Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 1

Filed: 12/07/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT RAMBUS, INC., Appellant, v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee. APPELLANT RAMBUS INC.S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEF Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26(b) and this Courts Local Rule 26(b), Appellant Rambus Inc. respectfully moves for a 30-day extension of time to file its reply brief. The reply brief is currently due on No. 2012-1480

December 17, 2012. If this motion is granted, the reply brief will be due on Wednesday, January 16, 2013. Appellant Rambus has not previously sought an extension for its reply brief. Undersigned counsel has informed the Appellee of the extension request. Appellee has indicated that it does not oppose the motion. The additional time is necessary in view of the complexity of the case, because counsel is heavily engaged with the press of other matters, and because of previously scheduled travel that cannot be rescheduled. One of Rambuss primary attorneys on this appeal, John Whealan, had a previously scheduled trip to India

Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 2

Filed: 12/07/2012

and will be out of the country from December 5-15, which is almost the entirety of the current period for reply. The additional time is also necessary because of the proximity of the current due date to the holiday period (for example, a 14-day extension would make Rambuss reply brief due on New Years Eve). Several of Rambuss attorneys with significant responsibility for the appeal will be traveling during the holidays with limited availability, and Rambus itself will be closed in the week between Christmas and New Years. A 30-day extension will give counsel the necessary time to prepare the reply and give Rambus the necessary time to go through internal procedures to approve the reply for filing. Pursuant to this Courts Local Rule 26(b)(5), a declaration in support of this motion is attached. Accordingly, Appellant Rambus respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to file its reply brief, to and including Wednesday, January 16, 2013. December 7, 2012 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken Jeffrey A. Lamken Counsel of Record MOLOLAMKEN LLP The Watergate, Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 (telephone) (202) 556-2001 (facsimile) jlamken@mololamken.com Counsel for Appellant Rambus Inc.

Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 3

Filed: 12/07/2012

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT RAMBUS, INC., Appellant, v. DAVID J. KAPPOS, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, Appellee. DECLARATION OF MICHAEL G. PATTILLO, JR. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT RAMBUS INC.S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS REPLY BRIEF I, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr., hereby declare: 1. I am a partner in the law firm MoloLamken LLP, and counsel No. 2012-1480

for Appellant Rambus Inc. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein. 2. I submit this declaration in support of Appellant Rambus Inc.s

Unopposed Motion for a 30-day Extension of Time To File Its Reply Brief. 3. brief. Rambus has not previously sought an extension for its reply

Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 4

Filed: 12/07/2012

4.

Undersigned counsel has informed the Appellee of the Appellee has indicated that it does not oppose the

extension request. motion. 5.

The additional time is necessary in view of the complexity of

the case, and because counsel is heavily engaged with the press of other matters, including matters before this Court. Those matters include, among others: an opening brief in Windstream Corp. v. FCC, No. 11-9900, currently due in the 10th Circuit on December 10, 2012; an opening brief in Rambus Inc. v. ITC, No. 12-1677, currently due in this Court on January 7, 2013; a consolidated brief in opposition to multiple government motions in limine in U.S. v. Farha et al., No. 8:11-cr-00115, currently due in the Middle District of Florida on December 17, 2012; and a meeting with the Solicitor General in connection with Beer v. United States, No. 10-5012 (Fed. Cir.) scheduled for December 7, 2012. 6. The additional time is also necessary because of previously

scheduled travel that cannot be rescheduled. One of Rambuss primary attorneys on this appeal, John Whealan, had a previously scheduled trip to India and will be out of the country from December 5-15, a period of travel that encompasses almost the entirety of the current period for reply. That trip could not be rescheduled because Mr. Whealan is in India as part of a

Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 5

Filed: 12/07/2012

delegation from the GW School of Law and the U.S. India Business Council to participate in the India Legal Education Program, a conference discussing aspects of the United States and Indian legal systems. 7. The additional time is further necessary because of the

proximity of the current due date to the holiday period (for example, a 14day extension would make Rambuss reply brief due on New Years Eve). Several of Rambuss attorneys with significant responsibility for the appeal will be traveling during the holidays with limited availability, and Rambus itself will be closed in the week between Christmas and New Years. 8. A 30-day extension will give counsel the necessary time to

prepare the reply and give Rambus the necessary time to go through internal procedures to approve the reply for filing.

Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 6

Filed: 12/07/2012

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: December 7, 2012, in Washington, D.C. /s/ Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. MOLOLAMKEN LLP The Watergate, Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 (telephone) (202) 556-2001 (facsimile) mpattillo@mololamken.com Counsel for Appellant Rambus Inc.

Case: 12-1480

Document: 29

Page: 7

Filed: 12/07/2012

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that, on the 7th day of December, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing Appellant Rambus, Inc.s Unopposed Motion for a 30-Day Extension of Time to File Its Reply Brief by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to ECF registered participants.

/s/ Jeffrey A. Lamken Jeffrey A. Lamken Counsel for Appellant Rambus Inc.