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
20Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4182

4182

Ratings: (0)|Views: 202|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Nov 14, 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

03/09/2013

pdf

text

original

 
Gregory
P.
Stone (SBN 078329)Steven M. Perry (SBN 106154)2
MUNGER
TOLLES
&
OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue. 35th Floor3 Los Angeles,
CA
90071-1560Telephone: (213) 683-91004 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702Email:
gregory.stone@mto.com;5 stevenperry@mto.com
6 Peter
A.
Detrc (SBN 182619)MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON LLP7 560 Mission Street, 27th FloorSan Francisco, California 941058 Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsunile: (415) 512-40779 Email:
peter.detre@mto.com
10
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
11
Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126)SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
C
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000Los Angeles,
CA
90013-1010Telephone: (213) 896-6000;Facsllnile: (213) 896-6600Email:
rransom@sidley.com
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURTNORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN
JOSE
DIVISION
15
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et
at,
Plaintiffs,v.RAMBUS INC.,Defendant.CASE NO.
CV
00-20905
RMW
RAMBUS'S BRIEF REGARDING
THE
COURT'S DETERMINATION OF ARAND RATE PURSUANT TO ITSSEPTEMBER 21, 2012 ORDER
Date:Time:Ctrm:Judge:December
19,2012
2:00 p.m.
6
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
16171819
20
21
22
23
2425262728
REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
19256122.1
RAND RA
TE
PURSUANT TO ITS 9.21.12 ORDER,
CASE
NO. CV 00-20905 RMW
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4182 Filed11/13/12 Page1 of 25
 
23
I.
4 II.5
6
7
8
9
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION
.................................................................................................... 1
SUMMARY OF
ARGUMENT
................................................................................ 1
A.
B.
c.
The
Court's
Choice
OfRcmedy
.................................................................... 1
The
Court's
Analysis
Of
A
RAND
Rate Should
Assume That
TheParties' License Negotiations
Occurred
In
The
1995-1996 TimePeriod ............................................................................................................. 2
Hynix's
Approach to the
RAND
Question Is Inconsistent with The
Court's
9/21112
Order
and the Applicable
Case
Law
and
Would Leadthe Court Into Clear
Error
.............................................................................. 3
10
III.
ARGUMENT
............................................................................................................ 4
11
12
l3
14
15
1617
18
19
20
21
22232425
26
27
28
(1)
(2)(3)
A.B.
c.
The Best
Evidence
Of
The
RAND
Rate Is
The
Rate
Hynix AndRambus Agreed To
In 1995
For "Other
DRAM"
........................................
.4
TheEconomic
Value
of
the
Rambus
Inventions
Was
Established
At
Trial
By
The
Testimony
OfMr.
Maltiel, Mr.
Murphy
And
Dr. Rapp ........... 9The Rate
That Hynix AgreedTo Pay
For RDRAM
Is
Not
A UsefulGUidepost In Determining A
RAND
Rate,
Although That
Rate DoesServe As A
Floor
......................................................................................... 1 1
FIRST
AND
FOREMOST, THE
1995
NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN
HYNIX
AND
RAMBUS REGARDING
THERDRAM RATE
OCCURRED CONCURRENTLYWITH
THE
NEGOTIATIONS
OVER
THE
"OTHER DRAM"
RATE
..............................................................................
11
IN
ADDITION,
THE LOWER RDRAM
RATES
THAT
RAMBUSAGREEDTO
IN 1995
REFLECTED
THE FACT THAT
RAMBUSEXPECTED TO OBTAIN SUBSTANTIAL
NON-MONETARY
CONSIDERATION
IN
CONNECTION WITH
ITS
RDRAM
LICENSESTHROUGH,
FOR
EXAMPLE, CO-DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITHITS
LICENSEES
AND
CLOSEWORKINGRELATIONSHIPS WITH
ITS
LICENSEES'ENGINEERS
...................................................................................
12
THE
VOLUME
DISCOUNTS
THAT
RAMBUS
OFFERED HYNIX ON
RDRAM
IN 1995
WERE INTENDED TO INCENTIVIZE
HYNIX
TOPUSH RDRAM
INTO
THEMAINSTREAM
MARKET
.....................................
12
D.
The
Rates
That
Samsung, Infineon
And
Elpida
Obtained
After
Litigation
Had Begun Are
Inadmissible
Under
LaserDynamics
And
Are
Irrelevant
To
A
RANDDetermination
In This Case ............................
12
1.
Hynix's
Proposed Rate Is
Not
A
RAND
Rate ..................................
13
19256220.1
-i -
BRIEF RE THE
COURTS
DETERMINATION OFTHE RAND RATE PURSUANT TO ITS 9.21.12ORDER, CASE NO. CV 00-20905
RtvlW
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4182 Filed11/13/12 Page2 of 25
 
12345678
9
10
] 1
12
13
14151617
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
262728
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
2. The Post-Litigation License Agreements That Hynix ReliesPageUpon Are Inadmissible And Irrelevant To A RAND Analysis ........
13
3. Public Policy Considerations And The Facts
Of
This CaseDemonstrate That Hynix's "Heads-I-Win, Tails-You-Lose"Approach Is Both Unwise And Unwarranted ...................................
15
4. Hynix's Proposal Is Inconsistent With Well-SettledConstraints On A Court's Use
OfIts
Inherent Power ......................
16
E. This Court Has
No
Factual Basis For Determining That Any RoyaltyRate Would
Or
Would Not Place Hynix
At
A CompetitiveDisadvantage ................................................................................................
19
CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................
20
BRIEF RE
THE COURT'S
DETERMINATION OF
THE
19256220.1
-
11
-RAND RATE PURSUANT TO ITS 9.21.12
ORDER~
CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4182 Filed11/13/12 Page3 of 25

Activity (20)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
ddmc14780 liked this
John Danforth liked this
John Danforth liked this
Dave Weaver liked this
nollide14411 liked this
Bob Armel liked this
Roger Wilson liked this
Thomas Kenaya liked this
ddmc14780 liked this

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)//-->