SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-03-2012 3:27 pm

Case Number: CJC-09-004607 Filing Date: Feb-03-2012 2: 12 Juke Box: 001 Image: 03481070

GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)

HYNIX ANTITRUST CASES

001C03481 070

1<=6
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

_. c" s;

-,
;:::
0 0:

r-··_·-",\,

0.

I.c~J.

1 SUSMAN GODFREY LLP Marc M. Seltzer (54534) 2 mseItzer@susmangodfrey.com Kathryn P. Hoek (219247) 3 khoek@susmangodfrey.com Kalpana Srinivasan (237460) 4 ksrini vasan@susmangodfrey.com Amy T. Brantly (210893) 5 abrantl y@susmangodfrey.com Bryan J.E. Caforio (261265) 6 bcaforio@susmangodfrey.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950 7 Los Angeles, California 90067~6029 Telephone: (310) 789-3100 8 Facsimile: (310) 789-3150 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 Tessera Technologies, Inc. 11 12 13 Coordination Proceeding 14 Special Title (Rule 3.550) HYNIX ANTITRUST CASES Included actions: Rambus, Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc.

sfal, ~n~ f;,J?"
FEB - .r c 1 ') IOIZ
CLERK OF THE COURT
BY:_~~
PUtyC]erk --

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
)

) )
)

JUDICIAL COUNCIL COORDINATION PROCEEDING NO. 4607 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO No. 04~043 1105 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Case No. 1~06-CV-076688 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Date: February 9,2012 Time: 1:30 p.m. Dept. 304 Judge: Hon. Richard A. Kramer Complaint Filed: December 18, 2006 Trial Date: TBA and Defendants Hynix Semiconductor,
"Hynix")

15 16 17 18

)

) ) ) )

)

19 Tessera Technologies, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., a Korean corporation; 20 and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, 21
22

) )

)

) ) )

) ) )

) ) ) ) )

23 24 25 26 Plaintiff Tessera Technologies,

Inc. ("Tessera")

27 Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor

America,

Inc. (collectively

submit this joint case

28 management statement in advance of the conference before the Court on February 9,2012.

2145105vl/010187

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT

1

PLAINTIFF TESSERA'S

POSITION

2

The Rambus jury came back with its verdict more than two months ago, and thus Tessera's

3 case should be set for trial. For more than five years Tessera has waited to present its claims in 4 court, facing significant roadblocks and delays-none of its own making. With the Rambus trial

5 fully and finally concluded, Tessera respectfully requests the Court set this case to begin trial as 6 soon as possible before Your Honor, Judge McBride, or another available judge. Even Hynix 7 agrees that the time has now come to set this case for trial, previously recommending to the Court 8 a trial date oflate May 2012. Tessera anticipates trial can be completed in a total of approximately 9 20 to 25 trial days with trial time divided equally between the parties, and believes the trial can be 10 completed in early June 2012. 11 12 1. Trial Setting

For more than a year Tessera has requested a trial date shortly following the end of the

13 Rambus trial. Now that the jury has long since returned its verdict in the Rambus trial, Hynix also 14 agrees that this case is ready to proceed to trial. The Rambus trial itself has been completed for 15 well over four months, and the jury returned its verdict in November. This break has provided 16 Hynix's counsel, corporate representative, and witnesses an opportunity to regroup. Accordingly, 17 Tessera requests the Court set this case for trial beginning on April 30, 2012, and allocate 25 days 18 to complete the trial. Assuming the parties follow the same trial schedule as that used at the 19 Rambus trial, the jury would begin deliberating on or before June 12, 2012. Tessera's proposed 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 pre-trial and trial schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

n.

Expected Trial Length

Tessera continues to believe this trial can be comfortably completed in 20-25 trial days and asks this Court to set trial based on that projection. Tessera estimates that the parties can try this matter in approximately 100 to 120 hours, or less, with the trial time divided equally between the parties. Tessera's opportunity estimate is reasonable and practical, and will provide both parties the Tessera's reasonable estimate is

to present fully their arguments.

Furthermore,

significantly longer than the 15 days Judge Komar originally allocated for this trial, and tracks this Court's own statement that the trial should not last more than 30-35 days. See Transcript of

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT

STATEMENT

1 Proceedings, April 12, 2011 at 3:19-26 ("And for the life of me, I can't believe that this case could 2 take more than 30 to 35 - that's an extra week, the five more days - days oftrial."). 3 While there are "no arbitrary limits on trial time . . . trial courts retain great power to

4 prevent civil trials from taking more time than necessary ... and thereby wasting public resources 5 on the back end (too much time) rather than the front (via a mistrial)." Blumenthal v. Superior
6

Court, 137 Cal. App. 4th 672, 683 (2006). Tessera therefore respectfully requests the Court

7 impose a reasonable 20-25 day limit on the case as it works to find a judge who can handle a trial 8 of that length in summer 2012. Imposing such a limit will give the parties sufficient time to litigate 9 fully the case, and also protect California's already strained judicial system from being

10 unnecessarily burdened by the never-ending trial Hynix seeks to present. 11 12 III. Updates Since December Case Management Conference

Since last appearing before the Court in December, Tessera has diligently worked to

13 resolve any outstanding issues and prepare this case for trial. 14 15 A. Motion in Limine Orders The parties have met and conferred extensively regarding the proposed orders from each

16 side's limine motions, which were argued to the Court more than a year ago. Tessera has sent all 17 of its edits and revisions to Hynix, but Tessera is still waiting for Hynix to send revisions based on 18 Tessera's proposed changes, which Tessera sent in November 2011. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. Additional Motions in Limine With its Motion in Limine No.9, Tessera sought to exclude certain Rambus documents

that Hynix never produced during discovery, but which it nonetheless included on its trial exhibit list. At issue were 23 Rambus documents that Tessera had never seen nor had the opportunity to examine during discovery. When hearing argument for Rambus' Motion for a Protective Order regarding the documents, the Court encouraged Tessera to obtain the Rambus documents through the various courts where, according to Hynix, they are publically available. The Court also requested that Tessera provide an update to the Court as to its efforts to obtain the documents, and invited Tessera to seek any necessary additional relief after it had a chance to review the documents.

2
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

1

Utilizing information provided by Hynix, Tessera has retrieved 20 of the 23 Rambus (RTX 10865); R401070-

2 documents at issue. Of the remaining 3 documents {RI24376-RI24384 3 R401076, R40I082-401083

(RTX 6273); R401340 (RTX 7082»), Tessera is currently attempting

4 to retrieve two of these documents from the United States District Court for the District of 5 Delaware. Tessera requested these documents, which were admitted trial exhibits in Micron 6 Technology v. Rambus, Inc., Case No. 1:00-cv-00792-SLR (D. Del.), from the Hon. Sue L.

7 Robinson on March 14, 2011. Judge Robinson denied Tessera's request pending receipt of the 8 Federal Circuit's decision on appeal but stated that she would entertain another request after the
9

Federal Circuit's decision. See Exhibit 2, March 28, 2011, Letter from Judge Robinson to Amy

10 Brantly. Now that the Federal Circuit has ruled, Tessera has requested copies of admitted trial 11 exhibits MTX468 and MTX 581 (R401070-R401076, R401082-401083; R401340). See Exhibits

12 3, June 28, 2011, Letter from Amy Brantly to Judge Robinson and Ex. 4, January 13, 2012, Letter 13 from Amy Brantly to Judge Robinson. To date, Tessera has not been able to locate R12437614 R124384 (RTX 10865) from the files of any of the applicable courts. 15 Now that Tessera has finally had the chance to review 20 of the 23 documents at issue, it from trial. Tessera would be that

16 intends to file a motion in limine to exclude the documents 17 substantially prejudiced

were Hynix allowed to present argument regarding documents

18 Tessera never had the opportunity to examine through depositions or further document requests, 19 and it still has not seen three of the documents at issue. Accordingly, Tessera has reserved time on 20 21 22 23 24 25 March 2, 2012, at 11:30 a.m. for the Court to hear argument regarding Tessera's motion. C. Expert Witness Status Tessera has already presented its damages expert, Dr. Russell Mangum III, for a

supplemental deposition. Tessera previously offered dates for the deposition of its other expert, Einer Elhauge, but Hynix elected not to proceed with the deposition at that time. Tessera has again offered dates for Professor Elhauge, in March and April, but Hynix has not yet advised when it

26 intends to proceed. Hynix has indicated that it intends to present several of its own experts for 27 28 supplemental depositions, but inexplicably has failed to provide dates for any of these depositions despite Tessera's repeated requests. 3
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
'll~<;I()" .. l/(IIi1IQ'7

STATEMENT

1 2

IV.

Conclusion

Tessera has been waiting more than five years for the opportunity to prove its claims, and

3 it continues to do everything it can to keep this case moving forward. With the Rambus trial 4 completed, there is no reason left to deny Tessera its long awaited day in court. Accordingly, 5 Tessera respectfully requests the Court set this Action for trial before Your Honor, Judge

6 McBride, or whomever else is available to preside over the trial of this action as soon as possible. 7 8
9

DEFENDANT

HYNIX'S POSITION

I.

INTRODUCTION

The Rambus jury returned a defense verdict on November 16, 2011, finding that plaintiff Rambus did not prove the alleged conspiracy ~- the same core conspiracy Tessera alleges in this case. Post-verdict proceedings continue, but Hynix agrees that it is appropriate to have this action

10 11 12

13 assigned to Judge McBride for trial setting. 14 15 II. CASE STATUS In

There is still a substantial amount of work to be completed prior to the start of trial.

16 particular: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 economic expert for further deposition. opinions and give another deposition. prior to his deposition. Hynix's packaging and patent expert, DRAM technical expert, and its damages expert will also be produced for further depositions. Hynix's economist will need time to digest those new Expert Discovery. Expert discovery is not yet complete. Tessera is producing its

If appropriate, he may also prepare new studies or analyses

25
26 27

28
4
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Deposition Designations.

Since the parties stipulated to the use of Rambus depositions in

2 addition to the depositions taken in this case, there is a larger volume of deposition testimony 3
4

available for use in Tessera than there was in Rambus. designations be handled in two phases:

Hynix proposes that the deposition for witnesses that testified by Hynix 's

5

first, the designations

6 deposition in Rambus v. Micron, and second, the designations unique to this action. 7 proposed schedule identifies a number of weeks within which objections

to deposition

8 designations could be heard.

This portion of the schedule is based on and consistent with the

9 amount of time it took to resolve deposition designation objections in Rambus. 10
11
12

Final Witness and Exhibit Lists. Jury Instructions and Proposed Special Verdict Forms. Stipulations on Factual or Legal Issues. Trial Subpoenas. The parties must serve trial subpoenas on witnesses they intend to call at

13 14 15 trial. 16

Motions in Limine.

The parties need to submit to the Court proposed orders for the The parties are still negotiating

17 motions in limine this Court heard prior to the Rambus trial. 18
19

several of those orders. Any new motions arising from developments since the last motions were heard will also have to be heard prior to trial. III. TRIAL ASSIGNMENT

20
21

22

Given his extensive knowledge of the factual background, legal issues, and evidentiary

23 record from his handling of the Rambus trial, Hynix submits that judicial resources are best 24 utilized if this action is tried before Judge McBride. By definition, "coordination" is appropriate if 25 it results in the efficient utilization of judicial resources. Cal. Civ, Proc. Code § 404.1. Due to the

26
27

28
5
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
'lA~ Ifl<: .. llfll()1 27

STATEMENT

complex nature of the Tessera and Rambus cases, judicial efficiency will be best promoted 2 by having a judge familiar with the facts, law and evidentiary issues of these cases preside over the 3 4 The parties previously stipulated on the record to extend the statutory five-year period 5 6 under California Code of Civil Procedure § 583.310 by one year to no earlier than December 19, 7 2012. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
") 1 A " 1 f)"" 1 If) 1 f) 1
Q

Tessera trial. Judge McBride should be consulted on trial scheduling for Tessera.

Dated: February 3,2012

ODFREY L.L.P. ltzer (54534) Kathryn P. Hoek (219247) Kalpana Srinivasan (237460) Amy Brantly (210893) Bryan lE. Caforio (261265)

Y & MYERS LLP K nn th . Nissly, Esq. Sus n van Keulen, Esq. Kenneth O'Rourke, Esq. Geoffrey H. Yost, Esq. James Moore, Esq. 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Attorneys for Defendants Hynix Semiconductor Inc. and Hynix Semiconductor America Inc.

STATEMENT

7

EXHIBIT 1

TESSERA'S PROPOSED PRETRIAL AND TRIAL SCHEDULE Date February 24,2012 February 29, 2012 March 12,2012 March 19,2012 March 26,2012 April 2, 2012 April 2, 2012 April 9, 2012 April 16, 2012 April 23, 2012 April 30, 2012 June 12,2012 Event Hearings regarding remaining disputes for MIL Proposed Orders Exchange initial deposition designations Exchange counter-designations and objections to initial designations

Exchange reply designations and objections to counter-designations Hearings regarding all deposition designations Exchange and file final exhibit lists Supplemental Expert Discovery Cutoff Date Exchange and file final witness lists, jury instructions, statement of the case, and verdict forms Exchange and file objections to final exhibit lists Final Pre-Trial Conference Trial Last day for trial based on 25-day imposed trial limit

2148702vllOlO 187

EXHIBIT 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
CHAMBERS OF SUE L. ROBINSON U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE U.S. COURTHOUSE 844 N. KING STREET Unit 31 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801·3568 302 573-6310

March 28, 2011

Amy T. Brantly, Esq. Susman Godfrey L.L.P. Suite 950 1901 Avenue of the Stars Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029 In re: Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR Dear Ms. Brantly: am in receipt of your letter, dated March 14,2011, in which you request copies of certain trial exhibits admitted in the above referenced litigation. Although it is my standard practice to allow dissemination of such to third parties, I am going to deny your request pending receipt of the Federal Circuit's decision on appeal, under the most unusual circumstances of this case. More specifically, this court held that the crimefraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine applied to many of the documents ultimately used at trial. (See D.I. 711) If the Federal Circuit were to reverse any part of this court's various decisions, it is not clear to me what the status of these documents will be. Therefore, to err on the side of caution, I will not make these documents available now, but will entertain another request made after the Federal Circuit's decision.
1

Cordially,

~*~
Sue L. Robinson cc: Counsel of record

EXHIBIT 3

SUSMAN
A RECISTEREO

GODFREY
'-IMITED LlAeIU-rV

L.L.P.
PARTN~R$HIP

190

SUITE 950 I AVENUE OF THE STARS

LOS ANGELES,

CALIFORNIA
(3 I 0) 789-3 100 789'3150

90067·6029

FAX (310)

W'WW,.5USMANQOOFREY_COM

SWrT"i: 5100 I 000
LoUISlANA

Sum: 5100
STREET 90 1 MAlH SlRe:£T DALLAS. TDAS

HOUS ON. T-EXAS 'r 77002.-50'96 (7 I :;l) 65 I ·9366

75202·3775

$£..1,.

(2 I 4) 754-1900

Sum; 3800 I 20 I 'THIRD AVENU'E TIL£, WA.SHII''IIOTON 96 I 0 I -3000 (206) 5 I 6--3880

15,..,.... Fl...OOR 560
N.w YORK. 1,...£xfNGTO!i AYEN'l.J"E NEw YORK

(2 I 2)

10022'6828 336'8330

AMY

T.

BRANTLY

DIRECT DIAL FAX (310)
E-MAIL

789·3

I 50

D'''!';CT DIAL (3 10) 7890;3138

ABAANTl.Y@SUSMAHOODf.rU:Y.COM

June 28, 2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY Judge Sue L. Robinson J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building 844 N. King Street Room 4124 Unit 31 Wilmington, DE 19801-3568 Re: No. CV 00 - 00792; Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc.; In the U.S. District Court District of Delaware (Wilmington) ~
r' " 2m
(J)

c=a c_
N

::0

c: :z:
Y)

-i:;Jr;

CT

~c.:.
-I~..,..(

-0 ::J:

N
W
N

..

,..,e :;0

i:n =r;-I »<: ;00

o ..... rrJ ,..,:;oC

~c:;:;r

00-

Dear Judge Robinson: I am counsel of record for Tessera Technologies, Inc., in a case currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court before Judge Richard Kramer (Tessera Technologies Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., JCep No. 4607, Case No. 1-06CY·076688). By letter dated March 14, 2011, 1 previously requested that the Court allow us access to sixteen trial exhibits used in Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR. Your Honor, by return letter dated March 28, 2011, denied our request pending the receipt of the Federal Circuit's decision on appeaL Your Honor suggested that the Court would entertain another request after the Federal Circuit's decision. In light of the Federal Circuit's recent decision, we are now seeking your consideration in releasing only two admitted trial exhibits from the Micron v, Rambus case. Specifically, we are seeking copies of the following trial exhibits:

MTX468

MTX 581

155S740vl/Ol0187

Judge Sue L. Robinson 1. Caleb Boggs Federal Building June 28,2011 Page 2

If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at 310-789-3138 or at the email address:abrantly@susmangodfrey.com. Sincerely,

1558740vl/Ol0187

EXHIBIT 4

SUSMAN
190

GODFREY
SUITE 950

L. L. P.

I AVENUE

OF THE STARS

LOS ANGELES.

CALIFORNIA
13 10) 789-3 I 00 769-3150

90067-6029

FAX (3101

SUiTE:5 100
I 000
LOUISIMIA

Sljlr~ gO I

5 ~00
I 20

SU1TE 3800 I THIRD AVENlj:f.: 99 10 1-3000 5! 6~3880 560 S!::.J<rI"L'::_ W .... HmCTON S (206)

j 5TH

FL.OQR

STl'iEET

M....N STFU;E;"T I

L~Xlt'O-rOIJ A'n;:tlcJE I ODe z-e '52 e

Ho o s+o« . TE"x ...s 77002-5096 17 I 3; 65 I -9::i56

D.-IL.L-I.S- h.:.-..:;.:,;. 752D~'3775(2 14J 75A-; 900

NEW YOM:"._ N~';I YO~.K

(.2 I 2J 33"3<:3 330

AMY T D,~::cr

B

=;~NTLY

DIA"--3l 0) 789<3 I 32 (

E-MAIL

AaRANTLY@5U5"1ANGOC:~R~Y

CC,~

January 13. 2012

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Judge Sue L Robinson 1. Caleb Boggs Federal Building 844 N. King Street Room 4 I24, Unit 31 Wilmington, DE 19801-3568 Re: No. CY 00-00792; Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc. In the U.S. District Court District of Delaware (Wilmington)

Dear Judge Robinson: I am counsel of record for Tessera Technologies, lnc., in a case currently pending in San Francisco Superior Court before Judge Richard Kramer tTessera Technologies Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc, JCCP No. 4607. Case No. 1-06CY-076688). By letter dated March 14, 2011, r previously requested that the

Court allow us access to sixteen tria! exhibits used in Micron v. Rambus. Civ. No. 00-792-S LR. Your Honor. by return letter dated March 28, 2011, denied our request pending the receipt of the Federal Circuit's decision on appeal. Your Honor suggested that the Court would entertain another request after the Federal Circuit's decision. We subsequently were able to obtain all but two of the necessary documents from other sources. After the Federal Cire uit ruled, by letter dated J LIne 28, 2011, I requested your consideration in releasing only t\VO admitted trial exhibits from the Micron v, Rambus case - MTX 468 and MTX 581. I write to renew that request.

1558740\ liD 10 187

Judge Sue L. Robinson J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building January 13,2011 Page 2

If you have any questions regarding this request please do not hesitate to contact me at 3l 0-789-3138 or at the email address:abrantly@susmangodfrey.com.

Sincerely,

C»v~J*~(\ IJ
Amy T. ~ntly

]55 8740vl/O 10187

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful