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
1137

1137

Ratings: (0)|Views: 151|Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Mar 28, 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

03/28/2012

pdf

text

original

 
M
ORRIS
,
 
N
ICHOLS
,
 
 A 
RSHT
 
&
 
T
UNNELL LLP
 
1201
 
N
ORTH
M
 ARKET
S
TREET
 P.O.
 
B
OX
1347 W 
ILMINGTON
,
 
D
ELAWARE
19899-1347302
 
658
 
9200302
 
658
 
3989
 
F
 AX
 
M
ARY
B.
 
G
RAHAM
 
302.351.9199
 
mgraham@mnat.com
March 28, 2012
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. RobinsonUnited States District CourtFederal Building844 King StreetWilmington, DE 19801Re:
 Micron Technologies, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
C.A. No. 00-792-SLR (D. Del.)Dear Judge Robinson:
I write in response to Mr. Cottrell’s letter of March
20, 2012, regarding
Administrative Law Judge Essex’s Initial Determination (“ID”) in International Trade
Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-753. The portions of the ID Micron cites pertain to U.S.Patent Nos.
6,470,405, 6,591,353, and 7,287,109 (the “Barth Patents”), which address memory
controller technology. These patents were issued between 2002 and 2007, long after thedocument destruction at issue, and are not members of the Farmwald-Horowitz family of patentsinvolved in this case. Judge Essex held all of the Barth patent claims before him invalid ongrounds of anticipation and obviousness. ID 365. In addition, he held those claims to beunenforceable under the unclean hands doctrine. ID 366. Rambus has petitioned for review of the ID by the full International Trade Commission. The International Trade Commission staff has also filed a contingent petition for Commission review.
The ID’s analysis does not shed new light on the
spoliation issues before thisCourt, because the ID relies on many of the same arguments Micron also made, which areunpersuasive for reasons Rambus explained at length in prior briefing and at the hearing beforethis Court on January 26, 2012. While Mr.
Cottrell emphasized the ID’s imposition of theremedy of unenforceability, the ID’s analysis does
not 
support that severe sanction.
The ID’s prejudice analysis is both unpersuasive and inconsistent with thisCourt’s prior ruling on the same subject. The
 
only defense the ID found prejudiced by Rambus’s
document policy is invalidity. ID 312-14. But the objective invalidity inquiry would not havedepended on internal Rambus documents. As this Court held, the defenses of anticipation and
obviousness “do n
ot seem likely to depend from evidence internal to Rambus . . . , since prior art
references (by definition) must be publicly available.”
 Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc
., 255
Case 1:00-cv-00792-SLR Document 1137 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 11146

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)//-->