• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
  M
   C
  K
   O   O  L
   S
  M  I  T  H
  A  P
  R   O  F  E   S   S  I   O  N  A  L
   C
   O  R  P   O  R  A  T  I   O  N
  •  A
  T  T   O  R  N  E  Y   S  D  A  L  L  A   S
 ,
  T  E  X  A   S
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Rambus’s Reply in Support of Rambus’s Motion for Leave to File Motionfor Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim LimitationsCase Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244Austin 48388v5
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, California 90071-1560Telephone: (213) 683-9100Facsimile: (213) 687-3702Email: gregory.stone@mto.com
 
Email: 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, California 94105Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsimile: (415) 512-4077Email: peter.detre@mto.comEmail: rose.ring@mto.comEmail: jen.polse@mto.com
 
Attorneys 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.comEmail: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
 
UNITED 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 REPLY INSUPPORT OF RAMBUS’S MOTIONFOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTIONAND MOTION FOR PARTIALSUMMARY JUDGMENTREGARDING UNCONTESTEDCLAIM LIMITATIONS
Judge: Hon. Ronald M. WhyteDate: February 5, 2009Time: 9:00 a.m.Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3170 Filed 02/02/2009 Page 1 of 9
 
  M
   C
  K
   O   O  L
   S
  M  I  T  H
  A  P
  R   O  F  E   S   S  I   O  N  A  L
   C
   O  R  P   O  R  A  T  I   O  N
  •  A
  T  T   O  R  N  E  Y   S  D  A  L  L  A   S
 ,
  T  E  X  A   S
 
Rambus’s Reply in Support of Rambus’s Motion for Leave to File Motionfor Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim LimitationsCase Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244Austin 48388v5
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,et al.,Defendants.)))))))))))Case No. C 05-002298 RMWRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,Defendants.)))))))))Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3170 Filed 02/02/2009 Page 2 of 9
 
  M
   C
  K
   O   O  L
   S
  M  I  T  H
  A  P
  R   O  F  E   S   S  I   O  N  A  L
   C
   O  R  P   O  R  A  T  I   O  N
  •  A
  T  T   O  R  N  E  Y   S  D  A  L  L  A   S
 ,
  T  E  X  A   S
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627281
Rambus’s Reply in Support of Rambus’s Motion for Leave to File Motionfor Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Uncontested Claim LimitationsCase Nos. 05-00334, 05-002298, and 06-00244Austin 48388v5
The Manufacturers’ opposition fails to meet their burden of coming forward withevidence on the merits to counter Rambus’s motion for summary judgment.
1
Indeed, theManufacturers do not even address most of the claim limitations that are the subject of Rambus’smotion. Their
only
arguments on the merits consist of (1) an argument going to a single claimlimitation based on their having mistaken one limitation for another; and (2) Nanya’s argumentwith respect to its DDR3 product, following Nanya’s refusal to enter into a stipulation withrespect to this product pursuant to the Court’s invitation. That is the sum total of theManufacturers’ opposition on the merits of the underlying motion.Rather than addressing Rambus’s motion on the merits, the Manufacturers spend the bulk of their Opposition complaining that the motion is duplicative of a motion
in limine,
or untimely.First, Rambus’s underlying motion is a summary judgment motion, not a motion
in limine.
 Absent this motion or some other mechanism, Rambus would need to spend substantial trial timesatisfying its burden of proving infringement by presenting evidence of infringement withrespect to claim limitations that cannot, and will not, be contested by the Manufacturers’ experts.Second, the Manufacturers should not be heard to argue that Rambus’s motion came when “trialwas scheduled to begin less than one week later” because week over week, the Manufacturershave ignored repeated requests from Rambus to reach an appropriate stipulation on the presentissues following receipt of the Court’s summary judgment ruling, with Rambus’s first requestcoming approximately one week after the Court’s order on summary judgment. Rambusrespectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for partial summary judgment, so thatRambus need present to the jury only the infringement-related evidence that is actually disputedby the parties.
1
The parties agreed that the Manufacturers would oppose Rambus’s underlying motion
on themerits
in addition to opposing Rambus’s motion for leave.
See
email from Hynix’s counsel,attached to the Declaration of Craig Tolliver (“Tolliver Decl.) filed concurrently here with, Ex. 1.
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3170 Filed 02/02/2009 Page 3 of 9
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...