Nature of judgment (select one)Final judgment, 28 USC 1295Rule 54(b)Interlocutory order (specify type)Other (explain – see Fed. Cir. R. 28(a)(5))
Name and docket no. of any related cases pending before this Court
Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
, No. 00-cv-20905 (N.D. Cal.), involves certainissues that are related to the issues presented here. Indeed, in
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
,645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011), an appeal from the
case was previously coordinated with an earlier appeal in this case. No judgment or notice of appeal has been filed in the
case, but Rambus anticipates that these events will occur very shortly.
See also Rambus Inc. v. ITC
, Case No. 12-1677 (Fed. Cir.)
Brief statement of issues to be raised on appeal
Whether the order declaring the patents-in-suit unenforceable (and subsidiary conclusions of law and findings of fact) was error; whether the finding of bad faith (and subsidiaryconclusions of law and findings of fact) was error; whether the finding of prejudice (andsubsidiary conclusions of law and findings of fact) was error; whether the choice of sanction(and subsidiary conclusions of law and findings of fact) was error.
Have there been discussions with other parties relating to settlement of this case?Yes NoIf “yes,” when were the last such discussions?Before the case was filed below?During the pendency of the case below?Following the judgment/order appealed from?If “yes,” were the settlement discussions mediated? Yes NoIf they were mediated, by whom? Hon. Daniel Weinstein (retired); Hon. Richard Seeborg;Hon. Laurence Kay (retired)Do you believe that this case may be amenable to mediation? Yes NoIf you answered no, explain why not Thus far, the parties have had extensive mediation
Case: 13-1294 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2013