Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out 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
4119

4119

Ratings: (0)|Views: 205|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Feb 22, 2012
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

02/22/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 1080 Marsh RoadMenlo Park, CA 94025T 650.326.2400 F 650.326.2422
Theodore G. Brown III
650 324 6353tbrown@kilpatricktownsend.com
ATLANTA AUGUSTA CHARLOTTE DENVER DUBAI NEW YORK OAKLAND RALEIGH SAN DIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SEATTLE SILICON VALLEY STOCKHOLM TAIPEI TOKYO WALNUT CREEK WASHINGTON, DC WINSTON-SALEM
February 21, 2012
IA
E-F 
ILE AND 
AND 
ELIVERY 
 
The Honorable Ronald M. WhyteUnited States District Court Northern District of California,San Jose DivisionCourtroom 6, 4th Floor 280 S. First StreetSan Jose, CA 95113Re:
 Rambus v. Hynix, et al.,
U.S.D.C. N.D. Cal., Case No.: CV-00-20905 RMW
 Dear Judge Whyte:In its January 11, 2012 Order Taxing Costs Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure39(e); . . . (Dkt No. 4115), the Court (among other things) lifted Hynix’s obligation to maintainthe supersedeas bond posted as security for the Court’s Judgment of March 9, 2009. However,the sureties for the bond, Zurich American insurance Company and Fidelity Deposit Company of Maryland, were unwilling to discharge the bond unless they were assured that no party couldseek any recourse against the sureties under the bond. Until the bond is fully discharged, Hynixremains obligated to collateralize the bond; as the Court is aware, this entails significant expense,as well as impairment of Hynix’s assets.To that end, and in order to effectuate the purposes of the Court’s January 11, 2012Order, Hynix and Rambus entered into a Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Dischargeof Supersedeas Bond Posted by Hynix Semiconductor Inc. The entry of this [Proposed] Order would be sufficient to satisfy the sureties such that the bond, and Hynix’s underlying obligations,would be discharged. The Stipulation and [Proposed] Order was filed February 9, 2012 (Dkt. No. 4117); a copy is attached for your convenience.To date, this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order has not been entered by the Court; as aresult, both the bond and the attendant collateral for the bond remain in place. It would be
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4119 Filed02/21/12 Page1 of 12
 
 February 21, 2012Page 2
greatly appreciated by the parties and the sureties if the Court would enter the Stipulation and[Proposed] Order at its earliest convenience.If the Court has any questions or concerns, counsel for the parties would be available atthe Court’s convenience.Very truly yours,KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLPTheodore G. Brown, IIICounsel for Hynix Semiconductor Inc.. et al.TGB:amcEnclosurecc: Gregory P. Stone
(via e-mail: Gregory.Stone@mto.com)
Dale E. Gorsuch
(via e-mail: dale.gorsuch@zurichna.com)
63989300 v1
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4119 Filed02/21/12 Page2 of 12
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728-1-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING DISCHARGE OF BOND
CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW
 
 Parties listed on signature page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al.,Plaintiffs,vs.RAMBUS INC.,Defendant.CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]ORDER REGARDING DISCHARGE OFSUPERSEDEAS BOND POSTED BYHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.
Judge: Honorable Ronald M. WhyteCtrm: 6WHEREAS, the Court entered Final Judgment against Hynix Semiconductor Inc., HynixSemiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively “Hynix”) on March 10, 2009;WHEREAS, Hynix filed its Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the FederalCircuit from the Final Judgment on April 6, 2009;WHEREAS, on May 14, 2009, the Court Ordered that execution of the Final Judgment bestayed pending the appeal in this action, on condition that,
inter alia
, Hynix post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $250 million within 45 days of its May 14, 2009 Order;
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4117 Filed02/09/12 Page1 of 5
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4119 Filed02/21/12 Page3 of 12

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)//-->