EXHIBIT 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RAMBUS INC.,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) VS. ) ) HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., ) HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA ) INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR ) MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., ) ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., ) LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS ) AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ) SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG) AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P, ) ) NANYA TECHNOLOGY ) CORPORATION, NANYA ) TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA, ) ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ____________________________) ) RAMBUS INC., ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) VS. ) ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., ) LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS ) AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG ) SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG) AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P, ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ____________________________) C-05-00334 RMW C-05-02298 RMW C-06-00244 RMW SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 14, 2009 PAGES 1-68

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

RAMBUS INC.

) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) VS. ) ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND ) MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR ) PRODUCTS, INC., ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ____________________________)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLE RONALD M. WHYTE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

A P P E A R A N C E S: FOR RAMBUS: MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON BY: GREGORY P. STONE, FRED ROWLEY, AND MARK R. YOHALEM 355 SOUTH GRAND AVE, 35TH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90071 BY: ROSEMARIE T. RING 560 MISSION STREET, 27TH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94105 SIDLEY, AUSTIN, LLP BY: ROLLIN A. RANSOM 555 W. FIFTH STREET, SUITE 4000 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90013 FOR SAMSUNG: WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES BY: MATTHEW D. POWERS AND STEVEN S. CHERENSKY 201 REDWOOD SHORES PARKWAY REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA 94065

APPEARANCES CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: LEE-ANNE SHORTRIDGE, CSR, CRR CERTIFICATE NUMBER 9595 TOWNSEND AND TOWNSEND AND CREW BY: THEODORE G. BROWN, III 379 LYTTON AVENUE PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301 FOR HYNIX: O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP BY: KENNETH L. NISSLY 2765 SAND HILL ROAD MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA FOR NANYA: ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE BY: ROBERT E. FREITAS 1000 MARSH ROAD MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025 APPEARANCES (CONTINUED) FOR MICRON: WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES BY: JARED BOBROW 201 REDWOOD SHORES PARKWAY REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA

94065

94025

3

1 2 3
15:00:23 15:00:23 15:00:27 15:00:28 15:00:29 15:00:31 15:00:36 15:00:42 15:00:50 15:00:57 15:01:05 15:01:10 15:01:13 15:01:17 15:01:20 15:01:27 15:01:35 15:01:41 15:01:48 15:01:49 15:01:51 15:01:59

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA

JANUARY 14, 2009

P R O C E E D I N G S (WHEREUPON, COURT CONVENED AND THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:) THE COURT: MR. STONE: MR. BOBROW: THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYONE. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU SOME

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THOUGHTS, AND THEN I'LL BRIEFLY HEAR COMMENT FROM ANYONE WHO WISHES TO MAKE COMMENT. MY THINKING IS THAT THE MANUFACTURERS OUGHT TO BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRIEF THE EFFECT OF JUDGE ROBINSON'S ORDER AND WHAT THAT REQUIRES THIS COURT TO DO; AND IF THEY FEEL THAT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION IS APPROPRIATE, THAT THEY MAKE THAT MOTION BASED ON THE SCHEDULE THEY PROPOSE. I ALSO FEEL THAT WE SHOULD KEEP THE TRIAL SCHEDULED, AND MY THOUGHT IS THAT FEBRUARY 16TH SHOULD BE THE TRIAL DATE, AND WE'LL SET A COUPLE OF PRETRIAL SESSIONS IN THE WEEK BEFORE. THE REPORTER: HOLIDAY. THE COURT: FEBRUARY 17TH, THEN. FEBRUARY 16TH IS A

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT ACCOMPLISHES

4

15:02:03 15:02:12 15:02:20 15:02:23 15:02:28 15:02:30 15:02:39 15:02:45 15:02:48 15:02:55 15:03:01 15:03:06 15:03:09 15:03:15 15:03:21 15:03:28 15:03:32 15:03:37 15:03:43 15:03:47 15:03:52 15:03:59 15:04:02 15:04:07 15:04:09

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

FAIRNESS TO BOTH SIDES IN THE SENSE THAT IT ALLOWS ISSUES TO BE RAISED AND RESOLVED, BUT DOES NOT UNREASONABLY PUT OFF THE TRIAL IF THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO GO. THAT BEING SAID, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE TWO BASIC APPROACHES THAT COULD BE TAKEN WITH, OBVIOUSLY, PROBABLY REFINEMENTS TO EACH. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT ONE WAY TO PROCEED WOULD BE FOR THE COURT TO FINISH UP WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN THE HYNIX/RAMBUS DISPUTE; TO FINISH THE ISSUES THAT ARE UNDER SUBMISSION FROM HAVING BEEN TRIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED CASE AND IN THE SEPARATE RAMBUS/SAMSUNG LITIGATION, OR ASPECT OF THE CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION; AND FOR THE COURT THEN -THEN HYNIX WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO FULLY APPEAL AND THE COURT COULD CERTIFY FOR APPEAL THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION RULING IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS, THE JURY VERDICT IN THE CONSOLIDATED PROCEEDINGS, THE SPOLIATION ISSUE WITH SAMSUNG AND THE LICENSING ISSUE WITH SAMSUNG; AND STAY THE PATENT TRIAL PENDING RESOLUTION OF THESE ISSUES ON APPEAL. THE OTHER APPROACH, IT SEEMS TO ME, WOULD BE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PATENT TRIAL AS, AS IT

5

15:04:21 15:04:35 15:04:40 15:04:47 15:04:57 15:05:04 15:05:10 15:05:13 15:05:20 15:05:24 15:05:39 15:05:42 15:05:45 15:05:54 15:05:56 15:06:01 15:06:08 15:06:18 15:06:21 15:06:25 15:06:29 15:06:36 15:06:40 15:06:52 15:06:54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NOW IS PENDING, WITH PROBABLY A STAY AS TO MICRON. I FEEL, AT LEAST TENTATIVELY, THAT MICRON AND RAMBUS HAD THEIR DAY IN COURT ON THE SPOLIATION ISSUE, ALTHOUGH THE DECISION IS CONTRARY TO MY CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE IN HYNIX, BUT THAT'S WHERE THEY, MICRON AND RAMBUS, TRIED THE CASE AND THE RESULT IS WHAT IT IS. SO WHEN WE GET TO HEARING FROM EACH OF THE PARTIES, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM BRIEFLY ADDRESS THE BENEFITS OF -- TO THE PARTIES IF I ADOPTED ONE OF THE TWO PROPOSALS THAT I JUST OUTLINED, AND THE PREJUDICE OR DETRIMENT TO THE PARTIES IF I ADOPTED ONE OF THE TWO PROPOSALS. MY THOUGHT WITH RESPECT TO THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE, TO SOME EXTENT I AGREE WITH RAMBUS THAT THE ISSUE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, RES JUDICATA ISSUE PRECLUSION HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY BRIEFED, AND I THINK EVERYBODY MAY NOT AGREE, BUT EVERYBODY'S GOT A PRETTY GOOD IDEA AS TO WHAT THEY FEEL THE LAW PROVIDES IN THAT REGARD. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, SOME ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICATION IN THIS PARTICULAR SETTING THAT PROBABLY DESERVE SOME MORE ATTENTION. AND I ALSO THINK THAT, GIVEN WHAT'S OCCURRED, THAT THE PARTIES HAVE A RIGHT TO MAKE A

6

15:07:07 15:07:14 15:07:27 15:07:31 15:07:35 15:07:40 15:07:50 15:07:53 15:08:00 15:08:02 15:08:05 15:08:07 15:08:10 15:08:12 15:08:16 15:08:18 15:08:21 15:08:24 15:08:26 15:08:42 15:09:04 15:09:17 15:09:18 15:09:19 15:09:22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MOTION AS TO WHAT THEY FEEL -- OR WHAT THEY SUBMIT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF WHAT'S HAPPENED. I HAVE SOME OTHER THOUGHTS ON SOME ISSUES, BUT I THINK I'LL WAIT AND SEE WHAT EACH OF YOU HAS TO SAY, AND PERHAPS RAISE SOME QUESTIONS WITH YOU WHEN YOU PERHAPS TOUCH ON THOSE ISSUES. SO LET ME START BY HEARING FROM MICRON. MR. BOBROW: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

AS INDICATED IN THE PAPERS, OBVIOUSLY IN TERMS OF A BRIEFING SCHEDULE, IF YOU FEEL THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO BRIEF, THAT'S FINE. FRANKLY, FROM OUR REVIEW OF THE RECORD, OUR BELIEF WAS THAT, AT LEAST AS TO MICRON, THIS ISSUE COULD BE RESOLVED FORTHWITH, IN OTHER WORDS, WITHOUT BRIEFING. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST

FOR A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THAT'S INDEED WHAT WE'LL FILE AND WE'LL DO IT ON THE SCHEDULE. THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE -- THERE IS

OVERLAP -- LET ME -- MR. NISSLY MADE A NICE CHART. THE CLAIMS THAT ARE AT ISSUE IN THE UPCOMING ACTION OVERLAP ABOUT HALF OF THEM, AM I CORRECT, OR -MR. BOBROW: THE COURT: ACTION IN DELAWARE? THERE ARE --- THAT ARE COVERED BY THE

7

15:09:23 15:09:25 15:09:28 15:09:33 15:09:35 15:09:37 15:09:39 15:09:42 15:09:45 15:09:49 15:09:51 15:09:53 15:10:01 15:10:05 15:10:17 15:10:21 15:10:26 15:10:29 15:10:31 15:10:34 15:10:38 15:10:41 15:10:45 15:10:47 15:10:51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BOBROW:

YES.

THERE WERE TWO PATENTS

IN DELAWARE, FOUR OF WHICH OVERLAP WITH PATENTS THAT ARE PART OF THE CASE THAT IS SET FOR TRIAL IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO FOUR OF THE PATENTS ARE IDENTICAL. THE REST OF THEM STEM FROM THE FARMWALD-HOROWITZ FAMILY, AND THE REST OF THEM INCLUDE APPLICATIONS FOR WHICH JUDGE ROBINSON FOUND THERE HAD BEEN SPOLIATION. THE COURT: THAT'S -- THAT I HAVE NOT

SPECIFICALLY LOOKED AT MYSELF, BUT THAT WAS AN ISSUE THAT I THOUGHT PERHAPS THE PARTIES MIGHT NEED TO ADDRESS, AND THAT IS WHETHER OR NOT THE MISCONDUCT THAT JUDGE ROBINSON FOUND INFECTS ALL THE PATENT CLAIMS AT ISSUE BEFORE THIS COURT, OR ARE THERE SOME THAT AREN'T INFECTED? MR. BOBROW: YEAH. IT INFECTS ALL OF

THEM, BUT IN WAYS IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT SHE SPECIFICALLY FOUND SPOLIATION AS TO THE FILES THAT LESTER VINCENT PURGED AT MR. KARP'S DIRECTION. BUT BEYOND THAT, AGAIN, WE HAVE A FINDING BY HER BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF BAD FAITH; WE HAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING OF PREJUDICE; A SPECIFIC FINDING OF A DUTY TO SUSPEND THE DOCUMENT RETENTION AND TO, IN FACT, RETAIN DOCUMENTS.

8

15:10:53 15:10:56 15:10:58 15:11:00 15:11:02 15:11:07 15:11:10 15:11:12 15:11:15 15:11:15 15:11:17 15:11:19 15:11:20 15:11:23 15:11:27 15:11:28 15:11:30 15:11:34 15:11:36 15:11:37 15:11:40 15:11:42 15:11:44 15:11:48 15:11:56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

BUT THOSE WERE ALL ONLY WITH

RESPECT TO THE CLAIMS AT ISSUE IN HER CASE? MR. BOBROW: NO, I DON'T THINK SO AT ALL.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHETHER THERE WERE THESE PATENTS-IN-SUIT HERE AND THOSE WERE THE CLAIMS THAT WERE IN FILE, ON FILE IN DELAWARE, THEY WOULD HAVE TRIED THE EXACT SAME SPOLIATION CASE. IT WOULD NOT

HAVE DIFFERED BY ONE WITNESS OR ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THE COURT: YOU MAY BE RIGHT, BUT WHAT

I'M SAYING IS HER -- MAYBE I DIDN'T SAY IT VERY WELL. HER DECISION SAYS, "THESE CLAIMS ARE UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE OF RAMBUS'S CONDUCT." MR. BOBROW: THE COURT: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THOSE CLAIMS DON'T COVER --

AREN'T THE SAME CLAIMS, AREN'T ALL OF THE CLAIMS THAT ARE AT ISSUE IN THIS CASE. MR. BOBROW: THAT'S CORRECT. THERE ARE

FOUR PATENTS THAT ARE IDENTICAL, AND THE REST OF THEM ARE IN THE SAME FAMILY, THAT'S CORRECT. THE COURT: RIGHT. SO WHAT I'M SAYING

IS, AND I THINK MAYBE -- I MAY BE WRONG -- BUT I THINK RAMBUS IS TAKING THE POSITION, IN PART, THAT THERE IS NOT INFECTION OF AT LEAST THOSE CLAIMS

9

15:12:01 15:12:04 15:12:07 15:12:10 15:12:13 15:12:16 15:12:19 15:12:20 15:12:22 15:12:25 15:12:28 15:12:31 15:12:34 15:12:36 15:12:38 15:12:40 15:12:42 15:12:47 15:12:51 15:12:52 15:12:54 15:12:55 15:12:58 15:13:01 15:13:02

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT WEREN'T AT ISSUE BEFORE HER. MR. BOBROW: IT IS WRONG. RIGHT. I -- THAT MAY BE.

I THINK WE DEMONSTRATED WHY

IT'S WRONG IN OUR PAPERS AND, AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT WISHES BRIEFING ON THAT, WE'RE HAPPY TO MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND ADDRESS THAT SPECIFIC ISSUE. I THINK THAT, AS WE TEE IT UP, THERE IS IDENTITY OF ISSUE DOWN THE LINE, AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NINTH CIRCUIT TEST, WHICH LOOKS AT -THE COURT: YOU MAY BE RIGHT. ALL I'M

SAYING IS THAT I THINK THAT IS AN ISSUE AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE A MOTION. MR. BOBROW: FAIR ENOUGH, AND WE WILL GO

AHEAD ON THE SCHEDULE AND MAKE THAT MOTION. AS FAR AS THE SECOND ASPECT OF IT IN TERMS OF PUSHING BACK THE TRIAL, I THINK THAT THAT, BUT ACCOMPANIED BY YOUR SECOND PROPOSAL, IS WHAT MICRON WOULD FAVOR HERE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE WOULD PROCEED WITH OUR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. GIVEN THE MUTUALITY THAT YOU'VE ALLUDED TO AS BETWEEN MICRON AND RAMBUS, WE THINK THAT THIS ENDS THE CASE. EFFECTIVELY WHAT'S HAPPENED IS WE HAVE

10

15:13:04 15:13:07 15:13:10 15:13:12 15:13:15 15:13:17 15:13:21 15:13:24 15:13:26 15:13:30 15:13:32 15:13:37 15:13:42 15:13:45 15:13:50 15:13:56 15:13:59 15:14:00 15:14:04 15:14:09 15:14:17 15:14:18 15:14:20 15:14:23 15:14:25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TRIED THE THIRD PHASE OF THIS CASE IN DELAWARE, AND BASED UPON RAMBUS'S REPRESENTATIONS AND THE WHOLE WAY THAT THIS HAS BEEN STRUCTURED, WE THINK IT WOULD BE CRAZY FOR MICRON TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS TRIAL WHEN WE BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT THE PATENTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE AS AGAINST MICRON AND WE'D BE HAVING -- SPENDING HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO PROCEED WITH THAT TRIAL. THE COURT: THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE. BUT I THINK IT WAS MR. POWERS, IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, THAT SUGGESTED THAT THE TRIAL DATE OUGHT TO BE SLIPPED ENOUGH SO THAT THE PARTIES COULD SEPARATE OUT THE -- THEIR POSITIONS WITH RESPECT TO JUDGE ROBINSON'S RULING FROM HAVING TO FURTHER PREPARE FOR TRIAL, SO YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. SO THAT, I THINK, GIVEN YOUR PROPOSED BRIEFING SCHEDULE, I THINK A FEBRUARY 16TH -- 17TH START DATE, ASSUMING WE NEED IT, ACCOMPLISHES THAT NEED. MR. BOBROW: YES. I MEAN, MICRON'S WELL, ONE OF THE REASONS --

INTEREST HERE WOULD BE, GIVEN THE RULING THAT WE NOT HAVE TO PROCEED IN EARNEST WITH TRIAL PREPARATION, THAT IT BE PUSHED FAR ENOUGH SO THAT

11

15:14:29 15:14:31 15:14:33 15:14:35 15:14:39 15:14:41 15:14:45 15:14:46 15:14:50 15:14:52 15:14:54 15:14:56 15:15:00 15:15:02 15:15:05 15:15:07 15:15:10 15:15:13 15:15:15 15:15:18 15:15:20 15:15:23 15:15:28 15:15:30 15:15:33

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT COULD RENDER ITS RULING ON THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT SCHEDULE ACCOMPLISHES THAT, THAT'S CERTAINLY FINE. I THINK THAT AS FAR AS THE STAY, OF COURSE, WE WOULD -- WE WOULD ASK FOR THAT TO BE ENTERED, AS WE REQUESTED, IMMEDIATELY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR HONOR'S WISHES WOULD BE TO HAVE THAT DONE AS A RESULT OF WHATEVER HAPPENS AT THE HEARING ON THE 30TH. BUT I THINK THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR A STAY TO BE ENTERED GIVEN THE RESULT IN DELAWARE AND GIVEN THE MUTUALITY THAT EXISTS. I THINK THAT THE COURT'S FIRST PROPOSAL, IF I UNDERSTOOD IT CORRECTLY, IN OTHER WORDS, TO SORT OF FINISH EVERYTHING UP AND CERTIFY THINGS, AND IF I HEARD IT CORRECTLY, CERTIFYING THE VERDICT FROM THE CONDUCT PHASE OF THE CONSOLIDATED CASE, I THINK THAT IS NOT GOING TO ACCOMPLISH MUCH CERTAINLY VIS-A-VIS MICRON, BECAUSE JUDGE ROBINSON SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT OUR ANTITRUST CASE AND DEFENSES AND THE PATENT MISUSE DEFENSE AND THE LIKE WERE SPECIFICALLY PREJUDICED BY RAMBUS'S CONDUCT. THE ANTITRUST CASE THAT WE HAVE IN DELAWARE IS THE SAME AS THE CASE HERE, AND SHE SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT OUR CASE HAD BEEN

12

15:15:34 15:15:36 15:15:39 15:15:41 15:15:42 15:15:44 15:15:46 15:15:49 15:15:53 15:15:53 15:15:54 15:15:57 15:15:58 15:16:04 15:16:06 15:16:09 15:16:12 15:16:16 15:16:18 15:16:20 15:16:23 15:16:27 15:16:29 15:16:33 15:16:35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PREJUDICED BY VIRTUE OF THE DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION. SO ANY SORT OF CERTIFICATION ON THAT, AT LEAST AS TO MICRON, IT SEEMS TO ME WOULDN'T ACCOMPLISH PARTICULARLY MUCH. I THINK THAT REALLY THE PROPER COURSE IS ENTRY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT, AND SHORT OF THAT, ENTRY OF A STAY, AND THEN PULLING THE 244 CASE OUT OF THIS AND THEN PROCEEDING AS, YOU KNOW, AS YOU HAD SUGGESTED. THE COURT: MR. BOBROW: THE COURT: NEXT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

MR. POWERS, YOU WANT TO GO I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN

OR MR. CHERENSKY.

TO ASSUME ONE OR THE OTHER. MR. POWERS: WE WILL, AS YOUR HONOR

SUGGESTED, FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. I DO WANT TO -- IF THAT'S THE PATH YOUR HONOR WISHES TO PROCEED. AS TO SAMSUNG, OF COURSE, THERE'S A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL POSTURE IN THE SENSE THAT THESE ISSUES ARE PENDING BEFORE YOUR HONOR AND HAVE NOT BEEN RESOLVED. SO ANOTHER WAY TO HANDLE IT -- I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE CAN AND WILL MOVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU PREFER.

13

15:16:37 15:16:39 15:16:42 15:16:45 15:16:47 15:16:48 15:16:51 15:16:54 15:16:57 15:16:59 15:17:02 15:17:04 15:17:06 15:17:08 15:17:10 15:17:13 15:17:15 15:17:18 15:17:22 15:17:24 15:17:27 15:17:31 15:17:35 15:17:38 15:17:39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THAT OUT. 20TH.

OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD ASK THE COURT TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF JUDGE ROBINSON'S OPINION AND THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS THEREIN IN CONNECTION WITH WHATEVER DECISION YOU ARE MAKING AS PART OF THE SEPTEMBER TRIAL. THOSE ARE RELATED BUT SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT PROCEDURAL APPROACHES TO THE SAME QUESTION, WHICH IS DECIDING THAT ISSUE AS TO SAMSUNG. BUT WE WILL, UNDER THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE YOUR HONOR PROPOSED, MAKE THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO PROVIDE YOUR HONOR WITH THE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUES YOU'VE RAISED. TWO SCHEDULING ISSUES THAT I WOULD JUST NOTE FOR THE COURT. FEBRUARY 17, I CANNOT BE HERE. MARKMAN IN TEXAS I HAVE TO DO. THIS CASE WAS SUPPOSED TO START ON THE THE MATH WORKED THAT I COULD HAVE DONE IT. THE COURT: I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, I HAVE A

GIVEN -- YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AFTER YOU MADE THAT PITCH BEFORE, AND I JUST -- CERTAINLY THE TIME SHOULD HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE FOR THIS CASE. IF YOU NEED A DAY OFF, MAYBE WE CAN WORK

BUT I'M NOT SYMPATHETIC WITH AN ARGUMENT

14

15:17:46 15:17:49 15:17:51 15:17:52 15:17:54 15:17:55 15:17:59 15:18:05 15:18:09 15:18:14 15:18:19 15:18:20 15:18:22 15:18:25 15:18:25 15:18:27 15:18:29 15:18:30 15:18:32 15:18:34 15:18:41 15:18:43 15:18:47 15:18:49 15:18:50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT IF THE CASE GETS DELAYED UNTIL FEBRUARY 17TH, IT'S GOING TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR COUNSEL TO PARTICIPATE. MR. POWERS: THE COURT: I WILL JUST NOTE -THE MANUFACTURERS' ESTIMATE

OF TRIAL TIME, WHICH I'M NOT GOING TO RECOGNIZE -OR I SHOULDN'T SAY "RECOGNIZE" -- I'M NOT GOING TO BUY, AS I PREVIOUSLY INDICATED, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CERTAINLY IS -- WOULD HAVE PUT THE TRIAL OUT A LOT MORE THAN I THINK IT WILL BE. MR. POWERS: IT WOULD.

I JUST AM NOTING THAT FOR THE COURT AND THE COURT WILL DO WHAT IT WISHES, BUT I HAVE THAT CONFLICT. AND I ALSO HAVE A TRIAL IN NEW JERSEY STARTING ON FEBRUARY 23RD. THE COURT: MR. POWERS: WHEN? FEBRUARY 23RD. SO --

WITH REGARD TO THE TWO APPROACHES THAT YOU NOTE, I THINK THAT THE GOAL OF HAVING -- OF ALLOWING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT TO ADDRESS THE COMPETING SPOLIATION FINDINGS AT THE SAME TIME, BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL GOES FORWARD, IS THE RIGHT APPROACH. OBVIOUSLY IF THE SPOLIATION FINDING -- IF

15

15:18:54 15:18:57 15:19:00 15:19:02 15:19:04 15:19:10 15:19:12 15:19:16 15:19:17 15:19:21 15:19:29 15:19:32 15:19:44 15:19:47 15:19:50 15:19:52 15:19:54 15:19:57 15:20:01 15:20:05 15:20:10 15:20:14 15:20:14 15:20:16 15:20:20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE SPOLIATION RESULT OF THAT PROCESS IS THAT PATENT -- IS THAT RAMBUS'S PATENTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE, THEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE HAD THE PATENT INFRINGEMENT TRIAL. AND I THINK THAT GIVEN ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED, THAT OUTCOME IS AT LEAST SUFFICIENTLY LIKELY TO MAKE THAT THE PROPER COURSE. THE PREJUDICE THAT RAMBUS WOULD PRESUMABLY CITE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS A DELAY IN ITS TRIAL, AND THAT DELAY WOULD BE OF MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF OR SO. RAMBUS IS MERELY SEEKING MONEY. THIS IS

NOT SOMETHING WHERE RAMBUS HAS A PLAUSIBLE CASE OF IRREPARABLE INJURY. IT MADE NO MOTION FOR IT IS A LICENSING ENTITY.

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION.

AND THAT MONEY, IF IT IS ENTITLED TO IT, WHICH THE CURRENT FRAMING OF MANY OF THE DECISIONS WOULD SAY CERTAINLY NOT, BUT EVEN ASSUMING ALL OF THAT GOES RAMBUS'S WAY, THAT'S JUST MONEY THAT IT'S CLAIMING, AND THAT MONEY CAN BE PAID A YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW AND RAMBUS SUFFERS NO COGNIZABLE PREJUDICE. IT MAY WISH TO HAVE ITS RESOLUTION EARLIER, BUT FROM A PUBLIC POLICY POINT OF VIEW, THAT'S NOT COGNIZABLE PREJUDICE. IT'S MONEY THAT

16

15:20:23 15:20:25 15:20:30 15:20:31 15:20:33 15:20:37 15:20:43 15:20:49 15:20:51 15:20:52 15:20:54 15:20:55 15:20:57 15:20:58 15:21:01 15:21:03 15:21:06 15:21:11 15:21:14 15:21:15 15:21:18 15:21:20 15:21:23 15:21:28 15:21:31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

COULD BE MADE WHOLE. WITH REGARD TO OPTION B, IF YOU WERE TO PROCEED WITH -THE COURT: FOR A MINUTE. WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE TO CERTIFY THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSOLIDATED CASE, AS WELL AS THE VERDICT FROM THE CONDUCT TRIAL? MR. POWERS: THE COURT: MR. POWERS: I AGREE WITH THAT. OKAY. AND FOR THE REASONS THAT LET ME GO BACK TO OPTION A

WE'VE DISCUSSED MANY TIMES, BOTH DURING THE MARKMAN HEARING AND AFTERWARDS. I KNOW YOUR HONOR WRESTLED WITH THE QUESTION OF WHAT TO DO WITH THE SAME ISSUES POST-PHILLIPS VERSUS PRE, AND YOUR HONOR'S MARKMAN RULING EXPLICITLY FELT BOUND BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S PRE-PHILLIPS MARKMAN RULING ON SIMILAR ISSUES. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MAY OR MAY NOT COME OUT THE SAME WAY. THAT IS CLEARLY AN ADDITIONAL

EFFICIENCY REASON NOT TO BE HOLDING THE PATENT TRIAL NOW WHEN THERE IS A MATERIAL LIKELIHOOD THAT THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ASSUMPTIONS MAY WELL BE REVERSED IN SOME MATERIAL RESPECTS.

17

15:21:36 15:21:40 15:21:43 15:21:44 15:21:47 15:21:50 15:21:53 15:21:55 15:21:59 15:22:05 15:22:08 15:22:10 15:22:12 15:22:14 15:22:16 15:22:18 15:22:19 15:22:21 15:22:23 15:22:25 15:22:28 15:22:30 15:22:35 15:22:37 15:22:40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 SAID.

WITH REGARD TO OPTION B -- SO OPTION A WE THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE JUDICIAL ECONOMY APPROACH TO TAKE. WITH REGARD TO OPTION B, IF YOU WERE TO PROCEED, I BELIEVE YOU WOULD HAVE -- THAT YOU SHOULD ALSO STAY AS TO MICRON -- AS TO SAMSUNG AS WELL, BECAUSE SAMSUNG WOULD HAVE, IN THAT SITUATION, MANY SIMILAR INTERESTS TO MICRON, HAVING RECEIVED A DECISION OF SPOLIATION FROM JUDGE PAYNE, TO HAVE IT THROWN OUT ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, BUT NOT SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. THE COURT: MR. POWERS: THAT WAS VACATED. EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT I JUST

IT WAS VACATED ON PROCEDURAL GROUNDS, NOT

SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS. AND RAMBUS -- AND SAMSUNG HAS PENDING BEFORE YOUR HONOR RIGHT NOW A DECISION ON THE SAME QUESTIONS. THAT DECISION SHOULD GO UP AND BE RESOLVED AT THE SAME TIME. IF SO -- AND WHEN ALL THAT IS RESOLVED, THE SAME LOGIC UNDER OPTION A THAT ARGUES FOR HAVING THOSE ISSUES RESOLVED AT ONE TIME BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT WOULD ARGUE EQUALLY FOR HAVING THOSE -- SAMSUNG'S ISSUES RESOLVED AT THE SAME TIME

18

15:22:44 15:22:46 15:22:47 15:22:48 15:22:51 15:22:53 15:22:54 15:22:55 15:22:57 15:23:00 15:23:02 15:23:06 15:23:10 15:23:16 15:23:17 15:23:21 15:23:24 15:23:28 15:23:33 15:23:39 15:23:43 15:23:46 15:23:48 15:23:52 15:23:54

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SINCE THEY ARE RIPE AT THE SAME TIME. THE COURT: MR. POWERS: THE COURT: MR. POWERS: WIN OR LOSE. WIN OR LOSE. OKAY. NOTHING FURTHER FROM ME,

UNLESS YOUR HONOR HAS A QUESTION. THE COURT: MR. FREITAS: ALL RIGHT. YOUR HONOR, NANYA AND NANYA

U.S.A. ARE SITUATED DIFFERENTLY FROM THE OTHER PARTIES IN VARIOUS WAYS. I HAVE A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. I HAVE A

CONCERN, AS MR. BOBROW I EXPECT -- EXPRESSED WITH RESPECT TO AN APPEAL ON THE ANTITRUST ISSUES NOW. I'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT THIS IN GREATER DETAIL, BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE COURT'S RULING ON THE MOTIONS THAT WILL BE FILED NOW ON THE IMPACT OF JUDGE ROBINSON'S DECISION, WE DO HAVE A SPOLIATION CASE THAT AWAITS, AND I THINK THAT THE RANGE OF RESULTS OF WHAT YOUR HONOR MIGHT DO ON THE PARTIES' MOTIONS IS NOT SIMPLY THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN. I THINK THERE ARE MORE OPTIONS THAN THAT. I THINK THAT THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ISSUE-SPECIFIC RESULTS THAT, REGARDLESS OF EVERYTHING RAMBUS HAS SAID, NONETHELESS, THERE

19

15:23:58 15:24:00 15:24:03 15:24:05 15:24:07 15:24:09 15:24:11 15:24:14 15:24:16 15:24:18 15:24:21 15:24:23 15:24:25 15:24:29 15:24:31 15:24:34 15:24:37 15:24:39 15:24:42 15:24:43 15:24:45 15:24:46 15:24:47 15:24:53 15:25:07

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MIGHT BE AT LEAST SOME ISSUES THAT GET TAKEN CARE OF IN A WAY THAT'S BINDING. AND WITHOUT KNOWING EXACTLY WHERE -THE COURT: THAT. WHAT ARE YOU -MR. FREITAS: THERE'S A RANGE OF I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING

DIFFERENT FINDINGS THAT WERE MADE BY JUDGE ROBINSON. THERE WERE A VARIETY OF ISSUES, A

VARIETY OF FINDINGS. WHAT I'M SAYING IS SIMPLY THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE THAT THIS COURT'S RULING ON THE APPLICATION OF ISSUE PRECLUSION WILL BE IDENTICAL WITH RESPECT TO EVERY SINGLE ISSUE. WE'VE EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT, THE WAY WE SEE IT, WHAT JUDGE ROBINSON SAID SHOULD BE BINDING IN A WAY THAT'S PRETTY COMPLETE. RAMBUS IS SAYING, ON THE OTHER HAND, THERE'S NOTHING THAT JUDGE ROBINSON SAID THAT'S BINDING AT ALL. I'M SUGGESTING THERE'S ANOTHER RESULT THAT COULD BE POSSIBLE. THE COURT: WHAT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY

THAT -- OR WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE EFFECT OF INEQUITABLE CONDUCT, OR THE CONDUCT THAT JUDGE ROBINSON FOUND, THE SEVERITY OF

20

15:25:15 15:25:22 15:25:31 15:25:34 15:25:36 15:25:39 15:25:40 15:25:42 15:25:45 15:25:47 15:25:51 15:25:53 15:25:59 15:26:03 15:26:03 15:26:05 15:26:08 15:26:12 15:26:14 15:26:17 15:26:18 15:26:20 15:26:23 15:26:27 15:26:30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IT WOULD VARY AMONG MANUFACTURERS, AND SO IT PERHAPS SHOULD BAR, FOR EXAMPLE, CLAIMS AGAINST ONE MANUFACTURER, BUT PERHAPS RESULT IN SOME OTHER REMEDY VIS-A-VIS ANOTHER MANUFACTURER? DO YOU THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE? MR. FREITAS: I DOUBT IT.

BUT I GUESS WHAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT IT WOULD DEPEND ON WHICH MANUFACTURER WAS IN WHICH BOX, AND THE ONLY THING I'VE SEEN SO FAR IS THAT RAMBUS -- EXCUSE ME -- RAMBUS SUGGESTING THAT THERE'S A BASIS TO SAY THAT LITIGATION WASN'T ANTICIPATED AS TO OUR CLIENTS WHEN IT -- WHEN IT WAS BASED ON JUDGE ROBINSON'S FINDINGS AS TO OTHERS. I DON'T THINK THAT RESULT IS LIKELY GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT RAMBUS IDENTIFIED, THE NUCLEAR WINTER DOCUMENT, IS DATED AFTER ONE OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE CITED SHOWING SPECIFIC ANTICIPATION OF LITIGATION AS TO NANYA AND NANYA U.S.A. BUT ON THAT OTHER QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, WITH RESPECT TO THE SEVERITY OF THE REMEDY, I DON'T THINK IT'S LIKELY THAT A LESSER REMEDY WOULD BE AVAILABLE AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF THE MANUFACTURERS, AND -- AS TO ONE OR MORE OF THE MANUFACTURERS, BUT

21

15:26:33 15:26:35 15:26:37 15:26:41 15:26:45 15:26:47 15:26:49 15:26:51 15:26:54 15:26:57 15:26:58 15:26:59 15:27:01 15:27:05 15:27:08 15:27:10 15:27:13 15:27:19 15:27:22 15:27:26 15:27:31 15:27:34 15:27:37 15:27:43 15:27:45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE BASIS FOR AN ARGUMENT TO THAT EFFECT WOULD BE. THE ONE ISSUE RAMBUS HAS ARTICULATED WE'VE ALREADY SAID -- EXPRESSED PART OF THE REASONS WHY WE DON'T THINK THAT PROVIDES A BASIS. I HAVE A QUESTION, YOUR HONOR, ABOUT OPTION B. THE IDEA WOULD BE THAT THE PATENT TRIAL WOULD GO FORWARD AS TO ALL OF THE MANUFACTURERS OTHER THAN MICRON? THE COURT: MR. FREITAS: YES. AND THE MICRON STAY WOULD

BE -- IS THAT -- ARE THERE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT RULING THE COURT WOULD MAKE ON THE ISSUE PRECLUSION MOTIONS? THE COURT: I'M -- I WAS JUST THROWING

OUT THOSE TWO POSSIBILITIES AS WAYS THAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IT'S NECESSARILY

ONE OR THE OTHER, OR THAT A MOTION COULDN'T PERSUADE ME THAT ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS, OR BOTH, ARE -- WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFIED. I'M JUST TRYING TO GIVE YOU MY THOUGHT AS TO TWO APPROACHES THAT I THOUGHT WERE REASONABLE, SENSIBLE APPROACHES. MR. FREITAS: UM-HUM.

22

15:27:46 15:27:48 15:27:49 15:27:50 15:27:51 15:27:54 15:27:55 15:27:59 15:28:02 15:28:05 15:28:07 15:28:09 15:28:12 15:28:15 15:28:16 15:28:18 15:28:20 15:28:23 15:28:25 15:28:25 15:28:30 15:28:34 15:28:39 15:28:43 15:28:46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: YOUR QUESTION. MR. FREITAS:

I'M NOT SURE I'M ANSWERING

THAT WAS -- THAT'S ALL I

WAS ASKING, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MR. FREITAS: OKAY. WELL, WE'LL GIVE THESE

OPTIONS SOME MORE THOUGHT, DISCUSS THEM WITH OUR CLIENTS AND WITH OUR COLLEAGUES, AND EXPRESS MORE DETAILED VIEWS WHEN WE MAKE OUR SUBMISSIONS PURSUANT TO THE COURT'S ORDER. THE COURT: YET, EITHER. I HAVEN'T MADE THAT ORDER

I'M JUST -- I WAS TRYING TO COME OUT

AND SAY THIS IS WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW. MR. FREITAS: THE COURT: MR. FREITAS: BRIEFING SCHEDULE. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MR. NISSLY: OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. YES, YOUR HONOR. AND LET YOU RESPOND TO IT. RIGHT. I ADMIT THE

WE APPRECIATE THE COURT'S GUIDANCE, AND OBVIOUSLY WE'LL FILE OUR MOTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE THAT WE PROPOSED, OR THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE MANUFACTURERS, AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT EITHER A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR WHATEVER

23

15:28:48 15:28:50 15:28:52 15:28:54 15:28:56 15:28:59 15:29:03 15:29:07 15:29:09 15:29:12 15:29:17 15:29:19 15:29:22 15:29:26 15:29:31 15:29:33 15:29:35 15:29:39 15:29:43 15:29:46 15:29:49 15:29:52 15:29:55 15:29:58 15:30:01

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

OTHER MOTION THAT WE THINK MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE COURT'S COMMENTS IN THAT REGARD. ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD SAY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR HONOR'S SUGGESTIONS OF POSSIBLE WAYS TO MOVE FORWARD WOULD SIMPLY BE TO CIRCLE BACK AND POINT OUT THAT AS THINGS HAVE DEVELOPED IN THE COURSE OF THIS CASE OVER THE YEARS, HOW CONSOLIDATED IT HAS BECOME AND HOW INTERTWINED IT'S BECOME, AND I WAS STRUCK IN THAT REGARD BY A STATEMENT, FRANKLY, FROM A BRIEF THAT RAMBUS FILED -- AND IT'S NOT OFTEN, OBVIOUSLY, I QUOTE ONE OF THEIR BRIEFS -- FROM AUGUST OF 2008 WHICH I THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HERE THIS AFTERNOON. AND I'M READING FROM A BRIEF THAT RAMBUS FILED ON THEIR CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITIONS TO THE STAY MOTIONS THAT WERE FILED LAST, LAST YEAR. AND RAMBUS WROTE, ON PAGE 2, "THE HISTORY OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE POSITIONS JOINTLY TAKEN BY THE MANUFACTURERS AT THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT STAGE, CONFIRMED THAT RAMBUS'S PATENT CLAIMS AND THEIR DEFENSES ARE DOMINATED BY COMMON AND INTERWOVEN ISSUES."

24

15:30:03 15:30:05 15:30:08 15:30:11 15:30:19 15:30:22 15:30:24 15:30:27 15:30:29 15:30:32 15:30:35 15:30:37 15:30:41 15:30:45 15:30:47 15:30:51 15:30:53 15:30:56 15:30:59 15:31:01 15:31:04 15:31:06 15:31:11 15:31:14 15:31:15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

AND THAT'S CERTAINLY TRUE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE POINTS, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE GAVE YOU THE CHART THAT WE DID THAT SHOWED THE OVERLAP BETWEEN THE MICRON DELAWARE CASE, OUR 905 CASE, THE 334 CASE WHICH WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AFTERNOON IN TERMS OF SCHEDULE, AND THE RE-EXAMINATIONS. AND IT SEEMS TO US THAT THIS ISSUE OF SPOLIATION, WHICH YOU TOOK UP FIRST AND YOU HEARD AND OBVIOUSLY YOU CAME OUT AT A DIFFERENT PLACE THAN NOW TWO OTHER FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES HAVE COME OUT, IS THE ONE ISSUE THAT WE'VE EVER SEEN IN THIS CASE WHICH CUTS ACROSS ALL OF THIS, WHICH CUTS, AS WE SAID IN OUR PAPERS, THIS GORDIAN KNOT, AND IT SEEMS TO US THAT WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO IS FOCUS ON THAT ISSUE AND GET THAT RESOLVED IN A WAY THAT IS CONSISTENT FOR ALL THE MANUFACTURERS ACROSS THE INDUSTRY, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE HERE, AS THE COURT CERTAINLY HAS COME TO APPRECIATE. WE HAVE AN INDUSTRY-WIDE ISSUE AND AN

INDUSTRY-WIDE PROBLEM. AND WE DO NOT SEE ANY LEGAL BASIS UPON WHICH PATENTS ARE UNENFORCEABLE AS TO MICRON ON CERTAIN PRODUCTS, AND NOT AS TO HYNIX OR SAMSUNG OR NANYA OR ANYONE ELSE. THE COURT: I SUPPOSE IT'S THEORETICALLY

25

15:31:17 15:31:20 15:31:25 15:31:30 15:31:37 15:31:40 15:31:45 15:31:47 15:31:49 15:31:52 15:31:53 15:31:54 15:31:57 15:31:58 15:31:59 15:32:02 15:32:04 15:32:07 15:32:09 15:32:12 15:32:14 15:32:18 15:32:21 15:32:23 15:32:25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

POSSIBLE, THOUGH, THAT -- I MEAN, I WOULD AGREE THAT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THAT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COULD AFFIRM A FINDING OF SPOLIATION AS TO -- IN THE MICRON CASE AND AFFIRM A FINDING OF NO SPOLIATION IN YOUR CASE ON THE BASIS THAT IT'S A FACTUAL QUESTION AND THE COURT INTERPRETED FACTS DIFFERENTLY. MR. NISSLY: WITH YOUR HONOR. WE BELIEVE -- I'LL AGREE I

IT'S THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE.

DON'T THINK IT'S LIKELY. THE COURT: I DON'T THINK IT IS, EITHER,

AND I THINK IN SOME WAYS IT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE IF THAT OCCURRED. MR. NISSLY: AGREED.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DECISION THAT NEEDS A CONSISTENT TREATMENT, AND THAT'S WHY WE BELIEVE THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS IS, AS THE COURT SUGGESTED, TO FILE MOTIONS, TO GET IT SORTED OUT BEFORE YOU, AND THEN ALLOW THOSE -- YOUR DECISIONS ON THOSE ISSUES TO GO TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, ALONG WITH THE APPEAL THAT RAMBUS PROMISES FROM DELAWARE, AND HAVE THE CIRCUIT FOCUS ON THOSE ISSUES AND RESOLVE THEM. THERE ARE MANY OTHER VERY DIFFICULT ISSUES BEFORE YOUR HONOR, AS YOU WELL APPRECIATE,

26

15:32:27 15:32:32 15:32:34 15:32:37 15:32:40 15:32:42 15:32:46 15:32:49 15:32:52 15:32:55 15:32:57 15:32:59 15:33:02 15:33:04 15:33:05 15:33:08 15:33:11 15:33:14 15:33:18 15:33:20 15:33:22 15:33:25 15:33:27 15:33:27 15:33:29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT CAN TAKE UP AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF YOUR TIME AND OUR TIME AND OUR RESOURCES, WHICH ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT UNLIMITED, BUT HAVE BEEN SORELY TAXED BY THIS LITIGATION, AND REALLY FOCUS ON THOSE. THAT'S WHY WE ASKED YOU TWICE BEFORE FOR A 1292(B) CERTIFICATION, AND THAT'S WHY WE'LL ASK YOU FOR IT AGAIN, BECAUSE WE THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD. LET'S GET THOSE ISSUES RESOLVED

ON AN INDUSTRY-WIDE BASIS AND THEN LET'S SEE WHAT'S LEFT WITH REGARD TO THAT. AND THAT'S A POINT PERHAPS OTHER COUNSEL MENTIONED, BUT PARTICULARLY WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE CONDUCT CASE, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THE CONDUCT TRIAL THAT WE HAD LAST YEAR. CERTAINLY HYNIX BELIEVES THAT THAT CASE WAS TAINTED BY THE FACT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO EVIDENCE THAT RAMBUS DESTROYED. THE COURT: CERTIFIED FOR APPEAL? MR. NISSLY: BECAUSE IT IS TAINTED BY THE WHY SHOULDN'T THAT CASE BE

ALLEGATIONS OF SPOLIATION, BECAUSE WE WERE -THE COURT: MR. NISSLY: THE COURT: FOR APPEAL, TOO? WHY SHOULDN'T -I'M SORRY. WHY SHOULDN'T IT BE CERTIFIED

27

15:33:30 15:33:31 15:33:33 15:33:36 15:33:37 15:33:38 15:33:39 15:33:47 15:33:51 15:33:52 15:33:56 15:34:01 15:34:06 15:34:07 15:34:09 15:34:11 15:34:13 15:34:24 15:34:29 15:34:35 15:34:44 15:34:45 15:34:48 15:34:53 15:34:58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PARDON ME.

MR. NISSLY:

BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THAT

OUGHT TO AWAIT THE RESOLUTION OF THE SPOLIATION ISSUES BECAUSE IT CUTS ACROSS ALL OF THESE. THE COURT: MR. NISSLY: THE COURT: RIGHT. I'M SORRY. BUT COULDN'T THE FEDERAL

CIRCUIT SAY THERE WAS SPOLIATION; THEREFORE, THIS VERDICT CAN'T STAND? SHOULD STAY? I MEAN, WHAT'S THE POINT OF -- IF THERE IS A STAYING FOR THE PURPOSES OF RESOLVING SOME ISSUES, WHY SHOULDN'T THE KEY ISSUES GET RESOLVED AT THE SAME TIME? MR. NISSLY: BECAUSE, YOUR HONOR -OR SAY THERE WASN'T AND IT

I DIDN'T MEAN TO STEP ON YOU. THE COURT: THAT'S OKAY. YOU'RE ALWAYS

VERY PROFESSIONAL, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. IF THE -- LET'S ASSUME THAT IT WENT UP AND THE COURT SAID, "WE FEEL THAT THE FINDING OF NO SPOLIATION IS AFFIRMED." MR. NISSLY: THE COURT: UM-HUM. AND IT COMES BACK FOR TRIAL.

AND THEN IT'S TRIED AND GOES UP ON APPEAL AND THE COURT SAYS, "CLAIM CONSTRUCTION WAS WRONG." WHY SHOULDN'T THOSE THINGS BE DONE

28

15:35:00 15:35:00 15:35:02 15:35:06 15:35:09 15:35:11 15:35:16 15:35:18 15:35:19 15:35:23 15:35:27 15:35:28 15:35:30 15:35:33 15:35:37 15:35:39 15:35:43 15:35:45 15:35:47 15:35:50 15:35:55 15:35:58 15:35:59 15:36:02 15:36:04

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

TOGETHER? MR. NISSLY: I'D PUT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

IN A SEPARATE BUCKET BECAUSE IT DOES PRESENT A DIFFERENT SET OF LEGAL ISSUES AND THERE ARE -- THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ISSUE MAY MAKE MORE SENSE TO GO UP AT THIS POINT THAN OTHERS, AND THAT'S WHY I SAY I'D PUT IT IN A SEPARATE BUCKET. BUT WITH REGARD TO THE CONDUCT ISSUES THAT WERE TRIED, THOSE, WE BELIEVE, AS I JUST SAID, ARE TAINTED BY THE ISSUE OF SPOLIATION. THAT ASIDE. SPOLIATION GOES UP AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AFFIRMS YOU AND SAYS, "NO, JUDGE WHYTE WAS CORRECT ON HIS ANALYSIS," OR "WE FIND A FACTUAL DIFFERENCE, SOMEHOW, BETWEEN WHAT JUDGE WHYTE DID AND WHAT JUDGE ROBINSON DID," THEN THAT CASE CAN COME BACK HERE AND BE FINISHED LIKE MANY OTHER CASES THAT ARE IN THIS SORT OF POSTURE. SO THAT I DON'T SEE AS AN ISSUE. IN BUT PUT

FACT, IT WOULD BE, TO MY WAY OF THINKING, MORE JUDICIALLY EFFICIENT TO DO IT THAT WAY THAN ANOTHER WAY. AND AS MR. POWERS POINTED OUT, THERE'S NO PREJUDICE TO RAMBUS HERE. ROYALTIES AND MONEY. THIS IS A CASE ABOUT

AND SO THERE'S -- THAT'S --

29

15:36:08 15:36:10 15:36:11 15:36:15 15:36:17 15:36:19 15:36:20 15:36:23 15:36:24 15:36:25 15:36:27 15:36:31 15:36:34 15:36:37 15:36:40 15:36:42 15:36:45 15:36:51 15:36:54 15:36:55 15:36:57 15:37:00 15:37:02 15:37:05 15:37:08

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT'S REALLY NOT AN ISSUE. THE COURT: IF I HEARD MR. POWERS

CORRECTLY, HE WAS SUGGESTING THAT THOSE -- THAT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE CONDUCT TRIAL MADE SENSE TO CERTIFY. MR. NISSLY: HE DID SAY THE CONDUCT

TRIAL, AND THAT'S WHERE I PART COMPANY WITH HIM. THE COURT: MR. NISSLY: OKAY. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS AN

ISSUE THAT IS DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE SPOLIATION ISSUES AND ONE THAT OUGHT TO BE PUT ASIDE WHILE WE SORT OUT WHERE ARE WE WITH SPOLIATION GIVEN THE FACT THAT WE'VE NOW HAD THESE DIFFERENT DECISIONS BY FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGES, FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS ON WHETHER OR NOT SPOLIATION IS PRESENT. THERE IS A WHOLE COMPLEX OF OVERLAPPING ISSUES BETWEEN THE 334 CASE AS IT INVOLVES HYNIX AND THE 905 CASE, WHICH WE POINTED OUT IN OUR PAPERS. WE HAVE THE OVERLAP IN PATENTS AS ILLUSTRATED BY THE CHART WHICH WE GAVE YOU; WE HAVE THE OVERLAP IN THE WAIVER AND ESTOPPEL CLAIMS WHICH WERE PART OF THE CONDUCT TRIAL; AND WE HAVE THE POINT, YOUR HONOR, THAT THESE PATENTS ARE ASSERTED AGAINST INDUSTRY STANDARD PRODUCTS AND IT OUGHT TO

30

15:37:11 15:37:15 15:37:17 15:37:19 15:37:22 15:37:24 15:37:27 15:37:30 15:37:32 15:37:34 15:37:36 15:37:39 15:37:40 15:37:42 15:37:45 15:37:51 15:37:53 15:37:56 15:37:57 15:37:57 15:38:04 15:38:06 15:38:07 15:38:09 15:38:12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

HAVE AN INDUSTRY STANDARD SOLUTION AND AN INDUSTRY-WIDE SOLUTION AND, THEREFORE, WE'LL CERTAINLY, OF COURSE, FILE OUR MOTIONS WITH THE COURT AND MAKE THOSE POINTS. ANOTHER 1292(B) CERTIFICATION. BUT IT SEEMS TO US THAT THE MOST SENSIBLE WAY TO PROCEED IS TO CARVE OFF THE SPOLIATION ISSUES, LET THOSE GO TO THE CIRCUIT. IF THERE ARE ISSUES, SUCH AS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION, THAT MAKE SENSE AT THIS POINT TO THINK ABOUT IN THAT REGARD, THAT MAY MAKE SOME SENSE. BUT ALL THE REST OF THESE ISSUES THAT ARE SO FACT BOUND THAT ARE AFFECTED BY WHAT HAPPENS ON SPOLIATION OUGHT, IN FAIRNESS, TO STAY UNRESOLVED UNTIL WE DECIDE AND UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THE LAW OF THIS CASE IS REGARDING SPOLIATION, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THE COURT: MR. NISSLY: MR. STONE: THE COURT: MR. STONE: OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. GOOD AFTERNOON. FIRST, I THINK THAT YOU WE'LL ASK YOU FOR

PROPOSED A BRIEFING SCHEDULE, AND IN OUR PAPERS WE'D SUGGESTED WE DIDN'T SEE THE NEED FOR IT, AND

31

15:38:15 15:38:19 15:38:19 15:38:21 15:38:25 15:38:32 15:38:34 15:38:39 15:38:42 15:38:48 15:38:53 15:38:57 15:38:59 15:39:05 15:39:08 15:39:09 15:39:10 15:39:14 15:39:17 15:39:19 15:39:21 15:39:22 15:39:26 15:39:27 15:39:29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

OBVIOUSLY YOU THINK THERE IS PROBABLY A NEED AND I APPRECIATE THAT. THE COURT: TWO REASONS. I THINK THERE'S A NEED FOR

ONE IS THE -- SOME SPECIFIC

APPLICATIONS, OR AN EXPLANATION OF WHY OR WHY NOT ISSUE PRECLUSION APPLIES. BUT, FRANKLY, I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH GETTING FURTHER THOUGHTS ON WHAT MAKES SENSE FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, BECAUSE I SUSPECTED THE PARTIES WOULD COME OUT THE WAY THEIR LETTERS DID AS FAR AS THEIR POSITIONS, BUT I WASN'T SURE. I MEAN, I CAN SEE SOME ADVANTAGES, FRANKLY, TO RAMBUS OF BOTH APPROACHES. SO I WASN'T

100 PERCENT SURE AS TO WHERE YOU WOULD COME OUT ON THIS. MR. STONE: OKAY. SO LET ME TRY TO

ADDRESS BRIEFLY SOME OF THE ISSUES YOU'VE RAISED AND SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'VE ASKED, IF I MIGHT, AND IF YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS, PLEASE POSE THEM TO ME. BUT I'M ASSUMING THAT -- THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE YOU PROPOSED, WE'LL MEET THE BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND SO FORTH. I THINK WE'VE LAID OUT IN SOME SIGNIFICANT DETAIL OUR POSITION ON THE MERITS OF

32

15:39:31 15:39:34 15:39:40 15:39:41 15:39:45 15:39:48 15:39:52 15:39:54 15:39:56 15:39:58 15:40:01 15:40:04 15:40:05 15:40:08 15:40:11 15:40:15 15:40:18 15:40:22 15:40:25 15:40:30 15:40:34 15:40:39 15:40:42 15:40:45 15:40:46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THIS ISSUE, SO I HOPE THE MANUFACTURERS, IN THEIR PAPERS, CAN SORT OF ADDRESS AND CAN JOIN ISSUES QUICKLY ON SOME OF THOSE. I WANT TO START MAYBE WITH -- THERE WAS THE POINT FROM OUR EARLIER BRIEF THAT MR. NISSLY QUOTED ABOUT TO SOME EXTENT THIS CASE HAS -- THERE ARE COMMON ISSUES THAT CUT ACROSS MANY OF THE CASES AND MANY OF THE ISSUES ARE COMMON. INDEED, THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE HAD FILED THE MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE IN THE DELAWARE ACTION TO TRY TO BRING IT OUT HERE, AND MICRON RESISTED THAT. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT WHEN WE COME BACK IN THE BRIEFING, AS WE WILL, TO RECOGNITION THAT WHAT MICRON SEEKS IS OFFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES WHO SELECTED THE FORUM, AND AS THE SUPREME COURT NOTED IN PARKLANE, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT IT IN THE TEXT OF THAT OPINION AT FOOTNOTE 15, AND IN FOOTNOTE 15, THEY NOTED THAT IT'S OFFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WHEN THE PARTY WHO SELECTED THE FORUM THEN SEEKS TO IMPOSE THE RESULT IN THAT FORUM ON WHAT HAPPENS IN SOME OTHER FORUM, NAMELY, THE FORUM HERE THAT RAMBUS HAS SELECTED. SO THERE IS AN ISSUE, AND THAT ISSUE DOES

33

15:40:48 15:40:52 15:40:55 15:40:59 15:41:03 15:41:03 15:41:06 15:41:08 15:41:10 15:41:13 15:41:17 15:41:19 15:41:21 15:41:23 15:41:25 15:41:27 15:41:29 15:41:32 15:41:35 15:41:37 15:41:40 15:41:42 15:41:44 15:41:47 15:41:50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

GO TO THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL LAW, BECAUSE THERE IS AT LEAST SOME RECOGNITION IN THE CASES THAT THE DISCRETIONARY FACTORS MAY BE MORE HEAVILY WEIGHED IN AN OFFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AS OPPOSED TO DEFENSIVE. AND HERE WE DO HAVE, EVEN IN MICRON'S CASE -- AND I REALIZE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE TOUGHEST CASE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE -- EVEN IN MICRON'S CASE, WE HAVE OFFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WHERE THE VARIOUS DISCRETIONARY FACTORS SHOULD BE WEIGHED MOST HEAVILY. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THEY'RE NOT WEIGHED IN DEFENSIVE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL. I THINK THEY ARE.

THE RESTATEMENT, AMONG OTHER AUTHORITIES, MAKES THAT CLEAR. BUT SO WE HAVE HERE A SITUATION IN WHICH WE'RE GOING TO -- THIS COURT WILL LOOK AT, IN THE BRIEFS WE FILE, I THINK AT WHETHER, IN FACT, A STAY FROM MICRON IS APPROPRIATE, OR WHETHER THE DECISION OF JUDGE ROBINSON HAS ANY IMPACT HERE. YOU TALKED WITH MR. BOBROW ABOUT THE OVERLAP IN THE PATENTS AND THE PRODUCTS, AND THERE IS NO OVERLAP IN PATENTS AND PRODUCTS. THERE ARE FOUR PATENTS WHICH ARE HERE, BUT THEY'RE ASSERTED HERE AGAINST A PRODUCT THAT IS

34

15:41:52 15:41:56 15:42:00 15:42:03 15:42:06 15:42:07 15:42:11 15:42:14 15:42:19 15:42:21 15:42:22 15:42:25 15:42:28 15:42:30 15:42:30 15:42:32 15:42:34 15:42:36 15:42:38 15:42:41 15:42:43 15:42:47 15:42:49 15:42:53 15:42:57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

NOT IN THE DELAWARE CASE, I'M TALKING NOW JUST ABOUT MICRON, AGAINST DDR3, A PRODUCT THAT WAS NOT EVEN IN CONTEMPLATION OR DESIGN AT THE TIME THAT JUDGE ROBINSON FOUND THERE WAS A PERIOD OF SPOLIATION. THE COURT: BUT WHY DOES THAT MATTER,

BECAUSE WHAT CONDUCT SHE FOUND INFECTED THE PATENTS WOULD APPLY TO THE -- IT WOULDN'T BE PRODUCT DEPENDENT, WOULD IT? MR. STONE: I DON'T -- I THINK, FOR THE

VERY REASON THAT THE MANUFACTURERS HAVE INSISTED ON HAVING DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIVE PRODUCTS FOR EVERY GENERATION OF PRODUCT, I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENT PRODUCTS. I THINK THIS COURT LOOKED CAREFULLY AT THE ABILITY TO REVERSE ENGINEER A PRODUCT. I THINK A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER A DUTY AROSE WITH RESPECT TO THAT PRODUCT AT A PARTICULAR TIME, I THINK ALL OF THOSE ARE DIFFERENCES. AND THE MOST CRITICAL DIFFERENCE, IN TERMS OF THOSE TWO CASES AS IT BEARS ON MICRON, IS WITH RESPECT TO THE TIME AT WHICH THE CASE WAS FILED, BECAUSE JUDGE ROBINSON'S DECISION IS BASED ON, AND HER FINDING OF PREJUDICE IS, AND BAD FAITH, REALLY, IS BASED ON TWO THINGS: A DETERMINATION

35

15:43:03 15:43:05 15:43:08 15:43:11 15:43:14 15:43:17 15:43:20 15:43:22 15:43:26 15:43:29 15:43:31 15:43:36 15:43:39 15:43:44 15:43:48 15:43:52 15:43:54 15:43:57 15:44:00 15:44:04 15:44:07 15:44:09 15:44:12 15:44:14 15:44:16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ABOUT WHEN THERE WAS A DUTY TO PRESERVE AND A FAILURE TO PRESERVE; AND, SECONDLY, ABOUT LITIGATION MISCONDUCT THAT OCCURRED IN 2001. AND SHE REFERS, AND IT'S NOT -- I THINK IT'S CLEAR FROM HER RECORD AND HER DECISION WHAT SHE'S REFERRING TO, AND WE CAN MAKE IT CLEAR IN OUR BRIEFING IF IT'S NOT, AND I THINK THE COURT HAS SEEN THE SAME EVIDENCE, BUT THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS LITIGATION MISCONDUCT WHAT OCCURRED IN THE INFINEON CASE, AND SHE REACHED OUT TO THAT CONDUCT AND SHE SAID AT LEAST ONE BRIEF, OR PERHAPS TWO, IT'S A LITTLE UNCLEAR FROM HER DECISION, THAT WERE FILED IN HER CASE IN 2001 WERE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS AS SHE LATER FOUND THEM TO EXIST. ALL OF THAT CAME TO LIGHT IN 2005, EARLY 2005 BEFORE THIS CASE WAS FILED. SO THERE'S NO ARGUMENT, AND APTIX, I THINK, MAKES CLEAR THAT THERE'S NO ARGUMENT THAT THE LITIGATION MISCONDUCT, WHICH IS SORT OF INTERWOVEN AND INEXTRICABLY TIED TO HER CONCLUSIONS, HAS ANY BEARING IN THIS CASE, AND MICRON I DON'T THINK CAN CONTEND OTHERWISE. SO I THINK THERE'S REAL ISSUES FOR US TO BRIEF ON THE MICRON QUESTION. AND, OF COURSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER

36

15:44:18 15:44:21 15:44:23 15:44:25 15:44:27 15:44:30 15:44:32 15:44:33 15:44:36 15:44:38 15:44:41 15:44:45 15:44:48 15:44:51 15:44:54 15:44:58 15:45:00 15:45:02 15:45:05 15:45:08 15:45:09 15:45:11 15:45:15 15:45:18 15:45:21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PARTIES, HYNIX, OF COURSE, THERE'S BEEN A DECISION. SAMSUNG, THE CASE -- THE MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE YOUR HONOR. AND NANYA, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE VERY DISTINCT ISSUES, TOO, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DATE THAT THE ACTION WAS FILED. SO I DO THINK WE'LL SEE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES, AND THE COURT -- I THINK THE COURT IS RIGHT TO SAY THERE'S CERTAINLY THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COULD REACH -- COULD AFFIRM, LET'S SAY, BOTH DECISIONS, AND LEAVE THE DECISIONS, ON THEIR FACE AT LEAST, ARRIVING AT INCONSISTENT RESULTS, COULD LEAVE THEM STANDING, BOTH BECAUSE ONE IS GOING TO BE ASSESSED UNDER NINTH CIRCUIT LAW, THE OTHER UNDER THIRD CIRCUIT LAW. THE FACTUAL SCENARIO IS DIFFERENT, AND THE TIMING OF SOME OF THE ACTS, AS SEEN BY THE COURTS, I THINK, CAME OUT DIFFERENT. POSSIBLE. SO I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF ISSUES THAT WE WILL BRIEF IN AN EFFORT TO PERSUADE THE COURT NOT TO STAY THE MICRON CASE AND TO PERSUADE YOU THAT WHAT JUDGE ROBINSON DOES IN HER CASE SHOULD NOT AFFECT WHAT THIS COURT DOES IN ITS CASE SO IT'S

37

15:45:24 15:45:27 15:45:30 15:45:30 15:45:34 15:45:38 15:45:44 15:45:47 15:45:49 15:45:51 15:45:55 15:45:58 15:46:01 15:46:02 15:46:05 15:46:09 15:46:12 15:46:15 15:46:17 15:46:17 15:46:19 15:46:22 15:46:25 15:46:26 15:46:29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

AND THAT WE SHOULD PROCEED TO TRIAL ON FEBRUARY 17TH AS THE COURT SUGGESTED AS A POSSIBLE TRIAL DATE. NOW -- SO I THINK THAT'S A PREVIEW, I GUESS, OF WHAT WE'LL TRY TO ADDRESS IN THE BRIEFS. LET ME -- LET ME ADDRESS, IF I COULD, THE COURT'S TWO SCENARIOS AND JUST TRY TO BREAK THEM DOWN. THE FIRST IS, SHOULD THE COURT ENTER JUDGMENT IN HYNIX I AFTER -- WHICH IS COMPLETED BUT FOR DECISIONS ON VARIOUS MOTIONS AND ONE MATTER THAT HAD BEEN TRIED TO THE COURT AS OPPOSED TO THE JURY IN THE CONDUCT TRIAL. AND I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO, TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN THAT CASE AS PROMPTLY AS THE COURT CAN. THE COURT: I, OBVIOUSLY, WISH IT HAD

ALREADY BEEN DONE, BUT IT'S -- IT HASN'T BEEN, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISPUTE THAT THAT SHOULD PROCEED. MR. STONE: OKAY. AND SO THEN THAT

RAISES THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, THAT TAKES UP THE CONDUCT TRIAL, THE JURY'S VERDICT IN THE CONDUCT TRIAL. IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE OTHER PARTIES WHO HAVE AN INTEREST IN APPEALING FROM THAT VERDICT,

38

15:46:32 15:46:34 15:46:38 15:46:40 15:46:42 15:46:44 15:46:48 15:46:51 15:46:53 15:46:56 15:46:59 15:47:02 15:47:05 15:47:07 15:47:09 15:47:12 15:47:14 15:47:18 15:47:20 15:47:23 15:47:26 15:47:29 15:47:31 15:47:34 15:47:36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THAT THEIR APPEAL SHOULD GO UP AT THE SAME TIME JUST IN THE INTERESTS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY. I

THINK THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, AND IT SEEMS TO ME TO MAKE SENSE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS WANT TO ARGUE THAT -- I GUESS THE MANUFACTURERS ARE PLAINTIFFS IN THAT INSTANCE -WANT TO ARGUE THAT THE FINDING THAT JUDGE ROBINSON MADE SOMEHOW IMPACTS THE JURY'S VERDICT IN THE CONDUCT TRIAL -- AND THE COURT WILL RECALL WE HAD A STIPULATION AS TO HOW SPOLIATION WOULD BE TREATED IN THE CONDUCT TRIAL, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THERE -- BUT THAT ISSUE SHOULD GO UP ON THE RECORD OF THE CONDUCT TRIAL, NOT ISOLATED. SO I DO THINK THAT SHOULD GO UP. IT MAKES SENSE TO ME, ALTHOUGH I UNDERSTAND YOU CAN MAKE AN ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY AND SOME OF THE APPELLATE DECISIONS WOULD SEEM TO COME OUT TO THE CONTRARY, THAT THE SAMSUNG DECISION THAT YOUR HONOR HAS UNDER SUBMISSION, THAT THAT WOULD GO UP AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S SIMILAR -- I MEAN, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE AND SO I UNDERSTAND WHY IT MIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT MANY APPELLATE COURTS,

39

15:47:38 15:47:40 15:47:42 15:47:45 15:47:46 15:47:49 15:47:51 15:47:53 15:47:58 15:48:02 15:48:03 15:48:05 15:48:07 15:48:10 15:48:10 15:48:13 15:48:18 15:48:19 15:48:21 15:48:23 15:48:27 15:48:27 15:48:28 15:48:31 15:48:34

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

INCLUDING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, MIGHT SAY, NO, THAT'S JUST A PIECE OF THE WHOLE CASE AND WE SHOULD TRY THE WHOLE CASE AND WE SHOULDN'T JUST SEND IT UP PIECEMEAL. I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THE SAMSUNG ISSUE AND I'M NOT SURE WHICH IS RIGHT AND WHETHER IT SHOULD BE CERTIFIED OR NOT. BUT I'LL THINK ABOUT IT SOME MORE AND TRY TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH ANY HELPFUL INSIGHTS WE CAN. SIMILARLY, THE LICENSING ISSUE, ALTHOUGH I THINK THERE THE ARGUMENT IS LESS STRONG THAT THAT SHOULD GO UP BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIMILAR TO ANY OTHERS. THE COURT: I AGREE THAT THAT'S, IN MY

VIEW, THE MOST UNLIKELY ONE FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL. MR. STONE: THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION --

OBVIOUSLY YOUR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION IN HYNIX I WILL GO UP. THAT'LL BE PART OF THE HYNIX VERDICT. THE COURT: MR. STONE: RIGHT. WHETHER THE CLAIM

CONSTRUCTION HERE SHOULD BE CERTIFIED IN MY MIND SORT OF FALLS IN -- I MEAN, A, YOU MIGHT MODIFY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL.

40

15:48:36 15:48:39 15:48:41 15:48:42 15:48:46 15:48:48 15:48:50 15:48:52 15:48:53 15:48:54 15:48:57 15:48:58 15:49:01 15:49:04 15:49:08 15:49:10 15:49:14 15:49:18 15:49:20 15:49:24 15:49:26 15:49:30 15:49:32 15:49:35 15:49:37

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

IT'S POSSIBLE THAT CERTAIN THINGS WILL NECESSITATE THAT, OR THAT YOU WILL CONSTRUE ADDITIONAL CLAIMS ALONG THE WAY. AND AS WE'VE ARGUED PREVIOUSLY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT HAS SEEMED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WANT A FULL RECORD ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. HAVE IT. MAYBE THEY WILL THINK THE CASE SHOULD BE TRIED BEFORE THEY REVIEW CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. I THINK THEY CERTAINLY HAVE SOME DECISIONS WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT THEY DON'T WANT CERTIFICATION OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS. THE COURT: WELL, THEY'VE CERTAINLY MAYBE THEY WILL THINK THEY

GENERALLY TAKEN THAT VIEW, BUT I'VE SENSED A LITTLE BIT OF A SOFTENING OF THAT, AND I ALSO THINK THIS CASE PRESENTS A VERY COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR DOING INTERLOCUTORY REVIEW OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. MR. STONE: SO -- AND I -- AGAIN, IT'S AN I APPRECIATE THAT

ISSUE I'D LIKE TO THINK ABOUT.

THIS CASE HAS MANY UNIQUE ASPECTS TO IT, SO I DON'T WANT TO TRY TO SAY THIS IS A RUN-OF-THE-MILL CASE, NOR WOULD THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, I THINK, LOOK AT THIS AS AN ORDINARY CASE. I THINK THEY WOULD SEE

THE COMPLICATED ASPECT OF IT THAT THIS COURT HAS

41

15:49:40 15:49:43 15:49:44 15:49:46 15:49:49 15:49:51 15:49:54 15:49:54 15:49:57 15:49:59 15:50:02 15:50:05 15:50:07 15:50:12 15:50:17 15:50:21 15:50:23 15:50:28 15:50:29 15:50:32 15:50:37 15:50:40 15:50:45 15:50:49 15:50:52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

CONFRONTED AND DEALT WITH. SO I THINK THE LICENSING ISSUE FOR SAMSUNG AND CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ARE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT IN MY MIND THAN THE OTHERS, BUT I APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE ALSO DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER AND WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE TREATED THE SAME WAY. I THINK WHICHEVER THINGS GO UP, THE HYNIX I JUDGMENT AND WHATEVER THINGS ARE CERTIFIED FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A REASON TO DELAY THIS TRIAL, AND I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THAT. AS THE COURT KNOWS, RAMBUS MADE A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT FOR AN INJUNCTION AT THE CONCLUSION OF HYNIX I, WHICH THE COURT HAS UNDER SUBMISSION. THIS IS A CASE NOT JUST ABOUT DAMAGES. IT IS ALSO ABOUT RAMBUS'S RIGHT TO INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. MOREOVER, IT'S A CASE IN WHICH THERE IS COGNIZABLE INJURY TO RAMBUS FROM DELAY IN RECEIVING ROYALTIES IF IT TURNS OUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IT'S ENTITLED TO THEM, AND WE LAID THAT OUT IN THE INJUNCTION PAPERS AND POST-JUDGMENT PLEADINGS WE FILED IN CONNECTION WITH HYNIX I, AND I THINK THE COURT'S AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT IS NOT SIMPLY --

42

15:50:55 15:50:58 15:51:01 15:51:05 15:51:07 15:51:10 15:51:11 15:51:13 15:51:16 15:51:21 15:51:25 15:51:27 15:51:30 15:51:33 15:51:34 15:51:37 15:51:38 15:51:44 15:51:47 15:51:50 15:51:54 15:51:56 15:51:57 15:51:58 15:52:00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A DOLLAR PLUS INTEREST DEFERRED IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT TO RAMBUS OF A DOLLAR TODAY. INDEED, THE COMPANY IS IN A MUCH DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN THAT WHERE TRYING TO RESOLVE THESE MATTERS PROMPTLY MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE. IN ADDITION, AS I KNOW THE COURT ALSO APPRECIATES, THERE ARE REAL ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO WITNESSES CONTINUING TO HAVE AS GOOD A RECALL AS THEY HAD WHEN THE EVENTS OCCURRED, AND A DELAY -- I THINK IT WOULD BE OPTIMISTIC TO SUGGEST THAT THE COURT COULD GET THE CASE BACK IN 18 MONTHS. I

THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT SOMETHING LONGER THAN THAT, PROBABLY TWO YEARS. TWO YEARS IS A SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME WITH RESPECT TO SOME OF THE WITNESSES WHO ARE CRITICAL TO THIS CASE, SOME OF WHOM, FOR WHOM THERE CONTINUES TO BE SOME HEALTH ISSUES, AND OTHERS FOR WHOM JUST THE PASSAGE OF TIME, I THINK, MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEIR TESTIMONY TO BE AS COMPLETE AND WITH AS GOOD A RECALL AS THEY HAVE HAD IN THE PAST. SO I THINK THE COURT -THE COURT: HAVEN'T MOST OF THESE

WITNESSES BEEN DEPOSED ABOUT FIVE TIMES?

43

15:52:03 15:52:05 15:52:08 15:52:11 15:52:11 15:52:13 15:52:15 15:52:18 15:52:20 15:52:23 15:52:26 15:52:29 15:52:33 15:52:34 15:52:36 15:52:39 15:52:42 15:52:44 15:52:48 15:52:51 15:52:54 15:52:57 15:52:59 15:53:02 15:53:05

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. STONE:

I WOULD SAY MOST OF THEM HAVE

BEEN DEPOSED MANY MORE THAN FIVE TIMES, YOUR HONOR. THAT I DO AGREE WITH. TESTIMONY. BUT AS I THINK THE COURT KNOWS, AND WE HAVE FELT IT'S A DIFFERENCE, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A DIFFERENCE IN THE TRIAL BEFORE JUDGE ROBINSON AND THE TRIAL HERE, IS OUR ABILITY TO GET WITNESSES WHO NO LONGER WORK FOR RAMBUS AND HAVE NO PARTICULAR TIES TO RAMBUS TO APPEAR VOLUNTARILY CONTINUES TO BE A STRUGGLE WHEN WE'RE IN DELAWARE, OR OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IT'S MUCH EASIER FOR US TO PROCURE THEIR ATTENDANCE HERE. AND WE DO THINK IT'S PREFERABLE FOR THEIR TESTIMONY TO BE TAKEN LIVE RATHER THAN THROUGH DEPOSITION OR PRIOR TRIAL TESTIMONY. SO WE WOULD URGE YOU TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS TRIAL AS EXPEDITIOUSLY AS POSSIBLE WITH WHICHEVER PARTIES, WE THINK IT SHOULD INCLUDE MICRON, BUT CLEARLY I RECOGNIZE MICRON'S IN A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN THE OTHER THREE, AND INDEED EACH OF THE OTHER THREE IS IN A DIFFERENT POSITION, HYNIX HAVING TRIED THE CASE AND RECEIVED A DECISION; SAMSUNG HAVING TRIED IT AND AWAITING A DECISION; NANYA NOT HAVING YET TRIED THE AND WE HAVE LOTS OF CAPTURED

44

15:53:08 15:53:09 15:53:12 15:53:14 15:53:17 15:53:18 15:53:20 15:53:21 15:53:24 15:53:26 15:53:30 15:53:32 15:53:36 15:53:39 15:53:41 15:53:43 15:53:46 15:53:50 15:53:52 15:53:56 15:53:59 15:54:01 15:54:04 15:54:04 15:54:07

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

SPOLIATION. I THINK THERE ARE DIFFERENCES THERE, BUT I THINK WITH WHICHEVER PARTIES, WE THINK IT SHOULD BE ALL FOUR, THAT TRIAL SHOULD MOVE FORWARD AS SOON AS WE CAN. I THINK IT'S IN THE INTERESTS OF JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND EFFICIENCY. AND, IN FACT, I THINK WHAT IT WOULD ALLOW IS IT WOULD ALLOW A DECISION IN THIS CASE, WHICH AFTER THE TRIAL THAT IS CURRENTLY SET, WE WILL HAVE COMPLETED TRIAL OF ALL OF THE ISSUES FOR SAMSUNG; AND IF MICRON IS IN IT, ALL OF THE ISSUES FOR MICRON; AND WHAT WILL REMAIN TO BE TRIED, I THINK, IS JUST THE NANYA SPOLIATION CLAIM. SO WE WOULD BE ABLE -- AND I THINK THE TIMING WOULD BE SUCH THAT THE APPEALS WOULD ULTIMATELY BE CONSOLIDATED, THAT A TRIAL NOW WOULD RESULT IN ALL OF THOSE ISSUES, AND PERHAPS WE COULD DO THE NANYA ONE QUICKLY AND EVEN THE NANYA ONE BEING PUT ON THE SAME APPELLATE SCHEDULE, SO THAT ALL OF THE ISSUES AND FINAL JUDGMENTS IN ALL OF THE CASES COULD BE BEFORE THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AT ONE TIME. THAT, I THINK, WOULD ACCOMPLISH MORE IN THE INTERESTS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND MORE TO

45

15:54:09 15:54:15 15:54:18 15:54:20 15:54:23 15:54:27 15:54:31 15:54:34 15:54:39 15:54:47 15:54:53 15:54:56 15:55:03 15:55:08 15:55:10 15:55:12 15:55:13 15:55:14 15:55:22 15:55:25 15:55:31 15:55:36 15:55:39 15:55:42 15:55:45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ACHIEVE THE GOAL THAT SOME OF THE MANUFACTURERS' COUNSEL HAVE SPOKEN TO OF SORT OF GETTING AN INDUSTRY-WIDE RESOLUTION. THAT WOULD GIVE THE

FEDERAL CIRCUIT ALL OF THE PARTIES AND ALL OF THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF THEM AT ONE TIME. THE COURT: COSTS HAVE BEEN A CONCERN OF

MINE ALL ALONG, BUT, FRANKLY, HAVEN'T APPEARED TO BE MUCH OF A CONCERN OF THE PARTIES, BUT I'M NOW HEARING TALK OF CONCERNS FROM MICRON AND RAMBUS AND OTHERS. IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HAVE THE PARTIES ADDRESS THE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY/ECONOMY ISSUE FOR ME, AND PERHAPS EVEN SUPPORT THAT BY SOME EVIDENCE. MR. STONE: INCLUDE THAT -THE COURT: BECAUSE THAT'S A REAL ISSUE WELL, WE CERTAINLY WILL

IN MY MIND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S MORE EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE TO GET EVERYTHING WOUND UP NOW, OR TO TAKE UP SOME ISSUES THAT ARE ISSUES THAT, AT LEAST IN MY VIEW, COULD PRESENT SOME GENUINELY TOUGH ISSUES ON APPEAL THAT COULD GO EITHER WAY. MR. STONE: AND I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO

TRY TO COLLECT THOSE THOUGHTS AND SOME EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT.

46

15:55:46 15:55:49 15:55:51 15:55:54 15:55:57 15:56:00 15:56:02 15:56:07 15:56:10 15:56:13 15:56:14 15:56:16 15:56:17 15:56:19 15:56:22 15:56:25 15:56:26 15:56:31 15:56:34 15:56:37 15:56:40 15:56:42 15:56:45 15:56:48 15:56:49

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DISAGREE.

BUT I THINK, TO THE EXTENT I HAVE HAD SOME TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT, MY VIEW IS, AT THE MOMENT AT LEAST, THAT WE ACHIEVE REAL EFFICIENCIES BY PROCEEDING FORWARD TO TRIAL AND TRYING TO GET ALL THE ISSUES IN FRONT OF THE APPELLATE COURT. OUR HISTORY IN THIS CASE HAS SUGGESTED THAT, AS ISSUES HAVE BEEN DECIDED, BUT ENTIRE CLAIMS HAVEN'T BEEN DECIDED, THAT IT HASN'T DONE MUCH TO ADVANCE THE ULTIMATE RESOLUTION OF THE CASES. THE COURT: UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T

MR. STONE:

IT HAS SOMETIMES CHANGED THE

DIRECTION WE'VE BEEN POINTED IN FROM TIME TO TIME, AND IT HAS MOVED US ON DIFFERENT COURSES, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S RESULTED IN THE CONCLUSION THAT I THINK YOU HEAR EVERYBODY SAYING IS DESIRABLE. THEY OBVIOUSLY ALL WANT A CONCLUSION THAT GOES ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I DON'T HEAR ANYBODY SAYING TODAY THEY DON'T WANT SOME FINALITY, AND I THINK THAT -- AND I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS IT IN OUR BRIEF -- THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT I'VE AT LEAST SKETCHED OUT WOULD BEST ACHIEVE THAT. THE COURT: MR. STONE: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

47

15:56:50 15:56:51 15:56:53 15:56:57 15:56:58 15:57:03 15:57:05 15:57:07 15:57:14 15:57:16 15:57:21 15:57:24 15:57:27 15:57:30 15:57:32 15:57:35 15:57:39 15:57:42 15:57:47 15:57:50 15:57:53 15:57:58 15:58:00 15:58:05 15:58:07

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT: BRIEF COMMENTS? MR. POWERS: AND ONE QUESTION.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL

JUST TWO ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS

ONE ADDITIONAL THOUGHT IS THAT OPTION A AS LAID OUT BY YOUR HONOR HAS THE ADDITIONAL ADVANTAGE OF ALLOWING THE PATENT OFFICE PROCEDURES TO LET PLAY OUT AS WELL, AND THAT ADDS, AS YOUR HONOR RECALLS FROM THE PRIOR MOTION, SIGNIFICANT WEIGHT TO THE JUDICIAL ECONOMY AND FAIRNESS CONSIDERATIONS, BECAUSE IF YOU FOLLOWED OPTION A, YOU WOULD, IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, HAVE FINAL DECISIONS FROM THE PTO ON THE PATENTS AT ISSUE. THE PATENT OFFICE HAS BEEN PROGRESSING TOWARDS THAT ALREADY. WE NOW HAVE FINAL DECISIONS,

I BELIEVE, IN ALL THE PATENTS STATING THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL NEW QUESTION OF PATENTABILITY, AND IF, IN FACT, ALL OF THOSE PATENTS ARE FOUND INVALID, THEN I THINK YOUR HONOR WILL SEE THE JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AS BEING QUITE SIGNIFICANT. THE COURT: TOP OF MY HEAD. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF GOING TO JUDGMENT ON THIS CASE WITH RESPECT TO THE RE-EXAM? MR. POWERS: IT WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT AT WHAT -- I DON'T KNOW OFF THE

48

15:58:09 15:58:12 15:58:15 15:58:18 15:58:19 15:58:21 15:58:23 15:58:28 15:58:31 15:58:35 15:58:38 15:58:40 15:58:43 15:58:46 15:58:49 15:58:53 15:58:54 15:58:55 15:58:57 15:58:58 15:59:00 15:59:02 15:59:06 15:59:10 15:59:12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE MOMENT.

THE WAY IT WORKS IS THE RE-EXAM

PROGRESSES AND THE APPEALS PROGRESS, AND WHICHEVER ONE IS DECIDED FIRST AT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT DECIDES THE OTHER. THE COURT: MR. POWERS: SO -- OKAY. SO IF THE PTO -- LET'S SAY

ALL THE -- THAT PATENT X WAS FOUND INVALID, RAMBUS APPEALED THAT TO THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT, AND THAT APPEAL STARTED BEFORE, OR WAS RESOLVED BEFORE ANY APPEAL FROM A SIMILAR VALIDITY QUESTION ON THE SAME PATENT HERE, THAT DECIDES THE QUESTION. THE COURT: SO AN INITIAL DECISION

FROM -- OR PTO DECISION THAT THE PATENTS ARE INVALID, OR A DECISION FROM THIS COURT THAT THE PATENTS -- THAT A PATENT WAS INVALID DOESN'T STOP THE OTHER ONE? MR. POWERS: THE COURT: DECISION THAT DOES? MR. POWERS: THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. CORRECT. IT'S ONLY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

SECOND -- THE SECOND THOUGHT -- AND OBVIOUSLY YOUR HONOR DENIED THAT MOTION TO STAY UNDER SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I DON'T THINK -- I DON'T THINK IT'S -- I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT

49

15:59:17 15:59:20 15:59:23 15:59:24 15:59:27 15:59:31 15:59:35 15:59:41 15:59:45 15:59:48 15:59:50 15:59:54 15:59:56 15:59:58 16:00:01 16:00:03 16:00:06 16:00:06 16:00:07 16:00:09 16:00:11 16:00:12 16:00:14 16:00:15 16:00:17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PROCESS PLAY ITSELF OUT LENDS SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONAL WEIGHT IN FAVOR OF OPTION A OVER OPTION B. A SECOND THOUGHT WITH REGARD TO THE COSTS OF PROCEEDING FORWARD, PROCEEDING WITH THE PARTIES, AND THIS IS TRUE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE V, IN THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE, THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT WOULD BE SPENT BY BOTH SIDES ON GOING TO TRIAL CAN BE MUCH BETTER SPENT IN MANY OTHER WAYS. THE -- THE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ARE AFFECTING EVERY SINGLE COMPANY IN THIS ROOM IN A VERY, VERY SUBSTANTIAL WAY, AND I THINK THAT CAN'T BE IGNORED. THE COURT: AND, YET, THEY CAN'T FOR SOME

REASON REACH ANY KIND OF RESOLUTION. MR. POWERS: THE -THE COURT: MR. POWERS: RIGHT. WITHOUT COMMENTING ON WHO'S IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO, AND

NOT TANGOING, IT TAKES TWO. THE COURT: MR. POWERS: UNILATERALLY. THE COURT: WELL, IT TAKES MORE THAN TWO RIGHT. NO PARTY CAN DO THAT

IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE MARKETPLACE.

50

16:00:19 16:00:21 16:00:24 16:00:26 16:00:29 16:00:31 16:00:34 16:00:42 16:00:47 16:00:52 16:00:56 16:00:58 16:01:01 16:01:04 16:01:05 16:01:07 16:01:11 16:01:14 16:01:16 16:01:19 16:01:23 16:01:25 16:01:31 16:01:35 16:01:42

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. POWERS:

THAT'S FAIR.

THE THIRD POINT, WHICH IS REALLY A QUESTION, HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER YOUR HONOR WANTS TO CONTINUE TO PROCEED WITH THE HEARING WE HAD SCHEDULED FOR FRIDAY AFTERNOON. THE COURT: MY SUGGESTION WAS, IF I

DIDN'T SAY IT AT THE BEGINNING, WAS TO FREE THE PARTIES UNTIL THE 30TH, AND THEN SCHEDULE PERHAPS TWO DAYS THE WEEK OF THE 9TH TO -- TWO HALF DAYS THE WEEK OF THE 9TH TO FINISH UP PRETRIAL MATTERS. MR. POWERS: MR. BOBROW: OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOUR HONOR, VERY BRIEFLY ON

THE ISSUE OF THE CERTIFICATION POINT THAT YOU RAISED. I SIMPLY WANTED TO ECHO THE THOUGHT THAT MR. NISSLY HAD, WHICH IS THAT, AND PARTICULARLY IN MICRON'S CASE, I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR, PREJUDICIAL, TO CERTIFY THE ANTITRUST ISSUES FROM THE CONSOLIDATED CONDUCT TRIAL UNLESS AND UNTIL THE COURT RESOLVES THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT TO YOU ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND WE HAVE OUR DECISION ON WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE UNCLEAN HANDS, SPOLIATION, AND MISCONDUCT ISSUES, BECAUSE JUDGE ROBINSON'S FINDING THAT THE ANTITRUST CASE AND DEFENSE WAS TAINTED IS, WE SUBMIT AND WILL

51

16:01:45 16:01:47 16:01:49 16:01:52 16:01:56 16:01:59 16:02:01 16:02:03 16:02:04 16:02:07 16:02:08 16:02:11 16:02:14 16:02:15 16:02:22 16:02:24 16:02:27 16:02:31 16:02:32 16:02:34 16:02:37 16:02:39 16:02:42 16:02:44 16:02:45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

BRIEF, BINDING ON THIS COURT. AND BECAUSE OF THAT TAINT, TO THEN CERTIFY THAT ISSUE WITHOUT TAKING TO GROUND THE ISSUE OF MISCONDUCT AND THE ISSUE OF SPOLIATION AS TO MICRON IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. THOSE ISSUES, IT SEEMS TO ME, HAVE TO GO UP AT THE SAME TIME. AND WHAT THE -THE COURT: MR. BOBROW: WHAT'S -I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND YOUR

HONOR TO SAY THAT ALL OF THOSE SPOLIATION ISSUES WERE GOING TO GET RESOLVED AND CERTIFIED AS WELL. PERHAPS I MISUNDERSTOOD. THE COURT: I'M -- MY CONCERN --

CERTAINLY MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT ALL SPOLIATION ISSUES WOULD GO AT THE SAME TIME. THE ONES FROM

JUDGE ROBINSON WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSOLIDATED IN SOME WAY. I COULDN'T DO THAT. MR. BOBROW: BUT -- YES, YOU CAN, IN

EFFECT, BY FINDING THAT IT HAS COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL EFFECT AND DETERMINING IN THIS CASE, AND ESSENTIALLY ENTERING THOSE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE WITHOUT THAT, THEN WE'RE PREJUDICED. SO THAT'S MY POINT IS WE HAVE -THE COURT: WHY?

52

16:02:47 16:02:48 16:02:51 16:02:54 16:02:57 16:02:58 16:03:00 16:03:01 16:03:04 16:03:07 16:03:09 16:03:13 16:03:16 16:03:18 16:03:18 16:03:20 16:03:24 16:03:25 16:03:27 16:03:30 16:03:35 16:03:39 16:03:39 16:03:42 16:03:45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BOBROW:

BECAUSE SHE HAS MADE A

FINDING THAT WE DIDN'T GET A FAIR TRIAL, IN EFFECT, ON THE ISSUE OF ANTITRUST. SHE FOUND THAT THERE

WERE INNUMERABLE DOCUMENTS ACROSS RAMBUS'S BUSINESS THAT HAD BEEN SPOLIATED. THE COURT: APPEAL, RIGHT? MR. BOBROW: WELL, PRESUMABLY RAMBUS MAY BUT THAT'S GOING TO GO UP ON

DECIDE TO APPEAL THAT IN THE DELAWARE CASE. I'M SAYING THAT IN THIS CASE, TO ALLOW CERTIFICATION AS TO JUST PHASE 1 OF THE 244 CASE -WE HAVE THE 244 MICRON-ONLY CASE. THE ONLY ASPECT

OF THAT THAT HAS GONE TO TRIAL IS THE CONDUCT PHASE. THAT PHASE, WE SUBMIT, HAS -- BY JUDGE ROBINSON'S FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION, THAT PHASE HAS BEEN TAINTED. TO ALLOW THAT TO GO UP ON APPEAL AND FORCE MICRON TO THEN APPEAL THAT ISSUE IN A VACUUM IN THIS CASE ALONE, WITH ONLY THE HYNIX SPOLIATION DECISION GOING UP AS WELL IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR TO MICRON. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT AS TO MICRON, EITHER WE HAVE, AND WE THINK IT'S PROPER, WE HAVE A SPOLIATION DECISION BASED UPON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL,

53

16:03:48 16:03:53 16:03:53 16:03:55 16:03:58 16:04:02 16:04:04 16:04:08 16:04:11 16:04:12 16:04:14 16:04:16 16:04:19 16:04:21 16:04:23 16:04:25 16:04:29 16:04:32 16:04:35 16:04:36 16:04:39 16:04:42 16:04:42 16:04:44 16:04:46

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

OR WE HAVE TO HAVE PHASE 3 ADJUDICATED IN THIS CASE. WE THINK THAT WOULD BE IMPROPER BECAUSE, AS RAMBUS SAID, AND I THINK EVERYBODY AGREED, THERE SHOULD BE ONE SHOT AND RAMBUS HAD IT AND LOST. BUT THERE ARE THREE PHASES TO THIS CASE, AND ALLOWING THAT RECORD TO GO UP WITHOUT GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO LITIGATE PHASE 3 OF THIS CASE WE THINK IS UNFAIR. JUDGE ROBINSON FOUND THAT OUR DEFENSE WAS PREJUDICED. AND THEN TO ALLOW IT TO GO UP ON THE HYNIX RECORD IS NOT FAIR TO MICRON. NOW, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER CLAIM CONSTRUCTION GOES UP IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT QUESTION, BUT THE ISSUE OF THE ANTITRUST CASE AND US BEING FORCED TO DEAL WITH THAT ON APPEAL NOW SEEMS TO ME IS FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. THE COURT WOULD HAVE TO ENTER, ESSENTIALLY, THE JUDGMENT OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND THEN, OF COURSE, THAT OPTION BECOMES VIABLE FOR MICRON. SHORT OF THAT, IT'S NOT. THE COURT: IF THE COURT OF APPEALS

CONSOLIDATED THE APPEALS, RAMBUS'S APPEAL FROM THE

54

16:04:50 16:04:55 16:04:56 16:04:59 16:05:02 16:05:04 16:05:06 16:05:08 16:05:11 16:05:14 16:05:15 16:05:17 16:05:20 16:05:23 16:05:29 16:05:32 16:05:33 16:05:36 16:05:40 16:05:43 16:05:49 16:05:54 16:05:57 16:06:00 16:06:03

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MICRON CASE WITH AN APPEAL FROM THIS CASE, THAT WOULD SOLVE THE PROBLEM, WOULDN'T IT? MR. BOBROW: THE COURT: MR. BOBROW: YOU MEAN THE DELAWARE CASE? YES, IF I MISSPOKE. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE IS

CONSOLIDATION, I THINK THAT AMELIORATES THE ISSUE. BUT I THINK THAT HAS TO GO UP IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS MICRON TO BE ABLE TO HAVE, IN HAND ON THAT APPEAL, THAT ISSUE BEING ADJUDICATED IN ITS FAVOR. OTHERWISE WE'RE STUCK WITH A RECORD WE DIDN'T CREATE AND WERE NOT GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE FULLY AND COMPLETELY ON APPEAL. THE COURT: MR. NISSLY: COUPLE OF BRIEF POINTS. I THINK THE DISCUSSION WITH MR. STONE AND MR. BOBROW HIGHLIGHTS A POINT THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE BEFORE, WHICH IS THAT THIS SPOLIATION ISSUE IS THE ISSUE WHICH CUTS ACROSS ALL OF THESE CLAIMS, AND EVERY TIME ANOTHER ISSUE GETS TOUCHED OR ANOTHER ISSUE GETS BROUGHT IN, WE DEVELOP ALL THESE OTHER ARGUMENTS AND COMPLICATIONS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THIS DECISION ON THAT ISSUE AND THIS DECISION ON THE OTHER ISSUE. OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I'LL JUST MAKE A

55

16:06:09 16:06:11 16:06:14 16:06:16 16:06:19 16:06:21 16:06:25 16:06:29 16:06:32 16:06:35 16:06:38 16:06:38 16:06:40 16:06:42 16:06:44 16:06:47 16:06:51 16:06:53 16:06:54 16:06:54 16:07:01 16:07:09 16:07:13 16:07:17 16:07:20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

PEOPLE ASK ME, HOW COME THIS CASE IS SO COMPLICATED? AND I EXPLAIN, LOOK, THERE ARE A LOT

OF ISSUES HERE THAT CUT ACROSS A LOT OF MANUFACTURERS WITH VERY DIFFICULT LAW. BUT HERE WE HAVE AN ISSUE THAT DOES CUT ACROSS, IT DOES CUT THIS KNOT, AND IF WE COMPLICATE IT WITH THE CONDUCT CASE AND ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES, IT SEEMS TO ME WE ARE DOING SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD NOT DO IN TERMS OF JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY AND THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO CUT THROUGH IT. THE COURT: LET ME RAISE THE QUESTION,

THOUGH, THAT I THINK YOU RAISED. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE CUT THIS CASE UP IN A VARIETY -- OR THESE CASES UP IN A VARIETY OF WAYS IN THE HOPES OF BEING EFFICIENT. WHETHER IN

HINDSIGHT WE HAVE BEEN OR NOT IS ANOTHER QUESTION PERHAPS. MR. NISSLY: THE COURT: RIGHT. BUT IF WE CARVE OUT THE

SPOLIATION ISSUE AND THAT GOES UP ON APPEAL AND THE MANUFACTURERS AREN'T FULLY SUCCESSFUL ON THEIR -OR IN THEIR POSITION ON APPEAL, THE COURT SAYS, "WELL, THERE'S SPOLIATION, BUT THERE WAS TOO HARSH A REMEDY, "OR "YES, THERE WAS SPOLIATION, BUT

56

16:07:25 16:07:28 16:07:30 16:07:31 16:07:39 16:07:44 16:07:53 16:07:59 16:08:02 16:08:04 16:08:07 16:08:13 16:08:15 16:08:23 16:08:33 16:08:37 16:08:43 16:08:49 16:08:55 16:08:57 16:08:59 16:09:00 16:09:03 16:09:07 16:09:10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THERE'S NO SHOWING THAT ANY MATERIAL DOCUMENTS WERE MISSING," OR WHATEVER -MR. NISSLY: THE COURT: RIGHT. -- THEN IT COMES BACK AND WE

TRY THE CASE WITHOUT A RESOLUTION OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OR OTHER ISSUES, CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BEING THE MAIN ONE, OR -- AND WE HAVE TO DO IT OVER, PERHAPS DO IT AGAIN, WHICH IS GOING TO PUT THE FINAL RESOLUTION FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHY DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE EITHER TO GO UP ON APPEAL ON EVERYTHING, ESSENTIALLY, THAT'S POSSIBLE TO GO UP ON -- NOW, PERHAPS, WITHOUT THE SAMSUNG LICENSING ISSUE -- SO THAT THE RULES ARE PRETTY CLEAR WHEN THE CASE COMES BACK TO BE TRIED, IF IT COMES BACK, AS OPPOSED TO DOING AN APPEAL THAT STAYS EVERYTHING ELSE AND IF THE MANUFACTURERS AREN'T FULLY SUCCESSFUL ON THE SPOLIATION, WE'VE STILL GOT ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES REMAINING, WHICH COULD REQUIRE ANOTHER APPEAL AND ANOTHER TRIAL? MR. NISSLY: MY THOUGHT IN RESPONSE TO AND, AGAIN, THE CLAIM

THAT IS THIS, YOUR HONOR:

CONSTRUCTION IS A, IS ONE THAT PERHAPS BELONGS IN ITS OWN BUCKET BECAUSE OF THE ROLE OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND THE DE NOVO REVIEW.

57

16:09:13 16:09:16 16:09:20 16:09:23 16:09:24 16:09:26 16:09:29 16:09:32 16:09:35 16:09:37 16:09:39 16:09:42 16:09:45 16:09:49 16:09:51 16:09:54 16:09:57 16:10:00 16:10:03 16:10:04 16:10:07 16:10:11 16:10:13 16:10:14 16:10:16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

BUT WHAT I SUGGEST TO YOU IS THAT IF WE GET THE SPOLIATION ISSUE RESOLVED, ALL THOSE OTHER ISSUES HAVE BEEN TRIED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. RECORD IS COMPLETE. AS THE COURT NOTED, ALL THESE WITNESSES HAVE BEEN DEPOSED MULTIPLE TIMES. VIDEO DEPOSITION TAPES AVAILABLE. THEY ALL HAVE ALL OF THIS WORK THE

THAT HAS BEEN DONE OVER ALL THESE YEARS IS NOT GOING AWAY. BUT IF 15 ISSUES GO UP TO THE COURT OF APPEAL ON ALL THESE VARIOUS ASPECTS, I SUBMIT AND SUGGEST TO THE COURT THAT THAT'S NOT A WAY TO PROCEED HERE, IT'LL MAKE THINGS WORSE, AND THAT THE WAY TO PROCEED IS TO CARVE OUT THIS ONE ISSUE THAT DOES GO ACROSS ALL OF THESE PATENTS AND ALL OF THESE CLAIMS AND FIND OUT, ONCE AND FOR ALL, IS RAMBUS PERMITTED TO ASSERT THESE CLAIMS OR NOT, BY THE COURT OF APPEAL, AND GET THAT RESOLVED. EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN THE CAN IN THE SENSE THAT YOU HAVE CONSTRUED THESE CLAIMS, OR MAYBE THE CIRCUIT TAKES A LOOK AT THAT. THESE

ISSUES HAVE BEEN TRIED AND THEN WE SEE WHERE WE ARE. BUT WE START TALKING ABOUT APPEALING DETERMINATIONS FROM THE CONDUCT CASE WHEN MICRON

58

16:10:19 16:10:22 16:10:25 16:10:28 16:10:31 16:10:34 16:10:35 16:10:37 16:10:38 16:10:41 16:10:42 16:10:45 16:10:47 16:10:48 16:10:50 16:10:54 16:10:59 16:11:02 16:11:06 16:11:08 16:11:11 16:11:13 16:11:15 16:11:20 16:11:22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ARGUES, "NOT FAIR AS TO US," WE ARGUE THAT WASN'T FAIR, THAT TRIAL WAS TAINTED BY SPOLIATION, THERE ARE ALL THESE OTHER COMPLEX ISSUES AND FACTS THAT MAKE IT SO DIFFICULT TO SORT OUR WAY THROUGH THAT WE OUGHT TO FOCUS ON THE ONE ISSUE THAT'LL CUT ACROSS ALL OF THESE. THE COURT: FINAL? MR. STONE: THE COURT: UM -YOU CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE TO. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY FINAL

I JUST WANT TO GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE. MR. STONE: THE LATTER POINT. I JUST THINK WE KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THE MANUFACTURERS BROUGHT THEIR JEDEC CLAIM AGAINST RAMBUS AND WOULD INTEND TO PURSUE IT SOME DAY IN ANY EVENT, SO THAT ISSUE IS GOING UP. I THINK WE WILL SEE THAT IT COULD GO UP ON CERTIFICATION AS TO THE PARTIES OTHER THAN HYNIX WHERE IT WOULD BE A FINAL JUDGMENT VERY QUICKLY. CERTAINLY IN SAMSUNG'S CASE, AFTER THE TRIAL THAT YOU'VE SUGGESTED WE WOULD START IN FEBRUARY, AS SOON AS THAT TRIAL ENDS SAMSUNG WOULD HAVE A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THE CASES HERE AND WOULD BE ABLE TO GO UP. I JUST THINK -- JUST AS TO

59

16:11:23 16:11:26 16:11:28 16:11:30 16:11:32 16:11:36 16:11:39 16:11:40 16:11:42 16:11:45 16:11:49 16:11:51 16:11:55 16:11:57 16:11:59 16:12:02 16:12:05 16:12:08 16:12:11 16:12:14 16:12:16 16:12:19 16:12:22 16:12:25 16:12:27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

AND THERE WOULD THEN BE, UNDER -- I GUESS MR. BOBROW CORRECTED ME. THERE WOULD THEN BE, UNDER OUR VIEW OF THE IMPLICATIONS OF JUDGE ROBINSON'S RULING, A TRIAL ON THE SPOLIATION HERE INVOLVING BOTH MICRON AND NANYA, AND AT THAT TIME THEIR CASES WOULD BE DONE. IF THAT WAS DONE PROMPTLY, THE APPEAL, EVEN OF A FINAL JUDGMENT IN THOSE CASES, WOULD BE IN TIME TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE OTHERS. SO I DO THINK WE SHOULD ADDRESS THIS AND WE SHOULD LOOK AT REALISTIC TIME TABLES AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THAT WOULD HAPPEN. BUT THERE IS NO DOUBT, I THINK, THAT A FINAL APPEAL IN SAMSUNG OF ALL OF THE ISSUES WOULD BE ABLE TO BE CONSOLIDATED WITH AN APPEAL IN HYNIX I GIVEN THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE YOU'VE SORT OF LAID OUT, AND PERHAPS THE MICRON ISSUES, AND CERTAINLY, DEPENDING ON YOUR RULING ON THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CONSEQUENCES OF JUDGE ROBINSON'S RULING, THAT RULING WOULD BE PART OF WHATEVER WENT UP HERE IN ANY EVENT IF THERE WERE CERTIFICATION OF THE CONDUCT TRIAL OR THE JEDEC ISSUES AS TO MICRON. SO I THINK IN THE -- THE CONCERN THAT

60

16:12:29 16:12:32 16:12:34 16:12:39 16:12:42 16:12:44 16:12:47 16:12:51 16:12:53 16:12:56 16:12:58 16:13:01 16:13:02 16:13:03 16:13:04 16:13:04 16:13:06 16:13:10 16:13:13 16:13:18 16:13:21 16:13:24 16:13:27 16:13:30 16:13:35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BOBROW EXPRESSED, HE WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THAT REGARD WITH WHATEVER THIS COURT RULES FOLLOWING THE ARGUMENT, SAY, ON JANUARY 30TH. HE'D BE PROTECTED

THERE AND THAT ISSUE WOULD BE PROPERLY PRESENTED. SO I DO THINK THAT THERE IS -- I THINK THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO, THE BEST THING WE CAN DO FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IS TO GIVE THEM AS MANY OF THESE ISSUES THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO DECIDE AT THIS TIME, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US IN THE PAST IS THEIR PREFERENCE FOR HEARING THINGS AFTER FINAL JUDGMENT, AS OPPOSED TO ON AN INTERLOCUTORY BASIS. THE COURT: MR. STONE: MR. POWERS: HONOR. MR. STONE'S SUGGESTION THAT IF YOU WENT TO TRIAL IN THE CASE THAT'S CURRENTLY SET FOR JANUARY, THAT THAT COULD REACH FINAL JUDGMENT SUCH THAT IT COULD BE CONSOLIDATED WITH EVERYTHING ANYWAY AND GO UP IN TIME TO BE HEARD WITH JUDGE ROBINSON'S, THERE'S NO WAY THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE -FOR TWO REASONS: ONE, THERE'S STILL THE OKAY. THANK YOU. VERY BRIEFLY, IF I MAY, YOUR

UNSCHEDULED SUBSEQUENT TRIAL, IN THEORY, WITH BOTH NANYA AND SAMSUNG ON SDR AND DDR, THAT HASN'T EVEN

61

16:13:39 16:13:42 16:13:44 16:13:49 16:13:51 16:13:54 16:13:57 16:14:00 16:14:01 16:14:03 16:14:07 16:14:09 16:14:11 16:14:13 16:14:16 16:14:19 16:14:24 16:14:26 16:14:27 16:14:30 16:14:32 16:14:34 16:14:37 16:14:40 16:14:43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

BEEN SCHEDULED; AND, SECONDLY, THERE WOULD BE THE NEED FOR ALL THE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS. YOU DON'T

JUST ENTER FINAL JUDGMENT THE DAY A JURY COMES BACK ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THAT TAKES MONTHS.

SO IT'S FANTASY TO SUGGEST THAT WE CAN COMBINE ALL OF THIS IN ONE AND GET ALL THE BENEFITS AND GO TO TRIAL IN JANUARY. WORK. SO THAT, THAT I THINK -- I THINK THAT HOPE THAT HE'S HOLDING OUT JUST ISN'T REALISTIC. THE COURT: MR. BOBROW: I, IN 30 SECONDS? MR. STONE'S SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE PROTECTED IF THIS COURT DENIES SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS JUST WRONG. THERE'S NOTHING TO CERTIFY AND IT JUST SO THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT OKAY. I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. MAY THAT JUST DOESN'T

DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. ISSUE.

WE HAVE TO HAVE EITHER, NUMBER ONE, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED BASED UPON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, WHICH WE THINK IS THE ONLY RIGHT THING TO DO HERE GIVEN THAT WE HAD OUR DAY IN COURT WITH RAMBUS AND RAMBUS LOST; OR, NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE SPOLIATION TRIAL OR ELSE ANY RECORD GOING UP AS TO US ON THE ANTITRUST ISSUES IS

62

16:14:46 16:14:48 16:14:50 16:14:53 16:14:56 16:14:59 16:15:02 16:15:05 16:15:08 16:15:09 16:15:11 16:15:14 16:15:16 16:15:19 16:15:22 16:15:24 16:15:30 16:15:37 16:15:44 16:15:46 16:15:48 16:15:51 16:15:53 16:15:56 16:15:58

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

FUNDAMENTALLY UNFAIR. A SCHEDULING ISSUE IF I MAY. THE COURT'S

SUGGESTION OF MOVING THINGS TO THE WEEK OF THE 9TH, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GOING TO GIVE THE PARTIES AND THE COURT ENOUGH TIME TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE RESOLVED GIVEN THE DATE THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED BEFORE IN TERMS OF WHEN THE ISSUE WAS RAISED AS TO WHAT TO DO WITH THE DAMAGES MOTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COURT'S AVAILABLE THE WEEK OF THE 2ND, TOWARDS THE END OF THAT WEEK, BUT PERHAPS THAT'S A -THE COURT: WHY DON'T I -- MS. GARCIA, I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT

UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT HERE. SHE WASN'T GOING TO BE HERE.

MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO IS TO HAVE A COORDINATED CALL WITH HER OR MR. FLETCHER WHEN WE CAN LOOK AT A CALENDAR AND SEE WHAT -- WE COULD TAKE A LOOK NOW, IF YOU WANT. MR. BOBROW: I THINK IT'S -- OBVIOUSLY

THERE'S A LOT OF BRIEFING AND OTHER THINGS TO DO TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE BEST APPROACH IS GOING FORWARD AND WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE THAT TRIAL SCHEDULED OR NOT, AS THE COURT HAD INDICATED BEFORE.

63

16:15:59 16:16:00 16:16:03 16:16:05 16:16:07 16:16:10 16:16:13 16:16:17 16:16:20 16:16:23 16:16:24 16:16:26 16:16:29 16:16:30 16:16:32 16:16:35 16:16:38 16:16:40 16:16:43 16:16:45 16:16:48 16:16:50 16:16:52 16:16:55 16:16:57

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

I WANT TO SCHEDULE IT -- I

WANT A FIRM UNDERSTANDING THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO, WE'RE GOING TO START ON THE 17TH. MR. BOBROW: AND IN THAT EVENT, THEN, THE

ONLY ISSUE THAT I'M RAISING NOW, THEN, IS THE QUESTION VIS-A-VIS THE MOTION THAT WE'LL BE FILING AND OBVIOUSLY THE NEED FOR RESOLUTION EARLIER RATHER THAN LATER AND WHETHER THAT GIVES THE COURT AND THE PARTIES ENOUGH TIME TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY 17 DAYS IN BETWEEN THE TWO. THE COURT: WELL, THEORETICALLY WE WERE

GOING TO START NEXT MONDAY AND YOU WERE GOING TO BE IN HERE ON FRIDAY. MR. BOBROW: I UNDERSTAND, BUT THINGS

HAVE CHANGED, AT LEAST I THINK AS TO MICRON, AS YOU RECOGNIZED IN A FUNDAMENTAL WAY, AND I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT AND FAIR AND JUST THAT GIVEN THAT WE'VE REALLY HAD PHASE 3 OF THIS TRIAL ALREADY, THAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT BE UNDERSTOOD RIGHT AWAY SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A TRIAL ON PATENTS THAT ARE UNENFORCEABLE AS TO MICRON. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THE REASON I RAISE THE ISSUE VIS-A-VIS THE 9TH, OR SCHEDULING THINGS THE WEEK OF THE 9TH, IS UNDER WHAT THE COURT HAD JUST TALKED ABOUT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OPENINGS THE

64

16:17:00 16:17:02 16:17:04 16:17:06 16:17:09 16:17:13 16:17:17 16:17:19 16:17:22 16:17:25 16:17:31 16:17:33 16:17:34 16:17:37 16:17:39 16:17:40 16:17:40 16:17:42 16:17:43 16:17:45 16:17:48 16:17:50 16:17:52 16:17:54 16:17:56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

WEEK OF THE 17TH. MR. STONE: I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I

AGREE WITH MR. BOBROW THAT IT WOULD BE PREFERABLE, I THINK FROM EVERYBODY'S PERSPECTIVE, IF THE REMAINING MOTIONS WERE ARGUED, IF IT WORKS WITH THE COURT'S SCHEDULE, THE WEEK OF THE 2ND. I WOULD GUESS -- IF WE START ON THE 17TH WITH THE CURRENT PLAN, THE QUESTIONNAIRES WOULD BE FILLED OUT ON THE 17TH, AND THEN I GUESS THE JURY SELECTION WOULD PROBABLY BE ON THE -THE COURT: MR. STONE: PROBABLY ON THE 23RD. PROBABLY THE 23RD. SO I

THINK THAT'S -- WITH OPENINGS, I WOULD GUESS, ON THE 24TH IS WHAT I'M -THE COURT: CORRECT. MR. STONE: THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY

WOULD PROBABLY BE THE SCHEDULE. I THINK THE SOONER, THOUGH, WE CAN DO THE MOTIONS -- I AGREE WITH YOU WE WOULD BE DOING MOTIONS THIS FRIDAY AND STARTING NEXT WEEK, BUT I THINK IF IT'S POSSIBLE WITH THE COURT'S SCHEDULE, I'D JOIN IN MR. BOBROW'S REQUEST. AND I'M HAPPY TO MEET AND CONFER WITH THEM AND TALK WITH MS. GARCIA.

65

16:17:58 16:17:59 16:18:03 16:18:11 16:18:15 16:18:17 16:18:20 16:21:44 16:21:47 16:21:49 16:21:52 16:21:54 16:21:56 16:21:57 16:21:59 16:22:00 16:22:02 16:22:04 16:22:06 16:22:08 16:22:09 16:22:12 16:22:13 16:22:14 16:22:25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THE COURT:

MAYBE THE BEST THING TO DO,

IF YOU WANT TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES AND LET ME GO GET MY SCHEDULE, I'LL RISK GETTING MYSELF INTO DANGEROUSNESS, BUT I'LL AT LEAST GIVE YOU DATES THAT ARE AVAILABLE. MR. BOBROW: OKAY.

(WHEREUPON, A RECESS WAS TAKEN.) THE COURT: MY REPORTER CALLED MY

ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT I CAME OUT AND STARTED BLABBING AND DIDN'T HAVE YOU STATE YOUR APPEARANCES, SO WOULD YOU DO THAT AT THIS TIME SO WE HAVE A RECORD OF WHO'S HERE. MR. STONE: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

GREGORY STONE OF MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON ON BEHALF OF RAMBUS. MR. POWERS: CHERENSKY FOR SAMSUNG. MR. BOBROW: MR. FREITAS: NANYA U.S.A. MR. NISSLY: HYNIX, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. LOOKING AT THE KEN NISSLY AND TED BROWN FOR JARED BOBROW FOR MICRON. BOB FREITAS FOR NANYA AND MATT POWERS AND STEVE

CALENDAR, AND OBVIOUSLY I HAD DATES LOCKED OUT FOR THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2ND ON TUESDAY THROUGH

66

16:22:28 16:22:34 16:22:36 16:22:40 16:22:47 16:23:04 16:23:09 16:23:10 16:23:13 16:23:21 16:23:26 16:23:28 16:23:29 16:23:33 16:23:35 16:23:38 16:23:40 16:23:44 16:23:45 16:23:48 16:23:51 16:23:57 16:23:59 16:24:00 16:24:03

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

THURSDAY, SO IF WE WANTED TO -- MAYBE WE SHOULD PICK ONE OF THOSE DATES AND THEN ONE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE WEEK OF THE 9TH. SO YOU WANT TO DO, SAY, WEDNESDAY THE 4TH AT 9:00 O'CLOCK? AND TUESDAY -- OR HOW ABOUT DOES THAT WORK?

WEDNESDAY THE 11TH AT 9:00. MR. STONE:

THAT'S FINE, YOUR HONOR.

AND WHAT TIME WOULD YOU LIKE US HERE ON THE 30TH FOR THAT? THE COURT: THAT'LL HAVE TO BE 2:00

O'CLOCK, BECAUSE I HAVE A FULL CALENDAR THAT MORNING. MR. STONE: MR. POWERS: OKAY. YOUR HONOR, COULD WE DO

EITHER TUESDAY OR THURSDAY INSTEAD OF WEDNESDAY THE 4TH? IS THAT POSSIBLE? THE COURT: WHEN? MR. POWERS: 4TH? INSTEAD OF WEDNESDAY THE SURE. I'M SORRY. INSTEAD OF

AND IF WE COULD DO IT THE 12TH INSTEAD OF THE

11TH, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT, IF POSSIBLE. THE COURT: EVERYBODY? MR. STONE: THE COURT: 5TH AND 12TH, YOUR HONOR? RIGHT. 5TH AND 12TH WORK FOR

67

16:24:03 16:24:05 16:24:06 16:24:07 16:24:10 16:24:12 16:24:16 16:24:27 16:24:29 16:24:30 16:24:31 16:24:34 16:24:37 16:24:37 16:24:39 16:24:39 16:24:40 16:24:41 16:24:42 16:24:43 16:24:45 16:24:47 16:24:49 16:24:50 16:24:50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KNOW.

MR. STONE: MR. BROWN:

YES, THAT'S FINE. WOULD THAT BE IN THE

AFTERNOON, THEN, YOUR HONOR? THE COURT: NO. THE 5TH AND 12TH WOULD

BE IN THE MORNING AT 9:00. AND THEN THE 30TH WOULD BE AT 2:00. NOW, I THINK RAMBUS FILED A COUPLE OF MOTIONS THAT DON'T HAVE HEARING DATES ON THEM. MR. STONE: THE COURT: THAT'S RIGHT, YOUR HONOR. WOULD YOU SEE IF YOU CAN MEET

AND CONFER AND AGREE TO HEAR THOSE AND TELL ME WHAT DATE YOU'RE PLANNING ON DOING THOSE? MR. STONE: THE COURT: YES. IF THERE'S A PROBLEM, LET ME

MR. STONE: THE COURT: MR. BOBROW: THE COURT: MR. STONE: MR. BOBROW: MR. NISSLY: MR. POWERS:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT. NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE?

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

(WHEREUPON, THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS MATTER WERE CONCLUDED.)

68