This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
RONALD L. OLSON ROBERT E. DENHAM JEFFREY I. WEINBERGER CARY B. LERMAN CHARLES D. SIEGAL RONALD K. MEYER GREGORY P. STONE BRAD D. BRIAN BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS GEORGE M. GARVEY WILLIAM D. TEMKO ROBERT B. KNAUSS STEPHEN M. KRISTOVICH JOHN W. SPIEGEL TERRY E. SANCHEZ STEVEN M. PERRY MARK B. HELM JOSEPH D. LEE MICHAEL R. DOYEN MICHAEL E. SOLOFF GREGORY D. PHILLIPS LAWRENCE C. BARTH KATHLEEN M. M C DOWELL GLENN D. POMERANTZ THOMAS B. WALPER RONALD C. HAUSMANN PATRICK J. CAFFERTY, JR. JAY M. FUJITANI O'MALLEY M. MILLER SANDRA A. SEVILLE-JONES MARK H. EPSTEIN HENRY WEISSMANN KEVIN S. ALLRED BART H. WILLIAMS JEFFREY A. HEINTZ JUDITH T. KITANO KRISTIN LINSLEY MYLES MARC T.G. DWORSKY JEROME C. ROTH STEPHEN D. ROSE GARTH T. VINCENT TED DANE STUART N. SENATOR
MARTIN D. BERN DANIEL P. COLLINS RICHARD E. DROOYAN ROBERT L. DELL ANGELO BRUCE A. ABBOTT JONATHAN E. ALTMAN MARY ANN TODD MICHAEL J. O'SULLIVAN KELLY M. KLAUS DAVID B. GOLDMAN KEVIN S. MASUDA HOJOON HWANG DAVID C. DINIELLI PETER A. DETRE PAUL J. WATFORD DANA S. TREISTER CARL H. MOOR DAVID H. FRY LISA J. DEMSKY MALCOLM A. HEINICKE GREGORY J. WEINGART TAMERLIN J. GODLEY JAMES C. RUTTEN J. MARTIN WILLHITE RICHARD ST. JOHN ROHIT K. SINGLA LUIS LI CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE C. DAVID LEE MARK H. KIM BRETT J. RODDA SEAN ESKOVITZ FRED A. ROWLEY, JR. KATHERINE M. FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG RANDALL G. SOMMER MARIA SEFERIAN MANUEL F. CACHÁN ROSEMARIE T. RING JOSEPH J. YBARRA KATHERINE K. HUANG MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TODD J. ROSEN
355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2
560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7
August 29, 2012
TRUC T. DO MELINDA EADES LeMOINE SETH GOLDMAN SUSAN R. SZABO LINDSAY D. M C CASKILL BRIAN R. HOCHLEUTNER GRANT A. DAVIS-DENNY JONATHAN H. BLAVIN KAREN J. EPHRAIM LIKA C. MIYAKE ANDREW W. SONG VICTORIA L. BOESCH HAILYN J. CHEN BRAD SCHNEIDER MIRIAM KIM MISTY M. SANFORD AIMEE FEINBERG KATHERINE KU KIMBERLY A. CHI SHOSHANA E. BANNETT DEREK J. KAUFMAN MARCUS J. SPIEGEL BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH WILLIAM E. CANO HENRY E. ORREN BENJAMIN W. HOWELL JACOB S. KREILKAMP ERIC P. TUTTLE HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI KEITH R.D. HAMILTON, II SORAYA C. KELLY PATRICK ANDERSON JEFFREY Y. WU MARK R. CONRAD L. ASHLEY AULL M. LANCE JASPER ALISSA BRANHAM ADAM R. LAWTON RACHEL L. STEIN AVI BRAZ DAVID C. LACHMAN JENNY H. HONG AARON SEIJI LOWENSTEIN
LAURA D. SMOLOWE SARALA V. NAGALA LEO GOLDBARD MATTHEW A. MACDONALD CAROLYN V. ZABRYCKI MARGARET G. ZIEGLER ESTHER H. SUNG MIRIAM SEIFTER BENJAMIN J. MARO RENEE DELPHIN-RODRIGUEZ MICHAEL J. MONGAN KATHRYN A. EIDMANN JOEL M. PURLES KYLE A. CASAZZA RICHARD C. CHEN AARON GREENE LEIDERMAN ERIN J. COX CLAIRE YAN DAVID H. PENNINGTON BRAM ALDEN MARK R. SAYSON JOHN M. RAPPAPORT DAVID C. THOMPSON ANNE HENRY LEE MATTHEW M. STEINBERG CHRISTIAN K. WREDE PETER E. GRATZINGER ––-––––– OF COUNSEL † RICHARD D. ESBENSHADE † ROBERT K. JOHNSON † ALAN V. FRIEDMAN RICHARD S. VOLPERT ALLISON B. STEIN SUSAN E. NASH ALLEN M. KATZ WILLIANA CHANG –––––––E. LEROY TOLLES (1 922-2008)
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WRITER’S DIRECT LINE
(213) 683-9255 (213) 683-5155 FAX Gregory.Stone@mto.com
Honorable Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge United States District Court Northern District of California 280 South First Street San Jose, California 95113 Re: Dear Judge Whyte: I write in response to Mr. Nissly’s letter of August 24, 2012 regarding In Re Rambus Inc., No. 2011-1247 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2012). See Dkt. 4156. That opinion pertains to the validity of claim 18 of Patent No. 6,034,918, which was not among the claims tried in this case. As Mr. Nissly acknowledged, the same reexamination proceeding actually confirmed the claims from the ’918 patent Hynix was found to have infringed. Id. at 2. While Rambus disagrees with Mr. Nissly’s characterization of it, the In re Rambus Inc. opinion has no relevance for the remand issues pending in this Court. That is because any effort by Hynix to re-open patent issues such as claim construction and validity would exceed the scope of the remand proceedings and run afoul of the mandate rule. As the Federal Circuit has made clear, “[u]nless remanded by this court, all issues within the scope of the appealed judgment are deemed incorporated within the mandate and thus are precluded from further adjudication.” Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 166 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (emphasis added); see also Amado v. Microsoft Corp., 517 F.3d 1353, 1360 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (“[t]he mandate rule precludes reconsideration of any issue within the scope of the judgment appealed from ….”). This Court has already resolved all the patent issues in this case, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in all respects. See Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1336, 1349-54 (Fed. Cir. 2011); e.g., id. at 1353 (affirming judgment of non-obviousness and commending this Court’s “comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion”). The Federal Circuit only “remanded for reconsideration of the spoliation issue ….” Id. at 1355. That limited remand precludes Hynix from revisiting the patent issues it already litigated and lost. See Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 576 F.3d 1348, 1355-57 (Fed. Cir. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. CV-00-20905 RMW
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4157 Filed08/29/12 Page2 of 2 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Hon. Ronald M. Whyte August 29, 2012 Page 2 2009) (further proceedings on validity barred where the Federal Circuit remanded only infringement and damages issues). The In re Rambus Inc. opinion is a particularly weak basis for Hynix to try to reopen issues which, in any event, lay outside of the scope of the remand. As noted above, claim 18 of the ’918 patent—the sole patent claim the opinion addresses—was not among those tried in this case, and the PTO in fact confirmed the two claims from the ’918 patent that Hynix was found to have infringed. See Dkt. No. 4156 at 2; see also In re Rambus Inc., slip op. at 5 (“[t]he examiner confirmed claims 24 and 33 ….”). Mr. Nissly baldly referred to supposed other “final rulings by the Board on grounds which invalidate the remaining eight claims tried here,” Dkt. No. 4156 at 2, but the only reexamination rulings he cited on that score address patents that were not tried in this case. See id.; Inter Partes Rambus, Inc., 2012-000142, 2012 WL 3561847 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 16, 2012) (Patent No. 6,854,037); Inter Partes Rambus, Inc., 2011-008431, 2012 WL 177842 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 19, 2012) (Patent No, 6,182,184). Mr. Nissly also cited reexamination rulings regarding claim 33 of Patent No. 6,324,120 and claim 28 of Patent No. 6,426,916. See Dkt. No. 4156 at 2. Those reexamination proceedings, like all the reexaminations cited by Mr. Nissly, are not yet complete because reexamination certificates have not issued. The certificates will not issue until Rambus has exhausted its remedies, including the completion of appeals to the Federal Circuit. See 35 U.S.C. § 316; Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2687 (8th ed., rev. 8, July 2010). Moreover, Hynix has long agreed with Rambus on the proper construction of “memory device,” the claim term discussed in Mr. Nissly’s letter. See Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement, Sept. 12, 2003, at 1 (Dkt. No. 326) (identifying “memory device” as an “undisputed claim term”). It is far too late for Hynix to walk away from that agreed construction after years of litigation. The mandate rule precludes Hynix from re-opening and re-litigating patent issues ad infinitum after the completion of a full jury trial and affirmance of the verdict on appeal. Litigation would never end otherwise. The Federal Circuit has remanded solely for the limited purpose of further proceedings on Hynix’s unclean hands defense. As set forth in prior briefing, Rambus respectfully submits that the Court should reject Hynix’s unclean hands defense and enter judgment for Rambus. The patent issues Mr. Nissly tried to revisit are foreclosed by the Federal Circuit’s mandate. Very truly yours, /s/ Gregory P. Stone Gregory P. Stone GPS:ath Enclosure cc: All Counsel on ECF Service List (via e-file)
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?