More From This User
Related Docuements
3
From sabatino123
3
From sabatino123
46
From sabatino123
4075
From sabatino123
245
From sabatino123
itc2
From sabatino123
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Samsung’s Reply to Rambus’s Consolidated Opposition toMotions of Manufacturers for Summary Judgment Based UponCollateral Estoppel
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
[
Attorneys Listed on Signature Page
]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al.,Defendants.Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S REPLY TO RAMBUS’SCONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TOMOTIONS OF MANUFACTURERSFOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASEDUPON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Hearing Date: January 30, 2009Time: 2:00 pmCourtroom: 6Honorable Ronald M. WhyteRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,Defendants.Case No. C 05-02298 RMWRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,Defendants.Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3166 Filed 01/28/2009 Page 1 of 20
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
Samsung’s Reply to Rambus’s Consolidated Opposition toMotions of Manufacturers for Summary Judgment Based UponCollateral Estoppel
iI. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1II. THE DELAWARE COURT’S RULING IS BINDING UPON RAMBUS ANDREQUIRES DISMISSAL OF RAMBUS’S INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS........................2A. Collateral Estoppel Applies To All of the Issues Material To the Outcomeof Samsung’s Unclean Hands/Spoliation Defense..................................................2B. The Handful of Marginal Issues Identified By Rambus Are Subject ToIssue Preclusion And Otherwise Result In A Judgment In Favor Of Samsung..................................................................................................................31. Rambus Applies The Wrong Test For Identity of Issues............................32. The Prejudice, Bad Faith, or Remedy Issues Are Legally IdenticalNotwithstanding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct....................................43. Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct Satisfies the Identity-of-IssuesTest..............................................................................................................54. The Substantial Overlap of Accused Products DemonstratesIdentity of Issues As To When A Duty To Preserve DocumentsArose...........................................................................................................65. Rambus’s License Arguments Are Without Merit.....................................76. The Issue Of Prejudice As To Samsung Is Identical...................................87. Rambus’s Allegations Regarding Samsung’s Unclean Hands AreIrrelevant To Collateral Estoppel And Must Be Rejected..........................98. Rambus’s Fairness Arguments Do Not Apply............................................9C. If The Fairness Standard Applies, Samsung Has Clearly Met It..........................111. Rambus’s Argument With Regard To Inconsistent Rulings DoesNot Apply Because The Court’s Ruling Is In The Clear Minority...........112. Rambus’s Judicial-Economy Argument is Flawed...................................12D. Rambus’s Patent Claims Should Be Dismissed Even If the DelawareCourt’s Decision Is Not Given Full Preclusive Effect..........................................13III. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................15
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3166 Filed 01/28/2009 Page 2 of 20
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)
Samsung’s Reply to Rambus’s Consolidated Opposition toMotions of Manufacturers for Summary Judgment Based UponCollateral Estoppel
ii
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
Alexander v. Nat'l Farmers Org.
,687 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1982)...........................................................................................15
Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc.
,862 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1988).............................................................................................14
Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp.
,892 F.2d 1115 (1st Cir. 1989).............................................................................................6
Aptix Corp. v. Quickturn Design Sys., Inc.
,269 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2001)...........................................................................................6
Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found.
,402 U.S. 313 (1971)....................................................................................................10, 11
Comair Rotron, Inc. v. Nippon Densan Corp.
,49 F.3d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1995).............................................................................................4
Disimone v. Browner
,121 F.3d 1262 (9th Cir. 1997).............................................................................................3
Gilbert v. Ben-Asher
,900 F.2d 1407 (9th Cir. 1990).............................................................................................2
In re Grand Jury Proceedings
,604 F.2d 798 (3d Cir. 1979)..............................................................................................14
Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp.
,204 F.3d 880 (9th Cir. 2000)...............................................................................................4
John B. v. Goetz
,531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008).............................................................................................13
Kamilche Co. v. United States
,53 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 1995)...............................................................................................3
Keystone Driller Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.
,290 U.S. 240 (1933)............................................................................................................6
Kronisch v. United States
,150 F.3d 112 (2d Cir. 1998)..............................................................................................13
Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n
,494 F.3d 788 (9th Cir. 2007).............................................................................................12
Precision Instruments Mfg. Co. v. Auto. Main. Mach. Co.
,324 U.S. 806 (1945)............................................................................................................6
Provau v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
,772 F.2d 817 (11th Cir. 1985)...........................................................................................10
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3166 Filed 01/28/2009 Page 3 of 20
of 00
3166N
750 Reads
Info and Rating
| Category: | Uncategorized. |
| Rating: | |
| Upload Date: | 01/29/2009 |
| Copyright: | Attribution Non-commercial |
| Tags: |
Read online for free.
Leave a Comment