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
4050

4050

Ratings: (0)|Views: 315|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Aug 30, 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

08/30/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT,CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW
 
(All parties and counsel listed on Signature Page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,Plaintiffs,v.RAMBUS INC.Defendant.CASE NO. CV-00-20905 RMW
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENTSTATEMENTDate: September 2, 2011Time: 10:30 a.m.Ctrm: 6 (Hon. Ronald M. Whyte)
Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America,Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., HynixSemiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively, “Hynix”) hereby submit this Joint CaseManagement Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference scheduled for September2, 2011.
A. Rambus’s Statement
The Federal Circuit issued its mandate on August 9, 2011, and the mandate was entered inthis Court’s docket on August 12, 2011. Any petitions for certiorari are due no later than October28, 2011, 90 days from the denial of rehearing by the Federal Circuit.
See
Sup. Ct. R. 13.1 &13.3.Rambus believes that, at the upcoming Case Management Conference, the Court should
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4050 Filed08/29/11 Page1 of 7
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT,CASE NO. CV-00-20905 RMW
 
2establish a schedule that will most expeditiously result in the entry of a final judgment in thisaction. Rambus proposes that the Court order simultaneous briefing on all of the issues theparties wish to raise, with each filing an opening brief and then a responsive brief, in which theyaddress,
inter alia
, the effect of the Federal Circuit’s opinions in
 Hynix
and
 Micron
, including theimpact of the legal standards set forth in those decisions, and seek whatever relief they believe isappropriate. The opening briefs should be due on September 16, 2011, and the responsive briefsshould be due on September 30, 2011.Hynix has indicated that it will seek to reopen the trial record, reopen discovery, andinvoke collateral estoppel based on the Federal Circuit’s decision in
 Micron v. Rambus
. It shouldpresent all of these arguments in its opening brief, including, specifically: (1) whether the recordshould be re-opened to allow new evidence or new discovery (and it should present the newevidence it wants admitted); and (2) the collateral estoppel effect, if any, of the Federal Circuit’s
 Micron
decision on remand proceedings in this Court. The briefing could also cover any otherissues the Court identifies with respect to remand proceedings. Rambus expects to argue in itsbriefing that the record should not be reopened and that the issues that have been remanded to thisCourt can and should be decided on the existing record.With respect to Hynix’s cost request, Hynix has filed its Supplemental Bill of Costs inaccordance with this Court’s June 23, 2011 Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that Order, Rambus’sObjections are due on September 15, 2011, 37 days after the issuance of the mandate. Hynixwould then have 15 days, until September 30, 2011, to file a response to Rambus’s objections.Rambus and Hynix have until September 30, 2011, to file a statement identifying any costs thathave been withdrawn based on their meet and confer efforts, and also to identify any cost itemsthat remain in dispute. If the Court wishes to oral argument, it should be set at the Court’sconvenience at a reasonable time after September 30, 2011.Hynix has taken the position that the supersedeas bond and funds from the escrow accountshould be released prior to the exhaustion of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Stipulationand Order Regarding Escrow Accounts, dated November 24, 2009 and signed by the parties andthe Court, expressly states that “[n]o funds in the Escrow Account shall be released sooner than
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4050 Filed08/29/11 Page2 of 7
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT,CASE NO. CV-00-20905 RMW
 
3(1) thirty days following the later of remand to the district court following completion of allproceedings in the United States Supreme Court, if a petition for writ o[f] certiorari is granted; (2)denial of any petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court; or (3) expirationof the time to file a petition for writ of certiorari if no such petition is filed; or (4) until such timeas is otherwise ordered by this Court.”
 Id 
. at 4. The terms of the supersedeas bond posted byHynix similarly provides that the bond will stay in effect through and until the conclusion of anyproceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court.
B.
 
Hynix’s Statement
The Court indicated at the June 3, 2011 Case Management Conference that it will ask theparties to brief a number of questions that arise in connection with the remand of this case by theFederal Circuit.
See
Transcript of June 3, 2011 Case Management Conference at 3:16-4:11.Once the Court identifies those issues, the Court and the parties can discuss a briefing scheduleand the extent to which the issues impact the related cases pending in this Court. Hynix alsorequests that the Court set a procedure and schedule for resolving the following issues, to theextent they are not already included in the Court’s list of questions:(1) Supplementation of this Court’s record with additional materials regardingRambus’s spoliation and unclean hands, including but not limited to materials from the followingspoliation/unclean hands proceedings that have taken place since this Court’s 2005spoliation/unclean hands trial:
o
 
the
 Micron v. Rambus
case in the District of Delaware (both the original Micron-Rambusspoliation trial and any proceedings on remand);
o
 
Rambus’s ITC case against Nvidia (337-TA-661);
o
 
Rambus’s pending ITC cases against Broadcom and other defendants (337-TA-753); and
o
 
the
 Rambus v. Micron et al.
case currently in trial in the San Francisco Superior Court.Hynix anticipates that discovery may be necessary to obtain the materials from proceedings towhich Hynix is not a party. For example, except for the Public Version of the InitialDetermination from the Nvidia ITC case, all of the relevant materials from the ITC cases are inRambus’s possession, but subject to Protective Orders. Hynix asks the Court to order Rambus to
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4050 Filed08/29/11 Page3 of 7

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)//-->