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
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
My Oh My

My Oh My

Ratings: (0)|Views: 421|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Jun 15, 2011
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

06/15/2011

pdf

text

original

 
.
_
.
_
I
JOSEPH
w.
COrrCHETI
(#36324)PHILIPL.GREGORY(#95217)
2
CO~rCHETT,PITRE
&
McCARTHY840Malcolm
Road"
Suite
200
3
Burlingame,California94010Te]:(650)
697
-6000
Fax:(650)
697
-0577
4
GREGORYP.S]'ONE(#78329)
5
STEVENM~PERRY(#106154)MUNGER,TOLLES&
OL·SON
LLP
6
355SouthGrandAvenue,35thFloorLosAngeles,California90071-1560
7
Tel:(213)683-9100·Fax:
(213)687-3702
8
JEFFREYL.BLEICH(#144340)
_~
SUSANT.nOYD(#229664)
9
LES.
TA
YLOR(#243863)
cOt
MUNGER~
TOLLES
&
OL·SON
LLP
10
560MissionStreet,27thFloor
San
Francisco,
California94105-2907
I
I
rrel:(415)512-4000Fax:(415)5]2-4077
12
Attorney's
forPlaintiff
RJtMBUS
INC.
13
..!II
__
_
_
14
SUPERIORCOURTOF~rHES·fATEOf~
CALIFORl'lIA
C01JNTYOFSANFRANCISCO
5
16
February23,
2009
1:30
p.m,
304
Hon.
Richard
A~
Kramer
I
8Plaintiff.
CASE
NO.
04-431105
RAMBUS'S
SEPARATF:·
STATEMENT
OF
It'ACrSINOPPOSITIONTODEFENDANTS'MOTIONFORSUMMARY
ADJUDICATION
OFPLAINTIFF'S'~CLAIMSBASEDON
14'OREIGNCOMMERCE"FOR
LACKOFSUBJECTMATTERJURISDICTION
19
VS.
20MICRON
TECHNOLOGY~INC.~
ct
al.,
21
22
Defendants.
Hearing
Dale:
HearingTime:
Department:Judge:ANDREI~A
T'ED
CROSS-AC:TIONS~
23
2.4
25
26
27
28
Complaintfiled:May5,2004
Trial
Date:
March
16,
2009
RE.Q.tcrat,~
V~ION..
~I
.
"
7003824.].
SEPARA
TES·I·ATE\4ENT
11\;
or=os
ITTON
TO
MOTrOl\POR
SUMM
ARY
ADJUD1CAT10N
RE
SURJECT
f...1A_
TTER
JURISDICTION
 
1PursuanttoCaliforniaCodeof
CivilProcedure
Section437c(b)(3)andCalifornia
2Rulesof
Court
J~1350(h),PlaintiffRambusInc?
('''Rambus''')hereby
submitsthis
Response
to
3Defendants'SeparateStatementof
Undisputed
MaterialFactsinSupportofDefendants'Motion4forSummaryAdjudicationonPlaintiffsClaimsBasedonForeignCommerceforLackofSubject
_
5Matter
Jurisdiction.
6
ISSUE1:RAMBlJS~SCLAIMSl\GAINSTDEFENDANTS
BASED
ONFOREIGN
TMDE
7AND(~OMMER(~EARENorrWITHIN
THE·
SUBJEC~l'MA1'TER
JURlSDICTION
OF
THIS
COURT.
10
1I
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
288
9
--...,...---
_.
_._
..
,
..
-~
-
-
--.~--
~-
Complaint~~12~
102,
104,
109;
Rambus'sResponseandSupporting
Evidence
Defendants'MaterialFactsandSupportingEvidence
---+-----..-~
---+-~------~~-~
-----------1
1.Rambusclaims
that
it
wasdeniedUndisputed,
billionsofdo1larsin
lostroyalty
rev-enue+
Declarationof
Belinda
Vega
("Vega
Decl."),
Ex.3
(Report
of
AvramS.Tucker
dated
November
7~2008)
at
12~
?OOJR24.
l
-l~
SEPARATESTATEMENTIN
OPPOSITION
TO
~OTION
FOR
SUMMARYAOJL.:f)ICATIONRF.
SUDJECTMATTER
Jl;RISO[CT10N
 
..
6
7
8
9
10
I1
1213
14
1516
17
1819
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
2
3
4
Defendants'MaterialFacts
and
Supporting
Evidence
Rambus'sResponse
and
SupportingEvidence
5
2.
700.3824
!
Rambus
assumes
that
but
forthe
allegedconductof
Defendants,
everysingle
DDR
orDDR2
SDAAMmemorychipormodulefrom
2001
to
the
first
quarter
of
20I
0
would
in
facthavebeenan
RDRA.M
memorychipor
module.1Disputed,Plaintiffsare
characterizing
the
expert
report
of
Rambus
damages
expertAvram
S+
Tucker,and
the
characterization
isincomplete
andinaccurate.
·Mr.
Tucker
provides
adamagesanalysis
that
is
basedona
calculation
ofRarnbuss
lost
profits
resultingfrom
Defendants'
anticornpetitiveconduct.Thedamagesanalysis
calculates
lostprofits
by
developinglostroyalties
estimatesfor
RDAAM
memory
andcontrollerproducts
under
'various
scenarios,
andsubtracting
Rambus'savoided
costsandcertainother
offsets
from
those
estimates.
See
ReportofAvram
s.
Tucker,attachedasEx.3toDefendants'VegaDeclaration
(~vr~ucker
Report"):
at
9-12.Mr.Tucker'slostroyaltiesestimatesarebased~inpartuponindustrydatareportingactualandprojectedsalesofDRAMmemorychipsusing
DDR
or
DDR2
technology~
Id.
at13-14~The
damages
analysisassumesthat
either
someorallofthose
sales
wouldhave
instead
been
salesof
memorv
..
chips
using
RDRAM
technology
were
it
nutfor
Defendants'
anticompetitive
conduct.
Id.
at9...12~
38-39.
It
isundisputed
that"Scenario
I'~inMr~
~ruc.ker'~reportemploys
DDR
and
DDR2
sales
revenuesas
the
proxy
or"yardstick"
for
what
;RDRAMsales
revenueswouldhavebeen
in
the
but
lor
world.However,
Mr.
Tuckeralsooffers
an
alternative
Scenario2,
inwhich
it
isassumedthat,
i
forthe
mobile
phonemarket
segment,
sales
of
DDRIorVDR2chipswouldnothavebeenreplaced
by
salesofRDRAM.
ld.
at
11-12.
Mr~
Tuckerfurther
observesthat
his
damages
model
is
scalable:
I
and
canbeadjusted
toremoveothermarketsegments
inthee\~ent
that
it
isfound
that
a
particular
!
marketsegmentwould
nothavebeencapturedinwholeorin
part
by
Rambus'sRDRAM
technology.
Id.
at
11.
----._--
SEP~\RATEST
ATe
MfNT
IN
OPPOSITIOK
TO
MOTION
rOR
stHvrrvrARY
ADJliD1CAT10N
RE
SUBJECT
MATTERJURlSD[CTION
,VegaDecl.,Ex.3(Report
of
I
AvramS~TuckerdatedNovember
7,2008)
at
10-14.
-2~

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)//-->