Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page1 of 19

EXHIBIT A

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page2 of 19

SK hynix Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc.

Rambus Demonstratives re Hynixs Motions
Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW December 19, 2012

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page3 of 19

Timeline
APR 2006 Rambus prevails in patent trial AUG 2000 Hynix sues Rambus in this Court FEB 2009 Hynix requests ex parte reexam of 918 and 105 patents MAR 2009 Entry of final judgment MAY 2010 Hynix request ex parte reexam of 020, 916, and 120 patents

OVER 8 YEARS BEFORE HYNIX REQUESTS PATENT REEXAMINATIONS

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

AUG 2000 Micron sues Rambus in Delaware

OCT 2006 Samsung requests inter partes reexam of 120 patent AUG 2007 Samsung requests inter partes reexam of 916 and 863 patents

FEB 2009 Micron requests inter partes reexam of 120 patent NOV/DEC 2008 Micron requests inter partes reexam of 020, 916, 863 patents JAN 2008 Samsung requests inter partes reexam of 020 patent

G50

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page4 of 19

Hynixs Invalidity Defenses Were Rejected by the Jury

G51

Six of the Ten Claims Tried Have Been Finally Confirmed by the PTO on Reexamination
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page5 of 19

105 Patent Claim 34 Three separate Hynix ex parte reexamination requests

Two resulted in claim being confirmed Third rejected: no substantial new question of patentability Not subject to appeal

G52

Six of the Ten Claims Tried Have Been Finally Confirmed by the PTO on Reexamination
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page6 of 19

918 Patent Claims 24 and 33 Hynix ex parte reexamination request

Claims confirmed Not subject to appeal

G53

Six of the Ten Claims Tried Have Been Finally Confirmed by the PTO on Reexamination
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page7 of 19

916 Patent Claims 9 and 40 Hynix ex parte reexamination request

Request rejected: no substantial new question of patentability

Micron/Samsung inter partes reexamination requests

Claims confirmed Confirmations not appealed

G54

Six of the Ten Claims Tried Have Been Finally Confirmed by the PTO on Reexamination
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page8 of 19

020 Patent Claim 32 Hynix ex parte reexamination request

Claim confirmed Not subject to appeal

Micron/Samsung inter partes reexamination requests

Claim confirmed Confirmation not appealed

G55

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page9 of 19

The Six Confirmed Claims Cover SDRAM and DDR

SDRAM

DDR SDRAM

G56

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page10 of 19

No Claim-in-Suit Has Been Cancelled

Reexaminations are pending for the four claims rejected by the Board. Rambus is challenging the rejections. Reexaminations pending until exhaustion of all appeals. 35 U.S.C. 316(a) (2011).

G57

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page11 of 19

Hynix is Trying to Circumvent the Reexamination Process

Congress has provided specific procedures for reexamining a previously issued patent claim. Through that process, the PTO has confirmed most claims-in-suit. But Hynix wants to get around that result.

G58

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page12 of 19

Hynix Improperly Conflates Distinct Legal Concepts

Statutory Cancellation
Cancellation of a previously issued patent claim. No claim has been cancelled.

Collateral Estoppel
Prevents re-litigation of the precise issue that has been fully and finally decided in another case.

G59

Different Legal Standards Defeat Preclusion on All Claims

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page13 of 19

In reexamination, the PTO has the burden of finding unpatentability by a preponderance of the evidence.
That standard is substantially lower than in a civil case. In re Swanson, 540 F.3d at 1377. That the PTO has satisfied a lower standard does not mean the higher standard controlling in this case has been met.

G61

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page14 of 19

Inconsistent Decisions
If issues are identical, then inconsistent decisions weigh against preclusion.
Federal Circuit held the claims not invalid.

The PTO confirmed six claims.

The Court is not an appellate tribunal that determines whether the PTO erred in confirming the claims.

G63

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page15 of 19

Lack of Diligence Precludes a New Trial

Both ex parte and inter partes reexams were available before trial.
Hynix did not request its first ex parte reexams until 2009. Lack of diligence is sufficient to deny a new trial under Rule 59, Rule 60, or the mandate rule. See,
e.g., Amado, 517 F.3d at 1363 (Rule 60).

G64

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page16 of 19

Reexaminations Are Not Admissible Evidence

Courts generally exclude non-final reexaminations.
Reexamination evidence would confuse the jury. Trial would end up focusing on PTO proceedings. Trial would end up focusing on claims that are not in suit.

G65

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page17 of 19

Memory Device Is No Ground for a New Trial

Hynix stipulated to the Courts construction. Hynix did not appeal either memory device or integrated circuit device.

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, 9/12/2003 (D.E. 326).

No Prejudice
PTO confirmed 918 claims-in-suit under broad construction of memory device.
G66

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page18 of 19

The Reexaminations Have No Impact on Damages

Because the damages calculation at trial was not predicated on the infringement of particular claims, and because we have upheld the jurys verdict that all of the accused devices infringe , we affirm the damages award .
TiVo, 516 F.3d at 1312 (affirming damages award after reversing infringement finding as to some claims).

G72

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-1 Filed12/26/12 Page19 of 19

Hynix Waived Claim-by-Claim Damages

Hynixs proposed verdict form contemplated product-based royalties.

Joint Pretrial Statement for the Patent Trial, 2/2/2006 (D.E. 1649), Ex. 14 at 7.

Hynix never argued at trial that damages depended on the number of infringed claims.
G73