Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3148-2

Filed 01/26/2009

Page 1 of 15

EXHIBIT A

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 2 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408) Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com Email: andrea.jeffries@mto.com Email: fred.rowley@mto.com Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769) Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 219202) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: peter.detre@mto.com Email: rose.ring@mto.com Email: jen.polse@mto.com Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Email: rransom@sidley.com Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice) Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice) McKOOL SMITH PC 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com Email: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION RAMBUS INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ) HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) RAMBUS INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,) ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) Case No. C 05-00334 RMW RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: TBD Time: TBD Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Case No. C 05-002298 RMW

RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW Austin 47636v7

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 3 of 48 15

1 2 3

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, vs. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

4 5 6 Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. C 06-00244 RMW

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ____________ or as soon thereafter as counsel may be 7 heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States District Court 8 for the Northern District of California, at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff 9 Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) hereby moves for partial summary judgment as to claim limitations for 10 which the Court has granted summary judgment or which the Manufacturers have not contested,
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

11 for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum. 12 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points 13 and Authorities attached hereto, all of the Court’s records and files in this action, and on such 14 other and further written and oral argument and authorities as may be properly presented at or 15 before the hearing on this matter. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW Austin 47636v7

MCKOOL SMITH

Dated: January 13, 2009

Respectfully submitted, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP MCKOOL SMITH

/s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Rambus Inc.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 4 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. INTRODUCTION As the Manufacturers acknowledge in their December 19, 2008 letter to the Court (Dkt. No. 2948, 334 Case), the Court “rejected as a matter of law most of the Manufacturers’ noninfringement arguments” in its November 24, 2008 Order granting in part Rambus’s motion for summary judgment. Indeed, late last month, the Manufacturers themselves proposed that

they would not contest (but not concede) infringement at trial. As the Manufacturers outlined in their December 29, 2008 letter to the Court, (Dkt. No. 3003, 334 Case), only four categories of claim limitations remain in dispute following the Court’s summary judgment ruling (and that therefore were subject to the Manufacturers’ proposal to not contest infringement at trial). Those four categories are (1) the synchronous output limitations; (2) the synchronous sampling limitations; (3) the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations; and (4) and the “synchronous” device limitations. Rambus agrees with the Manufacturers’ assessment of the claim limitations still at issue for purposes of infringement. Because it now appears likely that infringement will be tried, Rambus files the present motion in order to streamline the remaining infringement issues for trial by identifying the specific claim limitations that remain in dispute.1 The motion is based on the Court’s prior
1

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

In its November 24 order, the Court already summarily adjudicated that certain limitations are present in the accused products. Rambus includes these limitations in this Motion only to seek a single comprehensive order regarding all claim limitations as to which summary adjudication is appropriate so as to eliminate any doubt as to what remains a matter of disputed material fact for trial. 1
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW Austin 47636v7

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 5 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

summary judgment ruling, the infringement issues raised by the Manufacturers’ experts, and the Manufacturers’ own recent admissions to the Court. The time has passed for the Manufacturers to offer genuine issues of fact relating to claim limitations that (a) were not contested by the Manufacturers in their experts’ reports and/or (b) were resolved in Rambus’s favor by the Court’s November 24, 2008 summary judgment ruling. In other words, Rambus is entitled to summary adjudication that all claim limitations -- other than those that fall within the four categories identified in the Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter to the Court -- are present in the accused products. Accordingly, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court issue an order of partial summary judgment of infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted in Exhibits A and B to Rambus’s motion, which Rambus believes the parties agree are not subject to dispute, such that at trial the Manufacturers may dispute infringement only as to the claim limitations identified in bold-faced type in Exhibit C.2 Finally, Rambus also hereby moves for summary judgment as to infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3 given that despite Rambus’s efforts, Nanya has been unwilling to agree to “a stipulation with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 SDRAMs to prevent unnecessary issues from having to be tried to the jury” as the Court suggested. (See November 24, 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 1611, 244 Case at 37.) II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 2, 2007, the Manufacturers filed their opposition to Rambus’ motion for summary judgment of infringement. In that opposition, the Manufacturers raised eleven specific non-infringement arguments. (See November 24, 2008 Order, Dkt. No. 1611, 244 Case at 37;

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

2

On December 3, Rambus filed a related motion in limine regarding the undisputed and resolved claim limitations and also provided the Manufacturers with a draft stipulation (Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 2) regarding the claim limitations, in the hope that the parties could resolve this issue without the need to file papers with the Court. The Manufacturers did not respond substantively to Rambus’s draft stipulation, but instead presented the Court with a December 19 letter in which the Manufacturers proposed a scenario under which they would not contest infringement. 2
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 6 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

see also Manufacturers’ Opposition to Rambus’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement, Dkt. No. 661, 334 Case, at i (listing non-infringement arguments)). On September 26, 2008, the Manufacturers served expert reports on non-infringement issues pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order and Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Each manufacturer served a separate report: Hynix served a report of David L. Taylor; Nanya served a report of Nader Bagherzadeh; Micron served a report of William K. Hoffman, and Samsung served a report of Michael Runas. With few exceptions, the experts expressed the same or very similar opinions as to the limitations they contend are not present in the accused products. Indeed, the parties’ various experts raised some subset of the same noninfringement arguments that had been raised by the Manufacturers in their summary judgment opposition, and abandoned some of the summary judgment arguments. (See Rambus Mot. to Preclude Manufacturers’ Rebuttal Expert Reports, Dkt. No. 2344, 334 Case, at 5-7 (explaining which of the eleven arguments were raised by the various Manufacturers’ experts in their reports)). Because the Manufacturers’ experts adopted a subset of the summary judgment noninfringement arguments, which did not cover all claim limitations, the Manufacturers’ experts were consistent in not contesting the presence of certain limitations in the accused products. The Manufacturers’ expert reports do not contest infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted in Exhibit A attached hereto. Prior to deposing the Manufacturers’ non-infringement experts, on October 3, 2008, Rambus filed a motion to strike the expert reports as duplicative pursuant to the Joint Case Management Order. The Court ordered the Manufacturers to identify a lead expert on issues for which there was overlap. On November 6, the Manufacturers provided Rambus with their selection of lead experts on various topics. See Declaration of Craig N. Tolliver in Support of Rambus’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Tolliver Decl.”) Ex. 1 (November 6 email from Manufacturers identifying lead experts and topics). As would be expected, the noninfringement issues for which the Manufacturers designated a lead expert involved only the 3

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 7 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

arguments that one or more of the experts had identified in his expert report as providing a basis for a finding of non-infringement. The Manufacturers did not designate any of the claim limitations shown in Exhibit A as disputed by a lead expert. Compare Ex. A with Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1. On November 24, 2008, the Court issued its Order Granting In Part And Denying In Part Rambus’s Motions For Summary Judgment of Infringement (“SJ Order”). In its SJ Order, the Court granted summary judgment of infringement as to claim 16 of the ‘285 patent. Dkt. No. 1611 at 41. In the course of addressing claim 16, and in a separate portion of the SJ Order, the Court addressed the Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments as to other elected claims. Specifically, the Court granted partial summary judgment over the Manufacturers’ arguments relating to five claim limitations of the elected claims, conclusively rejecting the Manufacturers’ arguments that: (1) commands received by the accused products do not identify the type of read or write to perform (argument number 1 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); (2) accused products receive commands not requests (argument number 2 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); (3) accused products do not receive bits that specify a read, write, or any other type of action (argument number 3 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); (4) burst length value received by the mode register of the accused products does not specify the total amount of data transferred on the data bus (argument number 4 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief); and (5) the accused products do not sample an operation code as a result of a rising or falling edge transition of an external clock (argument number 8 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief). Id. (“The court grants partial summary judgment over the Manufacturers’ arguments related to claim construction disputes. . . The disputes resolved are the arguments numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 in the Manufacturers’ opposition brief.”).3 Attached hereto as Exhibit B is the text of each elected claim with the resolved claim limitations highlighted.
3

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

Although not one of the “numbered” arguments, the Manufacturers also argued that Rambus did not offer evidence of indirect infringement of the method claims. See Manufacturers’ Joint Opposition to Rambus’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement, Dkt. No. 661, at i (Table of Contents listing the aforementioned argument as argument “C,” instead of as a 4
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 8 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Because certain claim limitations are undisputed by the Manufacturers’ experts, and other limitations raised by the Manufacturers’ experts have been resolved in Rambus’s favor by summary judgment, there is a reduced set of claim limitations as to which a legitimate dispute can be raised by the Manufacturers. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is the text of each of the elected claims with the undisputed and resolved claim limitations highlighted and the limitations to be resolved at trial shown in bold-faced type. On December 3, Rambus sent the Manufacturers a proposed stipulation seeking their agreement that the Manufacturers would not present evidence or argument at trial as to the uncontested and resolved limitations, and that such limitations would be deemed, for purposes of the patent trial, to be present in the accused products. (Tolliver Decl. Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 2.) On December 19, 2008, the Manufacturers provided a letter to the Court in which they stated, “In light of the Court’s November 24,2008 order, which rejected as a matter of law most of the Manufacturers’ noninfringement arguments, the Manufacturers have decided not to contest the remaining infringement issues with respect to the twelve claims-in-suit.” (See 12/19/08 Ltr. from Bobrow, Dkt. No. 2948, 334 Case.) On December 29, 2008, the Manufacturers provided an additional letter to the Court regarding their proposal for the Manufacturers to not contest infringement. (See 12/29/08 Ltr from Cherensky, Dkt. No. 3003, 334 Case). In that letter, the Manufacturers listed the four categories of claim limitations that the Manufacturers would not contest at trial, thus indicating which claim limitations the Manufacturers believed to have remained at issue following the Court’s SJ Order. See id. Those four categories are the synchronous output limitations, the synchronous sampling limitations, the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations, and the “synchronous” device limitations. See id. Those are the same categories that the Manufacturers would be allowed to argue at trial if this motion is granted. See Section IV(C), infra.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

numbered argument). The Court rejected this argument at page 24 of its Summary Judgment Order. 5
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 9 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

On December 29, 2008, in view of the Manufacturers’ indications that they would not contest infringement, Rambus again asked the Manufacturers to stipulate as to infringement issues per Rambus’s December 3 email. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 4. Micron and Samsung continued to ignore Rambus request altogether. Nanya responded, “We have been in discussions with Mr. Stone regarding a proposal by Nanya and Nanya USA to not contest infringement by the DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM products at trial. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to determine whether to enter into a stipulation regarding the issues set forth in your email below until this is resolved.” Hynix likewise rejected the stipulation “under the circumstances.” See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 5. III. LEGAL STANDARDS Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there is “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case. Verigy US, Inc. v. Mayder, No. C-07-04330 RMW, 2008 WL 4820755 at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2008) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the non-moving party. Id. The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of identifying those portions of the pleadings, discovery and affidavits which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Jordan v. Graziani, No. C 03-2414 RMW (PR), 2008 WL 3823032 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2008) (citing Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986)). Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by its' own affidavits or discovery, “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citing FED. R. CIV. P. 56(e)). If the nonmoving party fails to make this showing, “the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Id. (citing Celotex).

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

MCKOOL SMITH

6 28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 10 of 48 15

1 2 3

IV.

ARGUMENT A. Partial Summary Judgment Should Be Granted As To Claim Limitations To Which The Manufacturers Are Precluded From Offering Expert Testimony

Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, each expert report must 4 contain, inter alia, “a complete statement of all opinions the witness will express and the basis 5 and reasons for them.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B)(i). 6 Manufacturers’ experts disputed that the accused products met several claim limitations, none of 7 8 Further, at their depositions, the experts confirmed that their expert reports were complete, and 9 contained all of the opinions as to which they might testify at trial, subject to the Manufacturer’s 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

As discussed above, while the

them opined that the accused products do not meet the claim limitations shown in Exhibit A.4

designation of lead experts as to certain issues. See, e.g., Tolliver Decl. Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 3 11 (Hoffman 11/20/08 Depo. at 11:9-12); Ex. 4 (Bagherzadeh 11/19/08 Depo. at 18:13-18); Ex. 5 12 (Runas 11/13/08 Depo. at 11:5-8, 11:19-22); Ex. 6 (Taylor 11/25/08 Depo. at 18:14-18). 13 It is well established that an expert’s Rule 26 report sets the bounds of his testimony at 14 trial. See, e.g., Laser Design Int'l, LLC v. BJ Crystal, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21329, *9 15 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (stating that Rule 37(c)(1) “gives teeth” to the expert disclosure requirements 16 “by forbidding the use at trial of any information required to be disclosed by Rule 26(a) that is 17 not properly disclosed”). Accordingly, none of the Manufacturers’ experts may opine that the 18 accused products do not meet the limitations identified in Exhibit A. Likewise, none of the 19 Manufacturers’ experts may now present any additional evidence in opposition to this motion 20 that would go beyond their Rule 26 Report. See, e.g. Dkt. No. 2555 (Case Management Order), 21 at 13-14. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 On December 12, the Manufacturers filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 1591) to Rambus’s Motion in limine no. 7 regarding undisputed and resolved claim limitations, a motion that raised issues substantially similar to those in the present motion. Based on that Opposition, the Manufacturers do not appear to dispute Rambus’s identification of the claim limitations that were not contested by the Manufacturers’ experts, with the possible exception of the “memory device” issue. The Manufacturers have since conceded that they will not present any new noninfringement issues based on the Court’s clarification of the “memory device” term. See Dkt. No. 2946 (Letter from M. Powers addressed to the Court, dated December 18, 2008) 7
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW 4

MCKOOL SMITH

Given (a) that the Manufacturers cannot advance non-infringement arguments

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 11 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

regarding the issues in this case without expert testimony, see Centricut, LLC v. ESAB Group, Inc., 390 F.3d 1361, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (in a case involving complex technology, party cannot satisfy its burden on infringement issue by offering evidence from non-expert witness where opposing party has offered expert testimony), and (b) that Rambus proved the existence of the undisputed limitations in the accused products through its expert, Robert Murphy, see Dkt. No. 2425, Ex. 7 (Murphy Opening Report Regarding Infringement), the failure of any of the Manufacturers’ experts to rebut the infringement analysis of Rambus’s expert deprives the manufacturers of any basis upon which to argue for the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to these claim limitations.5 . B. The Manufacturers Are Precluded From Offering Evidence Or Argument Contesting Claim Limitations As To Which The Court Granted Summary Judgment

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

In rejecting the Manufacturers’ five non-infringement arguments identified above in Section II, the Court disposed of the Manufacturer experts’ arguments pertaining to the claim limitations identified in Exhibit B. Indeed, as already stated, the Manufacturers’ expert reports raised only a subset of the same arguments presented to the Court in their opposition to Rambus’s motion. See Section II, supra; see also, e.g., Tolliver Decl. Dkt. No. 2705, Ex. 7 (Hoffman 9/26/08 Report) at page i (Table of Contents section VI, listing non-infringement arguments corresponding to a subset of the Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments presented to the Court in opposition to summary judgment). It is undisputed that the Manufacturers’ cannot offer evidence or argument contrary to the Court’s SJ Order. And they also cannot offer evidence or argument as to non-infringement that is not supported by a proper expert disclosure. Accordingly, partial summary judgment is
5

Indeed, the Court granted summary judgment of infringement with respect to claim 16 of Patent No. 6,266,285, which contains a number of claim limitations not disputed by the Manufacturers in their summary judgment opposition or expert reports, such as “section of memory,” “plurality of memory cells,” and “receiving an external clock signal” limitations. See 11/24/08 Order at 9 (reciting claim 16). 8
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 12 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

appropriate because the Manufacturers will not be able marshal evidence to contest the claim limitations identified in Exhibit B at trial. The Manufacturers’ December 12 opposition (Dkt. No. 1591) to Rambus’s substantially similar motion in limine appears to raise only a single dispute with Rambus’s identification of the infringement issues that have been resolved by the Court on summary judgment.6 The Manufacturers assert that “Rambus is attempting to limit the evidence and/or argument that the Manufacturers may present with respect to noninfringement argument Nos. 7 and 9.” See Opposition to MIL No. 7, Dkt. No. 1591, at 4. That dispute, however, relates to the scope of the arguments that the Manufacturers may present as presented in Rambus’s MIL No. 11 and not as to whether the corresponding claim limitations remain at issue. Rambus’s MIL No. 7 and the present motion clearly state that the Manufacturers’ non-infringement arguments nos. 7 and 9,7 relating to whether an external clock signal governs read/write operations, remain at issue and the attached Exhibits reflect the same. C. There Are A Limited Number Of Claim Limitations As To Which The Manufacturers Will Be Able To Properly Offer Evidence And Argument

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

In light of the foregoing, there are only a handful of claim limitations as to which the Manufacturers may offer evidence and/or argument to support their defense of non-infringement consistent with the Court’s rulings and their expert disclosures. Those limitations are identified in bold-faced type in Exhibit C. The only non-infringement arguments relating to those

limitations disclosed in the Manufacturers’ expert reports are those that correspond to arguments

This motion for summary judgment differs slightly from Rambus’s prior motion in limine in that the current motion interprets the Court’s SJ Order as resolving all issues relating to the variable latency limitations, not just the variable latency limitation at issue in claim 16 of the ’285 Patent. The Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter now have admitted that all variable latency limitations are subject to the Court’s SJ Order. See Dkt. No. 3003. 7 The Manufacturers’ argument No. 7 is that “[t]he accused products do not output data (for read operations) as a result of a rising or falling edge transition of an external clock,” and No. 9 is that “[t]he accused products do not receive an external clock signal which governs the timing of read and write operations.” 9
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

6

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 13 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

numbered 5, 6, 7, and 9 of the Manufacturers’ opposition brief to Rambus’s infringement summary judgment motion, and are as follows: • (5) Write operations performed by the accused products do not have a known timing relationship with respect to an external clock; • (6) Read operations performed by the accused products do not have a known timing relationship with respect to an external clock; • (7) The accused products do not output data (for read operations) as a result of a rising or falling edge transition of an external clock; and • (9) The accused products do not receive an external clock signal which governs the timing of read and write operations.8 It appears that the Manufacturers do not disagree with this list of disputed issues, because their December 29, 2008, letter to the Court listed the same issues as being subject to dispute. (See 12/29/08 Ltr from Cherensky, Dkt. No. 3003). In order to streamline the case and reduce the number of disputes before the jury, and in order to avoid burdening the jury with extraneous issues on which there would be no evidence to support a verdict in the Manufacturers’ favor in any event, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court enter an order of partial summary judgment of infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted in Exhibits A and B to Rambus’s motion, such that the Manufacturers may dispute infringement only as to the claim limitations identified in bold-faced type in Exhibit C. D. In View of Nanya’s Refusal to Stipulate as to Claim 16 of the ‘285 Patent and Nanya DDR3 Per the Court’s November 24 Order, Rambus Also Moves for Summary Judgment of Infringement of Claim 16 of the ‘285 Patent by Nanya DDR3

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

As the Court noted in its summary judgment order, Rambus did not yet possess a Nanya DDR3 datasheet when it moved for summary judgment under the Court’s Markman-related The Manufacturers’ argument no. 10 regarding variable latency is not included as a noninfringement argument given the Manufacturers’ admission that such limitations are covered by the Court’s SJ Order and therefore not subject to dispute at trial. See n.6, supra. 10
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW 8

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 14 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

summary judgment deadline. For that reason, the Court found Rambus had not met its burden of proof with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 part’s infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent. Nanya’s DDR3 datasheet has since become available, and Mr. Murphy opined as to infringement of Nanya’s DDR3 part in his expert report. See Expert Report of Robert Murphy (Body), attached as Exh. 7 to Raz Decl. at Dkt. No. 2425, 334 Case, Paragraphs 205-209, 217, 221; excerpt from Exhibit S to Expert Report of Robert Murphy (Claim Chart for ‘285 Patent Claim 16) attached as Tolliver Decl. Ex. 2; excerpt from Exhibit V to Expert Report of Robert Murphy (Nanya DDR3 Datasheet) attached as Tolliver Decl. Ex. 3. Nanya has raised no substantive argument as to why its DDR3 part would not infringe claim 16 of the ‘285 patent in light of the Court’s November 24, 2008 ruling, and the limitations in that claim were not among those identified by the Manufacturers in their December 29, 2008 letter as remaining in dispute. Pursuant to the Court’s order that “the Court anticipates that Nanya and Rambus can reach a stipulation with respect to Nanya’s DDR3 SDRAM,” Rambus has attempted to negotiate a stipulation of infringement with respect to Nanya DDR3 so that infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by that part does not need to be presented to the jury. Nanya, however, declined Rambus’s request to stipulate that its DDR3 products infringe this claims for the same reasons as both the other Manufacturers’ DDR3 parts and Nanya’s own DDR2 parts. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 4. Given that the parties are unable to obtain agreement, Rambus moves for summary judgment of infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3, on the basis of Mr. Murphy’s analysis of the Nanya DDR3 datasheet that was not in Rambus’s possession at the time of the motion for summary judgment briefing, the Manufacturers’ failure to raise any remaining disputed limitations that would impact claim 16 of the ‘285 patent, and the reasoning of the Court’s November 24, 2008 summary judgment order. Rambus submits that there can be no genuine dispute that Nanya’s DDR3 infringes claim 16 of the ‘285 patent, for the same

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

MCKOOL SMITH

11 28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 3109-2 3148-2

Filed 01/13/2009 01/26/2009

Page 15 of 48 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

reasons that the Court found infringement of that claim in view of the other Manufacturers’ DDR3 and Nanya’s DDR2. V. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court issue an order of partial summary judgment of infringement as to the claim limitations highlighted in Exhibits A and B to Rambus’s motion, such that the Manufacturers may only argue infringement as to the claim limitations identified in bold-faced type in Exhibit C.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Dated: January 13, 2009

Respectfully submitted, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP MCKOOL SMITH

MCKOOL SMITH

/s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Rambus Inc.

12 28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING CLAIM LIMITATIONS THAT ARE UNCONTESTED OR SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW