Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW

Document 3882

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 1 of 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

KENNETH L. NISSLY (SBN 77589) knissly@omm.com SUSAN van KEULEN (SBN 136060) svankeulen@omm.com SUSAN ROEDER (SBN 160897) sroeder@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 473-2600 Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 [Additional counsel listed on signature page.] Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH, Plaintiffs, Case No. C-00-20905 RMW HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant.

HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW

Document 3882

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 2 of 6

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

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. 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 U.S.A., Defendants.

Case No. C-05-00334 RMW

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively “Hynix”) hereby request that the Court take judicial notice of the following items: 1. The following documents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s

reexaminations of Rambus’s patents, which are properly the subject of judicial notice (see Fed. R. Evid. 201; Coinstar, Inc. v. CoinBank Automated Systems, Inc., 998 F.Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D. Cal. 1998)): a. Inter Partes Reexaminations filed with the United States Patent Office: Subject Patent Filing or 371(c) Date Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations

23 24 25 26 27 28 A US Patent No. 6,182,184 Reexam Control No. 95/001,112 November 17, 2008 Attached Hereto As Exhibit

-1-

HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW

Document 3882

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 3 of 6

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 26 27 28

Attached Hereto As Exhibit

Subject Patent

Filing or 371(c) Date

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

US Patent No. 6,182,184 Reexam Control No. 95/001,112 US Patent No. 6,426,916 Reexam Control No. 95/001,122 US Patent No. 6,426,916 Reexam Control No. 95/001,122 US Patent No. 6,452,863 Reexam Control No.95/001,124 US Patent No. 6,452,863 Reexam Control No.95/001,124 US Patent No. 6,378,020 Reexam Control No. 95/001,128 US Patent No. 6,266,285 Reexam Control No. 95/001,131 US Patent No. 6,266,285 Reexam Control No. 95/001,131 US Patent No. 6,314,051 Reexam Control No. 95/001,132 US Patent No. 6,314,051 Reexam Control No. 95/001,132

Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations January 16, 2009

November 20, 2008

January 16, 2009

November 24, 2008

January 16, 2009

December 15, 2008

December 31, 2008

January 22, 2009

December 31, 2008

January 22, 2009

-2-

HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW

Document 3882

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 4 of 6

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 26 27 28

Attached Hereto As Exhibit

Subject Patent

Filing or 371(c) Date

Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations

L

M1

N

US Patent No. 6,378,020 Reexam Control No. 95/000,427 US Patent No. 6,751,696 Reexam Control No. 95/001,133 US Patent No. 6,751,696 Reexam Control No. 95/001,133

January 9, 2009

December 31, 2008

January 22, 2009

b.

The following document issued by the United States Patent Office relating

to U.S. Patent Number 6,715,020 (Reexam Control No. 95/001,008) entitled Action Closing Prosecution (37 CFR 1.949) mailed on December 22, 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit O. 2. The materials identified in Samsung’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed with

this Court on January 19, 2009, in which motion Hynix hereby joins, which are properly the subject of judicial notice for the reasons set forth in that Motion: a. Certain pleadings, transcripts, indices of exhibits, filings, documents and

relevant briefing Micron Technology, Inc. v Rambus Inc., No. 1:00-cv-00792-SLR, United States District Court, District of Delaware (“Delaware Action”). In particular, Hynix requests that the court take judicial notice of the following items attached to the Declaration of Steven Cherensky In Support of Motion for Entry of Motion and for Entry of Judgment of Unenforcement of Rambus’s Asserted Patents as Against Samsung and Dismissal of Rambus’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Samsung Or, in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment filed on January 19, 2008 at D.E. 3127 (“Cherensky Decl.”): Even though the cover sheet filed with the reexamination request stated it was a request relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 (and this number appears on some of the Patent Office records), the Request itself relates to U.S. Patent No. 6,751,696, and the Examiner so construed the request in granting it (see, Exhibit N at p.3.)
-31

HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW

Document 3882

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 5 of 6

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 26 27 28 Decl. at Ex. 11); and 21);

(1)

The order and opinion from the Delaware Action dated January 9,

2009 (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 29); (2) Rambus Inc.’s Supplemental and Second Amended counterclaims

(see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 20); (3) Rambus’s Answer and Counterclaims (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex.

(4) (5)

Micron’s Amended Complaint (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 30); Trial Transcript excerpts dated November 8-9, 13-15, 2007 and

telephonic hearing transcript dated January 16, 2009 (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 10 and 26); (6) the index of trial exhibits dated December 6, 2007(see Cherensky

(7)

relevant briefs from the Delaware Action (Micron’s Post-Trial Brief

Regarding Rambus’s Duty to Preserve Evidence, dated February 5, 2008; Post-Trial Opposition Brief of Rambus Inc. on the Issue of When the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arose, dated March 27, 2008; Micron’s Post-Trial Reply Brief Regarding When Rambus’s Duty to preserve Evidence Arose, dated April 30, 2008; Rambus Inc.’s Post-Trial Brief on Micron’s Unclean Hands Defense, dated June 30, 2008; Micron’s Post-Trial Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct and the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s Spoliation, dated June 30, 2008; Rambus Inc.’s Post-Trial Brief in Response to Micron’s Brief Regarding Rambus’s Alleged Litigation Misconduct and Sanctions, dated August 4, 2008; and Micron’s Reply Post-Trial Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct and the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s Spoliation, dated August 4, 2008) (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 12-18). b. The following documents from the Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, Civ.

No. 3:00cv524, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia case: excerpts from the trial transcript dated February 21-24 and March 1, 2005, (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 1). c. The following documents from the Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Rambus,

Inc., No. 3:05cv406, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia case: the case docket, the index of trial exhibits, Rambus’s Objections to Filing by Samsung, and Samsung’s
-4-

HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW

Document 3882

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 6 of 6

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

submission of the Infineon record, and the exceptional case hearing transcript from (E.D. Va.) litigation (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 5-9); d. Rambus's Opening Brief For Defendant-Appellant Rambus Inc., Samsung

Elecs. Co. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2006-1579 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2006) (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 28)); charts prepared by Samsung showing the Farmwald-Horowitz patent family tree and the accused products involved in both the Delaware Action and this patent trial (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 22, 23); and the expert reports of William Huber (dated August 16, 2001) and Robert Murphy (dated September 5, 2008) (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 4, 19). Dated: January 26, 2009 By: /s/ Kenneth L. Nissly Kenneth L. Nissly KENNETH L. NISSLY SUSAN van KEULEN SUSAN ROEDER O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP KENNETH R. O’ROURKE WALLACE A. ALLAN BELINDA M. VEGA

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
THEODORE G. BROWN III JULIE J. HAN TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH

MP1:1171674.1

25 26 27 28
-5-

HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334