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
11Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4200

4200

Ratings: (0)|Views: 116 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Dec 05, 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

12/06/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
HYNIX’S CONSOLIDATED REPLY ONMOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.CV 00-20905 RMW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728KENNETH L. NISSLY (
SBN
77589)
knissly@omm.com
 SUSAN van KEULEN (
SBN
136060)
 svankeulen@omm.com
 SUSAN ROEDER (
SBN
160897)
 sroeder@omm.com
 MISHIMA ALAM (
SBN
271621)
malam@omm.com
 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP2765 Sand Hill RoadMenlo Park, California 94025Telephone: (650) 473-2600Facsimile: (650) 473-2601KENNETH O’ROURKE (
SBN
120144)
korourke@omm.com
 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP400 South Hope StreetLos Angeles, California 90071-2899Telephone: (213) 430-6000Facsimile: (213) 430-6407[
 Additional counsel listed on signature page
.]Attorneys for PlaintiffsHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., andHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN 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
HYNIX’S CONSOLIDATED REPLY ON(1) MOTION FOR SUMMARYJUDGMENT OR, IN THEALTERNATIVE, PARTIAL SUMMARYJUDGMENT ON THE ISSUE OF THECOLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT OFREEXAMINATIONS OF RAMBUS’SPATENTS; (2) MOTION FOR NEWTRIAL, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE,MOTION FOR STAY; AND (3) MOTIONFOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTALREPLY TO RAMBUS’S AMENDEDCOUNTERCLAIM
Hearing Date: December 19, 2012Time: 2:00 p.m.Place: Courtroom 6Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4200 Filed12/04/12 Page1 of 48
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
Page
 - i -
HYNIX’S CONSOLIDATED REPLY ONMOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.CV 00-20905 RMW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................. 1
 
II. HYNIX IS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY BASEDON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ....................................................................................... 5
 
A. Rambus’s Meritless Attacks On Hynix Do Not Justify the Enforcement of Invalid Patents ............................................................................................................... 5
 
1. Hynix did not engage in improper reexamination/litigationgamesmanship ...................................................................................................... 5
 
2. It is of no consequence that PTO examiners, not the Board, found sevenof the claims-in-suit valid in reexamination where the Board hasoverruled the examiners’ conclusions .................................................................. 9
 
3. Patent validity may properly be subject to repeated attacks .............................. 10
 
B. Collateral Estoppel Based Upon the Board Decisions Was Not Within the Scopeof the Judgment Previously Appealed to the Federal Circuit and Therefore Is NotExcluded by the Mandate Rule ................................................................................... 11
 
C. The Board Decisions Rejecting Rambus’s Patent Claims Are Entitled toCollateral Estoppel Effect in This Litigation .............................................................. 14
 
1. The Different Burdens of Proof In District Court Actions andReexamination Proceedings Do Not Bar The Application of CollateralEstoppel .............................................................................................................. 14
 
a. The heightened burden of proof at trial does not bar collateralestoppel for a PTO decision that the patent should not have issued ......... 14
 
 b. PTO determinations of invalidity routinely impact court proceedings on those same patents ........................................................... 15
 
c. Rambus’s reliance on non-patent case authority is misplaced .................. 16
 
2. The Board Decisions Are Final for Collateral Estoppel Purposes ..................... 17
 
3. Rambus Does Not Dispute That Collateral Estoppel Supports FindingRelated Patent Claims Invalid And Offers No Evidence Of PatentablySignificant Differences Between The Invalidated Claims And TheClaims-In-Suit .................................................................................................... 18
 
4. Denying Collateral Estoppel Would Be An Abuse of Discretion ...................... 23
 
a. Collateral estoppel is not barred by the fact that Hynix did not joinMicron’s case against Rambus .................................................................. 25
 
 b. There are no inconsistent results that justify denial of collateralestoppel ..................................................................................................... 27
 
c. Refusing to give Board decisions collateral estoppel effect wouldlead to inconsistent results that will hurt competition and the public ....... 27
 
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4200 Filed12/04/12 Page2 of 48
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
 
Page
 - ii -
HYNIX’S CONSOLIDATED REPLY ONMOT. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, ETC.CV 00-20905 RMW
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728III. HYNIX IS ENTITLED TO A NEW PATENT TRIAL.................................................... 28
 
A. The Reexaminations are Newly Discovered, Admissible Evidence Warranting a New Trial on Validity ................................................................................................. 29
 
B. The Federal Circuit’s Construction of the Term “Memory Device” AlsoWarrants a New Trial .................................................................................................. 32
 
C. Hynix is Entitled to a New Trial on Damages ............................................................ 33
 
IV. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD STAY THIS ACTION ........................... 34
 
A. Hynix has not delayed in seeking a stay ..................................................................... 34
 
B. Rambus will not be prejudiced by a stay .................................................................... 35
 
V. THE COURT SHOULD GRANT HYNIX LEAVE TO ADD A COLLATERALESTOPPEL DEFENSE ..................................................................................................... 36
 
A. There is Good Cause to Permit Hynix to Supplement its Reply ................................. 36
 
B. Supplementation is Proper under Rule 15 Standards .................................................. 37
 
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 39
 
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4200 Filed12/04/12 Page3 of 48

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)//-->