• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
OHS West:260603151.7
 
MOTION
 
FOR
 
SUMMARY
 
JUDGMENTC-08-03343
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)nchatterjee@orrick.com DEBORAH E. FISHMAN (STATE BAR NO. 197584)dfishman@orrick.com ROBERT W. RICKETSON (STATE BAR NO. 148481)rricketson@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP1000 Marsh RoadMenlo Park, CA 94025Telephone: +1-650-614-7400Facsimile: +1-650-614-7401Attorneys for DefendantNVIDIA CorporationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO DIVISIONRAMBUS, INC.,Plaintiff,v.NVIDIA CORPORATION,Defendant.Case No. C-08-03343 SI(Consolidated with Case No.: C-08-5500)
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONTO LIFT STAY AND FOR PARTIALSUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date: March 13, 2009Time: 9:00 a.m.Judge: The Hon. Susan Illston
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 85 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 1 of 21
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 
OHS West:260603151.7
- i -
MOTION
 
FOR
 
SUMMARY
 
JUDGMENTC-08-03343
I. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.............................................................................................2A. Judge Robinson’s Findings and the Micron Trial Record......................................2B. NVIDIA Was A Target Of Rambus’s Litigation Strategy......................................6C. The Relationship of the Barth Patents to Judge Robinson’s Order.........................7III. SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD BE GRANTED....................................................10A. Legal Standards Under Rule 56............................................................................10B. Legal Standard for Application of Issue Preclusion.............................................101. Rambus’s anticipated arguments are without merit..................................12C. The Barth Patents Are Unenforceable Under Judge Robinson’s Findingsand the Undisputed Facts Here.............................................................................14IV. LIFTING THE STAY IS WARRANTED TO ADDRESS THE DISPOSITIVETHRESHOLD ISSUE OF THE PRECLUSIVE EFFECTS OF JUDGEROBINSON’S DECISION UNDER UNDISPUTED FACTS.........................................16V. CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................17
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 85 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 2 of 21
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage
 
OHS West:260603151.7
- ii -
MOTION
 
FOR
 
SUMMARY
 
JUDGMENTC-08-03343
FEDERAL CASES
 Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc.
v.
University of Ill. Found.
,402 U.S. 313 (1971)....................................................................................................10, 11, 14
 Blumcraft of Pittsburgh
v.
Kawneer Co.
,482 F.2d 542 (5th Cir. 1973)...................................................................................................11
Celotex Corp.
v.
Catrett 
,477 U.S. 317 (1986)................................................................................................................10
 Hydranautics
v.
FilmTec Corp.
,204 F.3d 880 (9th Cir.2000)....................................................................................................12
 Idaho Potato Comm'n
v.
G&T Terminal Packaging, Inc.
,425 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005)...................................................................................................10
 Jean Alexander Cosmetics, Inc.
v.
 L'Oreal USA, Inc.
,458 F.3d 244 (3d Cir. 2006)....................................................................................................11
Parklane Hosiery Co.
v.
Shore
,439 U.S. 322 (1979)................................................................................................................11
 Rambus Inc.
v.
 Infineon Techs. AG
,222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)...............................................................................................6
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
v.
 Rambus Inc.
,439 F. Supp. 2d 524 (E.D. Va 2006).........................................................................................6
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
v.
 Rambus, Inc.
,523 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................................6
SanDisk Corp.
v.
Phison Electronics Corp.
,538 F. Supp. 2d 1060 (W.D. Wis. 2008)................................................................................16
Shaw
v.
 Hahn
,56 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 1995)...................................................................................................10
Stevenson
v.
Sears Roebuck & Co.
,713 F.2d 705 (Fed. Cir. 1983).....................................................................................11, 13, 14
STATE CASES
 M&T Mortgage Corp.
v.
 Miller 
,2007 WL. 2403565 (E.D. N.Y. August 17, 2007)....................................................................6
DOCKETED CASES
 Micron Technology, Inc.
v.
 Rambus, Inc.
,Civ. No. 00-792-SLR............................................................................................................1, 3
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 85 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 3 of 21
of 00

Leave a Comment

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