Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISOMFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONSCASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905

Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329)Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408)Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298)MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue, 35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1560Telephone: (213) 683-9100Facsimile: (213) 687-3702Email: gregory.stone@mto.comEmail: andrea.jeffries@mto.comEmail: fred.rowley@mto.comPeter A. Detre (SBN 182619)Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769)Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 219202)MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP560 Mission Street, 27th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsimile: (415) 512-4077Email: peter.detre@mto.comEmail: rose.ring@mto.comEmail: jen.polse@mto.comAttorneys for RAMBUS INC.Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126)SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000Los Angeles, California 90013-1010Telephone: (213) 896-6000Facsimile: (213) 896-6600Email: rransom@sidley.comPierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)McKOOL SMITH PC300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700Austin, Texas 78701Telephone: (512) 692-8700Facsimile: (512) 692-8744Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com;Email: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.comUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISIONRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,Defendants.CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW

RAMBUS INC.’S EVIDENTIARYOBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS OFSUSAN ROEDER, JOHN BEYNON,KRISTIN CORNUELLE, AND STEVENCHERENSKY SUBMITTED IN SUPPORTOF MANUFACTURERS’ MOTIONS FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT AND/OR FORAPPLICATION OF ISSUE PRECLUSION

Date: January 30, 2009Time: 2:00 p.m.Courtroom: 6Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 1 of 10

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728

RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISOMFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONSCASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905

RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,et al.,Defendants.CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMWRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,Defendants.CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMWHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.RAMBUS INC.,Defendant.CASE NO.: CV 00-20905 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 2 of 10

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728- 1 -

RAMBUS’S OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATIONS ISOMFRS’ COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL MOTIONSCASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905

Rambus Inc. hereby submits the following evidentiary objections to the declarations of Susan Roeder, John Beynon, Kristin Cornuelle, and Steven Cherensky filed on January 19, 2009,in connection with the Manufacturers’ respective motions for entry of judgment and/or summary judgment and Nanya’s motion for application of collateral estoppel.

OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF SUSAN ROEDER IN SUPPORT OF HYNIX’SMOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON UNCLEAN HANDS CLAIMS, ETC.

Paragraph 6 & Exhibit E

: Rambus objects to paragraph 6 and Exhibit E of the RoederDeclaration on the grounds that the Memorandum Opinion attached as Exhibit E was vacated inits entirety by the Federal Circuit.

See Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.

, 523 F.3d1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The Federal Circuit specifically held that the court’s findings constitutedan “impermissible advisory opinion” that was “issued without jurisdiction.” Id. at 1380. Where ahigher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has no precedentialvalue.

See

County of Los Angeles v. Davis

, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979). Citation to andreliance on the district court’s opinion in the

Samsung

action is therefore improper.

Paragraph 7 & Exhibit F

: Rambus objects to paragraph 7 and Exhibit F of the RoederDeclaration on the grounds that the Opinion of the Commission attached as Exhibit F was setaside by the D.C. Circuit.

See Rambus, Inc. v. FTC

, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Where ahigher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion has no precedentialvalue.

See

County of Los Angeles v. Davis

, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979). Citation to andreliance on the FTC’s opinion is therefore improper.

Paragraph 8 & Exhibits G

: Rambus objects to paragraph 8 and Exhibit G of the RoederDeclaration on the grounds that the Order Reversing and Vacating Initial Decision attached asExhibit G was set aside by the D.C. Circuit.

See Rambus, Inc. v. FTC

, 522 F.3d 456 (D.C. Cir.2008). Where a higher court vacates the judgment of a lower court, the lower court’s opinion hasno precedential value.

See

County of Los Angeles v. Davis

, 440 U.S. 625, 634 n.6 (1979).Citation to and reliance on the FTC’s order is therefore improper.

Paragraph 11 & Exhibit J

: Rambus objects to paragraph 11 and Exhibit J of the RoederDeclaration on the grounds of attorney-client privilege. Exhibit J is a memorandum from Joel

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3149 Filed 01/26/2009 Page 3 of 10