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
4169

4169

Ratings: (0)|Views: 123|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Oct 18, 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

10/18/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DECLARATION OF DAVID L. TAYLOR ISO MSJ RE ESTOPPELCASE NO. CV-00-20905 RMW
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLPTHEODORE G. BROWN, III (SBN 114672)1080 Marsh RoadMenlo Park, California 94025Telephone: (650) 326-2400Facsimile: (650) 326-2422Email: tbrown@kilpatricktownsend.comO’MELVENY & MYERS LLPKENNETH L. NISSLY (SBN 77589)SUSAN van KEULEN (SBN 136060)SUSAN ROEDER (SBN 160897)2765 Sand Hill RoadMenlo Park, California 94025Telephone: (650) 473-2600Facsimile: (650) 473-2601Email: knissly@omm.comsvankeulen@omm.comsroeder@omm.comAttorneys for Plaintiffs,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., andHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICAINC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K.LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,Plaintiffs,v.RAMBUS INC.,Defendant.Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW
DECLARATION OF DAVID L. TAYLORIN SUPPORT OF (1) MOTION FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE ISSUEOF THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPELEFFECT OF REEXAMINATIONS OFRAMBUS’S PATENTS; (2) MOTION FORLEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTALREPLY TO DEFENDANT ANDCOUNTERCLAIM OF PLAINTIFFRAMBUS INC.’S AMENDEDCOUNTERCLAIM; AND (3) MOTIONFOR NEW TRIAL AND MOTION FORSTAY
Date: November 30, 2012Time: 9:00 a.m.Ctrm: 6 (Hon. Ronald M. Whyte)///
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4169 Filed10/17/12 Page1 of 37
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DECLARATION OF DAVID L. TAYLOR ISO MSJ RE ESTOPPEL
- 1 -
CASE NO. CV-00-20905 RMW
I, David L. Taylor, declare:1. I am the same David L. Taylor that has been deposed in conjunction with thislitigation on the following dates: March 8, 2004; April 27-28, 2005, and January 4, 2006. I alsotestified at Markman hearing on March 23, 2004. I testified in the trial proceedings (“the 2006 patent trial”) in this case on March 29-30, 2006; April 3, 2006; and April 12, 2006. A completelisting of my deposition and testifying history is also shown in my resume attached as Exhibit A.2. I have previously prepared and submitted a number of expert reports anddeclarations concerning the validity and/or infringement of the patents involved in this litigationand in connection with Case No. C-05-00334 RMW, which involves patents from the same“Farmwald/Horowitz” family of patents at issue in this case, all of which name Michael Farmwaldand Mark Horowitz as inventors and are based on an application, Serial No. 510,898, first filed inApril 1990. All of the patents in the Farmwald/Horowitz family of patents share substantively thesame specification and drawings, with only minor, formal differences.3. I have been asked to review a number of decisions rendered during 2012 by theBoard of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the BPAI”)
1
in connection with a number of 
inter 
 
 partes
reexaminations of various patents in the Farmwald/Horowitz family asserted in this and/or related litigation, to compare the claims at issue in those BPAI decisions with the claims that wereasserted in the 2006 patent trial in this litigation, and to assess the validity of the claims tried in the2006 patent trial in view of these decisions from the BPAI. I have reviewed and am familiar withthe relevant patents in the Farmwald/Horowitz patent family, their claims, the BPAI decisions, andthe prior art referenced in those decisions. If called to testify as a witness, I would testify as to thestatements and opinions set forth in this Declaration.4. As shown in my resume attached as Exhibit A, I received a BSEE degree from TheCitadel in 1970 and a MSEE from Stanford University in 1972. In my master’s program I focusedon integrated circuit design and solid-state physics. This focus enabled me to understand
1
I understand that, effective September 16, 2012, the BPAI was renamed the Patent Trial andAppeal Board (“PTAB”), under recent amendments to the patent laws that, among many other changes, eliminated interferences. Since the decisions of most relevance here issued under theformer name, I will continue to refer to this appeal board as the BPAI or “the Board.”
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4169 Filed10/17/12 Page2 of 37
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
DECLARATION OF DAVID L. TAYLOR ISO MSJ RE ESTOPPEL
- 2 -
CASE NO. CV-00-20905 RMW
semiconductor design methods and technologies which I used in my future design activities.5. I have accumulated significant knowledge and experience in the design andmanufacture of semiconductor devices; this is summarized in my resume, Exhibit A. My work experience has primarily been in the area of semiconductor memory products including DRAM,SRAM, EPROM, EEPROM, and ROM. I have been directly responsible for the design of approximately 75 commercially successful products including, for example, 1M, 4M, and 8Msynchronous DRAMs (at Silicon Access), a 1M synchronous SRAM (at Hyundai ElectronicsAmerica), and a 4M synchronous DRAM-based ATM switch and 4M DRAM-based FIFO, both atIntegrated Device Technologies. I also hold 21 patents in the semiconductor field, most of whichdeal with semiconductor memory circuits and products; a list of these patents is included inExhibit A.6. For convenience and because the exhibits referenced in this declaration are notnumbered sequentially, a list of the exhibits to this declaration is included in Exhibit B.7. Ten claims of the Farmwald/Horowitz patents were tried in the 2006 patent trial.These were:US 5,915,105 – claim 34;US 6,034,918 – claims 24 and 33;US 6,324,120 – claim 33;US 6,378,020 – claims 32 and 36;US 6,426,916 – claims 9, 28, and 40; andUS 6,452,863 – claim 16.For convenience, the patents will be referenced by the last three digits in the patentnumber. A copy of the text of all ten claims is attached in Exhibit 1.8. I understand that, as a result of the trial and other proceedings in the litigation, allten claims were found infringed and none of the claims were found invalid, and that judgment wasentered against Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and the related subsidiaries that are parties to the case(collectively, “Hynix”).
2
 9. These claims recite, using various wording, memory devices and methods of 
2
I understand that, in March 2012, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. was renamed SK hynix Inc., andthat the names of its subsidiaries have also changed accordingly. However, for ease of reference, I will continue to refer to “Hynix”.
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4169 Filed10/17/12 Page3 of 37

You're Reading a Free Preview

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