Case: 13-1294

Document: 14

Page: 1

Filed: 04/11/2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 2013-1294 Micron Technology, Inc., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee and Micron Electronics, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Counterclaim Appellees, v. Rambus Inc., Defendant/CounterclaimantAppellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case no. 00-cv-0792, Judge Sue L. Robinson. DOCKETING STATEMENT This Docketing Statement must be completed by all counsel and filed with the court within 14 days of the date of docketing. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, this Docketing Statement must be completed by all counsel and filed with the court within 30 days of docketing. Name of the party you represent: Micron Technology, Inc.; Micron Electronics, Inc.; and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. Party is: Appellees. Defendants-

99999.76455/5260643.1

1

Case: 13-1294

Document: 14

Page: 2

Filed: 04/11/2013

Tribunal appealed from and Case No.: United States District Court for the District of Delaware in case no. 00-cv-0792, Judge Sue L. Robinson. Date of Judgment/Order: February 25, 2013 Judgment January 2, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Order Type of Case: Patent. Relief sought on appeal: Micron seeks affirmance of the dismissal of Rambus' patent infringement claims. Relief awarded below (if damages, specify): The district court issued an order holding that Rambus' patents were unenforceable against Micron due to spoliation. Briefly describe the judgment/order appealed from: The court issued an order on January 9, 2009, finding that Rambus had engaged in spoliation and holding that the appropriate sanction was to hold the patents unenforceable against Micron. Rambus appealed, and the Federal Circuit affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded so that the district court could reconsider and provide a more full explanation of its bad faith and prejudice determinations as well as the appropriate sanction. On remand, the district court again found bad faith and prejudice and dismissed Rambus's patent infringement claims. Nature of judgment: Rule 54(b) Name and docket number of any related cases pending before this court plus the name of the writing judge if an opinion was issued: Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Linn, J.) Brief statement of the issues to be raised on appeal: Micron does not intend to raise any issues on appeal.

99999.76455/5260643.1

2

Case: 13-1294

Document: 14

Page: 3

Filed: 04/11/2013

Have there been discussions with other parties relating to settlement of this case? Yes. If “yes,” when were the last such discussions? Following the judgment/order appealed from. If “yes,” were the settlement discussions mediated? Yes. If they were mediated, by whom? Hon. Daniel Weinstein (retired); Hon. Richard Seeborg; Hon. Laurence Kay Do you believe that this case may be amenable to mediation? No. If you answered no, explain why not: Despite extensive prior mediation and settlement discussions, including following the judgment appealed, no settlement has resulted. Provide any other information relevant to the inclusion of this case in the court’s mediation program: None.

99999.76455/5260643.1

3

Case: 13-1294

Document: 14

Page: 4

Filed: 04/11/2013

PROOF OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on April 11, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing DOCKETING STATEMENT with the Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

/s/ Kevin A. Smith

99999.76455/5260643.1

4

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful