• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
I2
J
45.J.
<o
2.7(l)8
G.n
c)lo
ll
t2l3t4l5l6l718t9202T22232425262728
\
il
JOSEPHW. COTCHETT#36324)PHILIPL.GREGORY#95217)COTCHETT,ITRE& McCARTHY840MalcotnRoad,Suite00
SUPENORCOURTOF T}IE STATEOF CALIFORMACITY ANDCOTJNTYOF SAN FRANCISCORAMBUS NC.,PlaintifiMCRONTECHNOLOGY, NC., et
dl.o
Defendants.cAsE NO.04-431105RAMBUS'S MEMORANDUMOFPOINTS AND AUIIIORITIESINOPPOSITIONTO DEFENDAIYTS'MOTIONFOR SUMMARY JT'DGMENTOR" IN TIIE ALTERNATIVE,FORSUMMARY ADJITDICATION BASEDON FAILURETO PROVE INJTIRY[Date:February 3,2009Time: l:30p.m.Deot: 304-Judee: Hon. RichardA. KramerCoriplaintFiled:Mav 5.2004Trial'Date: Maich-16. 009Burlineame. alifomia94010Tel:(6',50)97-6000.Fax:(650)697-0577
cREcoRY P.STONE#78329)STEVENM. PERRY#106154)MT]NGE&TOLLES& OLSONLLP355SouthGrand venue, 5thFloor
LosAneeles.alifornia90071-1560Tel:(2I3)683-9100Fax:(213)687-3702JEFFREY .BLETCH#144340)
susANT. BOYD#229664)LEES.TAYLOR#243863)
MIJNGE& TOLLES& OLSONLLP560MissionStreet,7thFloorSanFrancisco,alifornia 94105-2907Tel:(415)5124000. Fax:(415)512-4077Attomevs or PlaintiffRAMB{'S INC.
OPPOSITIONTO DEFENDANTS' MSJ MSA RN FAILURE TO PROVENJTJRY
 
I2
J
4
5689l01l12l3t4l5l6l7IEl9202l22232425262728
I. INTRODUCTIONAITDBACKGROI]NI)Rambuscontendshat Defendants ngagedn an unlawful conspiracy hat preventedRDRAM from becoming he dominantmemorystandard.As a result ofDefendants'unlawful acts, hroughwhich Defendantsntended o"driveRambusawaycompletely,"DDR SDRAM andDDR2SDRAMbecame he dominantmemorystandardsinsteadof RDRAM.RambusexpertAvramTucker haspreparedreasonable stimateofthe lostprofitssufferedby Rambusas a result of Defendants'successn thwarting RDRAM. Inparticular,Mr. Tucker calculatedhe netprofitsRambuswould have eaniedhad he salesof DDR andDDR2from 2001 brougbApril 2010 nsteadbeenRDRAM sales. Mr.Tuckerhen deducted romthissumhe actual oyaltiesand lat feepaymentselated oDDR or DDR2 sales hat Rambushas eceived rom current icensees, swell as anestimate f suchsums o be received n the future fromthosesame icensees.Theresultingdamagesigure is over$4billion.Remarkably,Defendantsow seeksummaryudgmentbasedon the contention hatRambusannotprovedamages!Defendants'conspiracyucceede4Rambus asbeenmassively njured, and Defendantso otion shouldbe denied.Stripped o its essentials, efendants'arguments asollows:(l)"Whereallegedanticompetitiveonductcauses oth a harm and a benefit,theplaintiffcamotrecoverdamagesor the harm andstill keep he benefit. The two mustbe offset so hat aplaintiffcanecoveronly its netinjury;"t(2)Defendants'schemeo thwart RDRAM both caused harm o Rambusadrastic eductionof its incomesteam from RDRAM sales)and oeated a'obenefif'(the opportunity or Rambus o assert ts intellectualpropertyights against heDDRandDDR2 sales hat would not haveoccunedf RDRAM was he dominaotmemory);(3)Although Rambushas eportedand offset ts actualand orecastedoyalties IMovingMem. t8:ll-14.
690535.3
OPPOSMONTO DEFENDANTS'MSJ MSA RE FAILURE TO PROVE INJI.JRY
 
I234
f
6789l0ll
t2l3t4l5l617l8t9202l22232425262728
eamedon DDR and DDR2 from existing icensees,Rambus asnot --and admittedlycannotquantiryhe amount t will receiveifanything)aspatentnfringementdamagesin itssuitsagainstDefendants nd otherunlicensedentitiesbasedon their sales ofDDRandDDR2;(4)theroyalty ratesRambus harged or licensingRDRAMwere ower thantheroyalty rates t charged or licensing ts technolory for use n DDR andDDR2, andtherefore hepatentdamagesould be higher han he damagesalculated y Mr. Tucker;and(5)Defendantsherebyhaveshown hat Rambus annotmeet ts burdenof proofat trial to show hat it hassuffereda netnjury.Put evenmore simply,Defendants ontendhat-having deprivedRambusofsomeMbillion dollars over the ast eightyearshrough heir conspiracy o thwartRDRAM-they now can depriveRambusof all redress or that wrong becausehey alsohavespent he last decadenftinging Rambus'spatents,andRambus hereforemightsomedayrovehat and collectpatentnfringementdnmagesnotwithstandingDefendants'bestefforts to escapell liability for thatmisconductas well).Not surprisingly, he law doesnotpermitsuchan nequitable esult.First, California aw squarelylaceshe burdenuponDefendantso proveat trialthevalue of any benefits heir wrongfulconductallegedlyconferredupon Rambus.Defendants avenotdemonstrated,ndcannotdemonstrate,hat collection ofpatentdamages y Rambuss anythingmorehanspeculative s hispoint(evenf it could besaid o be a "benefif'that Defendants'onspiracyconfelredo'pon Rambus). Summaryjudgmentherefore s improper.Second, ven fRambushad he burden oprovehe scopeofthe "benefits"(ifany)it received rom Defendants'conspiracy o thwart RDRAM' Defendants'own evidenceshowshat Rambushasmet that burden.Whetherornot it legallyqualifiesas anoffsettingbenefit" thatDefendantsconfered"by their conspiracy,Mr.Tuckerhasidentifiedand offset in his calculation he royalties and ump sumpaymentsRambushas
590535.3 t-
OPPOSMONTO DEFENDANTS' MSJ MSA REFAILI,JRETO PROVE NJURY
of 00

Leave a Comment

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