Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2883-1 Rambus' Response Re MM Price Fixing

2883-1 Rambus' Response Re MM Price Fixing

Ratings:

5.0

(1)
|Views: 625 |Likes:
Published by Nukejohn

More info:

Published by: Nukejohn on Dec 18, 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

05/09/2014

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
6585711.4
 
RAMBUS’S OPPOSITION TO MANUFACTURERS’MOTION
 IN LIMINE 
NO. 17;CASE NOS. 05-334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-244 RMW
 
Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329)Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408)Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298)MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue, 35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1560Telephone: (213) 683-9100Facsimile: (213) 687-3702Email: gregory.stone@mto.comEmail: andrea.jeffries@mto.comEmail: fred.rowley@mto.comPeter A. Detre (SBN 182619)Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769)Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 219202)MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP560 Mission Street, 27th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsimile: (415) 512-4077Email: peter.detre@mto.comEmail: rose.ring@mto.comEmail: jen.polse@mto.comAttorneys for RAMBUS INC.Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126)SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010Telephone: (213) 896-6000Facsimile: (213) 896-6600Email: rransom@sidley.comPierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)McKOOL SMITH PC300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700Austin, TX 78701Telephone: (512) 692-8700Facsimile: (512) 692-8744Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.comEmail: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.comUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISIONRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,Defendants.CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
RAMBUS’S OPPOSITION TOMANUFACTURERS’ MOTION
 IN LIMINE
 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OF ORREFERENCE TO ALLEGED DRAMPRICE-FIXING OR ALLEGED BOYCOTTEVIDENCE FROM JANUARY 2009PATENT TRIAL (MIL NO. 17)
Date: December 19, 2009Time: 2:00 PMTrial Date: January 19, 2009Courtroom: 6Judge: Hon. Ronald M. WhyteRAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
6585711.4
 
RAMBUS’S OPPOSITION TO MANUFACTURERS’MOTION
 IN LIMINE 
NO. 17;CASE NOS. 05-334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-244 RMW
 
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,et al.,Defendants.RAMBUS INC.,Plaintiff,vs.MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,Defendants.CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
6585711.4
 - 1 -
RAMBUS’S OPPOSITION TO MANUFACTURERS’MOTION
 IN LIMINE 
NO. 17;CASE NOS. 05-334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-244 RMW
 
I.
 
INTRODUCTION
Rambus opposes the Manufacturers’ Motion
 In Limine
No. 17 to excludeevidence of DRAM price-fixing and the boycott of RDRAM. As during the JointConduct Trial, this motion marks yet another attempt by the Manufacturers to win
carteblanche
to present any evidence or argument that they wish, without opening the door toevidence of DRAM price-fixing or the RDRAM boycott.The Manufacturers argue that the Court should rule, in advance of trial,that regardless of the evidence or argument presented by them, Rambus should “bebarred from introducing, discussing, or eliciting testimony or evidence at the January 19,2009 trial relating to alleged DRAM price fixing or alleged boycott evidence.”([Proposed] Order Granting Motion
 In Limine
No. 17, Docket Entry 2716-2.) In familiarrefrain, the Manufacturers complain that anything short of unequivocal immunizationfrom rebuttal regarding price-fixing or boycott evidence will cause “a Sword of Damocles to hover over the trial.” (Nanya Technology Corporation’s and NanyaTechnology Corporation USA’s Joinder In Samsung Motion
 In Limine
No. 17 at 3,Docket Entry 2782.) However, as this Court has previously noted, there is “a ‘sword of Damocles’ hanging over the Manufacturers’ case, but it was placed there by theManufacturers’ own alleged conduct.” (Order Denying The Manufacturers’ Motion ForA New Trial at 11, Docket Entry 1984.)
II.
 
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
An issue raised several times during the Joint Conduct Trial was whetherRambus could introduce evidence that the Manufacturers engaged in price-fixing or aboycott to destroy RDRAM and Rambus. Prior to the trial, the Manufacturers moved
inlimine
to exclude
any
evidence of plea agreements or alleged boycotts. On each motion,the Court ruled presumptively in the Manufacturers’ favor, although it did not afford theabsolute immunity from price-fixing and boycott evidence that the Manufacturers

Activity (2)

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

You're Reading a Free Preview

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