The Delaware Action...................15B. Based On Judge Robinson’s Findings And Conclusions, Rambus’s PatentsIn This Action Must Be Found Unenforceable Against Micron...........................15C. Rambus’s Arguments Against Collateral Estoppel Are Baseless.........................171. Because There Is Mutuality Of Parties, The Application Of Collateral Estoppel Here Is Not Discretionary..........................................182. The Actions Do Not Need To Be Identical For Collateral EstoppelTo Apply...................................................................................................193. The Application Of Collateral Estoppel Does Not Hinge OnLitigation Misconduct...............................................................................204. This Court Cannot Second-Guess Judge Robinson’s Ruling....................21IV. CONCLUSION.......................................................................................................................22
 
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3121 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 2 of 28
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
M
ICRON
S
M
OTION
F
OR
S
UMMARY
J
UDGMENT
O
F
U
NENFORCEABILITY
B
ASED ON
C
OLLATERAL
E
STOPPEL
 
ii
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
C
 
06-00244
 
RMW
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page
CASES
 Appling v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
,340 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2003).......................................................................................18
 Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys.
,269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)...................................................................................20
 Arkla, Inc. v. United States
,37 F.3d 621 (Fed. Cir. 1994).......................................................................................21
 Bautista v. Park West Gallery
,2008 WL 5210662 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2008)......................................................10, 15
 Bio-Technology Gen. Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
,80 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1996).....................................................................................20
 Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Ill. Foundation
,402 U.S. 313 (1971)....................................................................................................19
Compare Schmid v. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corp.
,13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994)............................................................................................12
Cygnus Telecom. Tech., LLC v. America Intern. Telephonics, LLC 
,569 F. Supp. 2d 1035 (N.D. Cal. 2008)................................................................16, 21
 Hamilton v. Signature Flight Support Corp.
,2005 WL 3481423 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2005)............................................................12
 Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
,2006 WL 565893 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2006).................................................................12
Kamilche Co. v. United States
,53 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1995).......................................................................................10
Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.
,290 U.S. 240 (1933)....................................................................................................21
 Leon v. IDX Systems Corp.
,464 F.3d 951 (9th Cir. 2006).......................................................................................12
 In re Lockard 
,884 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1989).....................................................................................14
 
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3121 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 3 of 28

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

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)//-->