Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
SJ Denial 00334

SJ Denial 00334

Ratings: (0)|Views: 18|Likes:
Published by msaba

More info:

Published by: msaba on Jul 11, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/26/2013

pdf

text

original

 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR THE FARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENTS AND ORDER DENYING THEMANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY DEPENDINGON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMWTSF
E-filed: 7/10/2008
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIXSEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTORMANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,L.P.,NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATIONU.S.A.,Defendants.No. C-05-00334 RMWCLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR THEFARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENTS ANDORDER DENYING THEMANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS FORSUMMARY JUDGMENT OFNON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITYDEPENDING ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
[Re Docket Nos. 312, 512]
RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,L.P.,Defendants.No. C-05-02298 RMW
[Re Docket Nos. 185, 360]
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
1
The court collectively refers to the Hynix, Micron, Nanya, and Samsung entities in thissuit as "the Manufacturers."
2
 Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.
, 517 U.S. 370 (1996).
3
The table in Appendix 1 reflects the patents-in-suit, the claims asserted, and theManufacturers against whom the claims are asserted.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR THE FARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENTS AND ORDER DENYING THEMANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY DEPENDINGON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMWTSF
2RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,v.MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., andMICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,INC.Defendants.No. C-06-00244 RMW
[Re Docket Nos. 121, 203]
Rambus has accused the Manufacturers
1
of infringing various patents. Largely in accordwith the local rules, the parties have submitted their joint claim construction statement showing 72claim terms in dispute. Rambus has filed its opening and responding
 Markman
2
briefs, motions forsummary judgment of infringement, and oppositions to the Manufacturers' motions. TheManufacturers have filed their responsive
 Markman
brief, oppositions to Rambus's summary judgment motions, and their own motions for summary judgment of invalidity under Rambus'sproposed claim constructions and non-infringement under theirs. The court has reviewed the papersand considered the arguments of counsel and now sets forth its claim construction and rulings on thesummary judgment motions dealing with the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. The claim constructionpertaining to the Ware patents is set forth in a separate order.
I. THE FARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENT FAMILY
Fifteen of the seventeen patents-in-suit descend from the original patent application no.07/510,898 filed by Drs. Michael Farmwald and Mark Horowitz on April 18, 1990.
3
Because thesefifteen share substantially similar specifications, the court's discussion refers to U.S. Patent No.
 
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
4
Rambus's opening and reply briefs exclusively refer to U.S. Patent No. 6,426,916. Thecourt cannot ascertain any substantive difference between the two patents' specifications. Because of the patents' different prosecution histories described at the beginning of the specification, however,citations to one patent's specification do not map to the other. Unexplainedly, the parties did notharmonize their briefing on this point.
5
This case has spawned a number of transcripts. Unless otherwise noted, citations to thetranscript refer to the trial transcript from the bifurcated, consolidated trial the court held from Januaryto March of 2008 regarding some of the Manufacturers' fraud and antitrust counterclaims.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR THE FARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENTS AND ORDER DENYING THEMANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY DEPENDINGON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMWTSF
36,182,184.
4
Given the number of claim terms in dispute and complexity of the technology, the courtbegins by explaining the context of the invention and the contents of the specification relevant to thedisputed issues.
Cf. Phillips v. AWH Corp.
, 415 F.3d 1303, 1313, 1315-17 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (enbanc). It then briefly recounts aspects of the prosecution history before turning to claimconstruction.
A.Background of the Inventions and the Specification's Written Description
Drs. Farmwald and Horowitz began their collaboration in the fall of 1988. Tr. 4078:21-4079:7.
5
Dr. Farmwald met with Dr. Horowitz over dinner to discuss how processor speeds andmemory speeds were diverging and how memory systems needed to become faster to keep up. Tr.4079:9-4082:9. Within the semiconductor industry, this problem was commonly referred to as the"memory bottleneck" or "memory gap." Tr. 4084:7-4091:8 (Dr. Horowitz); 4161:10-4163:3 (CarlEverett); 5498:9-5502:8 (Dr. Farmwald). Over the course of the next year and a half, Drs. Farmwaldand Horowitz worked on a variety of ideas for closing the memory gap, and they eventually wroteup their ideas in a patent application. Tr. 4133:15-4134:14. Dr. Horowitz testified that he "took over" the drafting of the specification.
 Id.
The following discussion walks through the patents'common specification to illustrate the scope of the written description and explain the technology.
1.The Prior Art and Objects of the Invention
Dr. Horowitz testified that with the specification, he and Dr. Farmwald were "trying todescribe our inventions, all the innovations that we had come up with to build a very high speedinterface." Tr. 4134:10-14. The court will summarize here, however, only the intrinsic evidenceand not the inventors' self-serving testimony. The specification begins with the field of the

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->