Case: 13-1192

Document: 4

Page: 1

Filed: 02/19/2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT RAMBUS, INC. V MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. Appeal No. 2013-1192 (Reexamination Nos. 95/000,166 and 95/001,122) DOCKETING STATEMENT This Docketing Statement must be completed by all principal counsel and filed with the court within 14 days of the date of docketing. Name of parties you represent Parties are (select one) Rambus Inc. Appellant/Petitioner Appellees Cross-Appellant Intervenor

Tribunal appealed from and case no. Date of judgment/order

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, Appeal No. 2012-001638 Type of case Reexamination

December 10, 2012

Relief sought on appeal

Reversal of decision of PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences None The Board found claims 26 and 28

Relief awarded below (if damages specify)

Briefly describe the judgment/order appealed from

anticipated by Bennett and reversed the examiners decision not to reject claims 26 and 28.

Nature of judgment (select one) Final order, 28 USC 1295 Rule 54(b) Interlocutory order (specify type) Other (explain - see Fed. Cir. R. 28(a)(5))

Case: 13-1192

Document: 4

Page: 2

Filed: 02/19/2013

Name and docket no. of any related cases pending before this court Rambus, Inc. v. Kappos, No. 2012-1634; Rambus, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., No. 20131087

Brief statement of the issues to be raised on appeal

Whether the PTO erred in reversing

the Examiners affirmance of claims 26 and 28 of the 916 patent.

Have there been discussions with other parties relating to settlement of this case? Yes If yes, when were the last such discussions? Before the case was filed below? During the pendency of the case below? Following the judgment/order appealed from? No

If yes, were the settlement discussions mediated? If they were mediated, by whom?

Yes

No

Do you believe that this case may be amenable to mediation?

Yes

No

If you answered no, explain why not

Rambus Inc. settled the case with one third party

requester, Samsung Electronics Co., who is not participating in the appeal. Neither Micron Technology, Inc. nor the PTO has indicated any desire to settle.

Provide any other information relevant to the inclusion of this case in the courts pilot mediation program None.

Case: 13-1192

Document: 4

Page: 3

Filed: 02/19/2013

I certify that I filed an original and one copy of this Docketing Statement with the Clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and served a copy on counsel of record, this 19th day February, 2013 by email via the Courts CM/ECF system. Name of counsel: J. Michael Jakes /s/ J. Michael Jakes Signature of counsel

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 408-4000 Fax #: (202) 408-4400 E-mail address: mike.jakes@finnegan.com

Case: 13-1192

Document: 4

Page: 4

Filed: 02/19/2013

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Docketing Statement for Rambus Inc. were served upon registered counsel by operation of the Courts CM/ECF system on this 19th day of February, 2013, and by email to counsel not registered with the Courts CM/ECF system. Raymond T. Chen, Solicitor United States Patent and Trademark Office MDW 8A15 P.O. Box 1450 Mail Stop 8 Alexandria, VA 22213-1450 tasha.gibbs@uspto.gov David L. McCombs Haynes and Boone, LLP 2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700 Dallas, Texas 75219-7672 david.mccombs@haynesboone.com Tracy W. Druce Novak Druce & Quigg, LLP 1000 Louisiana Ave., 53rd Floor Houston, Texas 77002 tracy.druce@novakdruce.com

/s/ Kay Wylie