You are on page 1of 5

Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document31 Filed03/17/11 Page1 of 5

1 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP


DAVID E. SIPIORA (State Bar No. 124951)
2 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600
Denver, CO 80202-5556
3 Telephone: (303) 571-4000
Facsimile: (303) 571-4321
4 Email: dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com

5 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP


JULIE J. HAN (State Bar No. 215279)
6 379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
7 Telephone: (650) 326-2400
Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
8 Email: jhan@kilpatricktownsend.com

9 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant


LSI CORPORATION
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12

13 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 10-05446 RS

14 Plaintiff, LSI CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE


REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE
15 v. PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
16 LSI CORPORATION, PROCEDURE 16 AND 26

17 Defendant. Related Case Nos. C 10-05445 RS


C 10-05447 RS
18 C 10-05448 RS
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS C 10-05449 RS
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
LSI CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16 AND 26 - CASE NO. C 10-05446 RS -1-
RELATED CASE NOS. C 10-05445 RS, C 10-05447 RS, C 10-05448 RS, C-10-05449 RS
Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document31 Filed03/17/11 Page2 of 5

1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-11, Defendant LSI Corporation (“LSI”) respectfully

2 submits this Administrative Request to continue the requirements as stated in Rules 16 and 26 of

3 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), except the meet-and-confer specified in the

4 Court’s February 23, 2011 Order, until after the Court has decided LSI’s Motion to Stay the

5 District Court Action Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) and the Court’s Inherent Discretion

6 (“Motion To Stay”). (Dkt. No. 23). This Administrative Request is supported by the Declaration

7 of Julie J. Han (“Han Decl.”).

8 I. BACKGROUND
9 Plaintiff Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) is asserting 19 patents against LSI in this civil action

10 (the “California Litigation”). (Dkt. No. 1). Rambus is simultaneously asserting six of those 19

11 patents before the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) (the “ITC Action”). (Han Decl., ¶3).

12 Rambus’s patents-in-suit in the California Litigation include patents from three patent

13 families: the Barth patents, the Dally patents, and the Farmwald-Horowitz patents. On January

14 28, 2011, LSI filed a motion to stay the California Litigation as to all three patent families pending

15 the conclusion of the ITC Action. (Dkt. No. 23). Rambus does not oppose LSI’s Motion To Stay

16 as to the Barth and Dally patents; only a stay of the Farmwald-Horowitz patents is at issue in

17 LSI’s motion. (Han Decl., ¶6). Rambus’s Opposition is due on March 31, 2011, LSI’s Reply is

18 due on April 7, 2011, and the hearing on this motion is scheduled for April 21, 2011. (Han Decl.,

19 ¶7).

20 Rambus has filed similar district court and ITC complaints against Broadcom Corporation

21 (Case No. CV-10-05437-RS), Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. (Case No. CV-10-05445-RS),

22 MediaTek, Inc. (Case No. CV-10-05447-RS), STMicroElectronics, N.V. et al. (Case No. CV-10-

23 05449-RS), and nVidia Corporation (Case No. CV-10-05448-RS). (Han Decl., ¶ 4). Each of

24 these parties has filed its own motion to stay the district court proceedings. (Han Decl., ¶ 5).

25 Judge Alsup granted nVidia Corporation’s motion to stay on January 25, 2011, before these cases

26 were related and reassigned to this Court. (Han Decl., ¶5).

27 On February 23, 2011, this Court issued an Order directing that the above-listed cases be

28 related and reassigned. (Dkt. No. 28). In the same Order, this Court scheduled the Initial Case
LSI CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16 AND 26 - CASE NO. C 10-05446 RS -2-
RELATED CASE NOS. C 10-05445 RS, C 10-05447 RS, C 10-05448 RS, C-10-05449 RS
Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document31 Filed03/17/11 Page3 of 5

1 Management Conference (“CMC”) for the same day as the hearings on the various motions to

2 stay, on April 21, 2011. Id. The Order also instructed the parties to provide “proposals for going

3 forward in the event the requests for discretionary stays [as to the Farmwald-Horowitz patents] are

4 denied.” Id. at 2:7-8.

5 II. THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16 AND


26 SHOULD BE CONTINUED UNTIL AFTER THE COURT HAS DECIDED THE
6 MOTION TO STAY BECAUSE THE SCOPE OF THE STAY WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE
7 RULES
8 LSI seeks to continue the requirements of FRCP 16 and 26 pending the Court’s decision on

9 LSI’s Motion To Stay, except as explicitly stated in this Court’s Order. (Dkt. No. 28). Continuing

10 the requirements of FRCP 16 and FRCP 26 would ensure that the Court and the parties do not

11 expend time and resources discussing scheduling and preparing for discovery until the Court has

12 ruled on LSI’s Motion To Stay and determined what patents, if any, will be at issue going forward.

13 At this time, the parties should not be required to prepare to litigate and begin discovery in a case

14 that will be stayed in part, and may be stayed in their entirety.

15 LSI requests a continuance of the obligations required under FRCP 16 and 26, including

16 but not limited to:

17 • Preparing and serving Initial Disclosures pursuant to FRCP 26(a)(1);


18 • Preparing and filing a stipulated protective order pursuant to FRCP 26(c)(1);
19 • Serving and responding to discovery requests pursuant to FRCP 26(d)(1);
20 • Preparing and filing a Discovery Plan pursuant to FRCP 26(f)(3);1 and
21 • Preparing and filing a Scheduling Order pursuant to FRCP 16(b)(3).
22 To engage in these activities now, without the guidance of the Court’s decision on LSI’s

23 Motion To Stay, and consequently, the scope of the patents, accused products, and claims and

24 defenses at issue, would be unnecessary and costly. For example, under FRCP 26(a)(1), LSI

25 would be required to provide to Rambus the names of individuals likely to have discoverable

26
1
LSI’s present Administrative Request does not seek to continue or modify the Court’s
27 February 23, 2011 Order. As instructed by that Order, LSI will discuss with Rambus a contingent
schedule and plan for proceeding on the Farmwald-Horowitz patents and present the proposal(s) to
28 the Court in the Case Management Statement to be filed on April 14, 2011.
LSI CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16 AND 26 - CASE NO. C 10-05446 RS -3-
RELATED CASE NOS. C 10-05445 RS, C 10-05447 RS, C 10-05448 RS, C-10-05449 RS
Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document31 Filed03/17/11 Page4 of 5

1 information, a description of all documents that it may use to support its claims and defenses. The

2 scope of this disclosure, if required at all, depends on the Court’s ruling on LSI’s Motion To Stay.

3 Pursuant to FRCP 26(d)(1), the parties are allowed to seek discovery following the FRCP 26(f)

4 conference. Without knowledge of the patents and corresponding accused products, if any, that

5 will proceed in this litigation, the parties will waste time and resources in serving and responding

6 to discovery requests regarding patents that may be subsequently stayed by the Court. It would be

7 premature and potentially an unnecessary effort to proceed with these case management and

8 discovery matters before the Court has decided whether this case will be stayed in its entirety.

9 LSI seeks a modest continuance of the FRCP 16 and 26 requirements – until 30 days after

10 the Court issues a decision on LSI’s Motion to Stay. LSI’s requested continuance would not

11 prejudice Rambus in any way. LSI’s Motion to Stay will be fully briefed and argued by April 21,

12 2011 – the same day as the Initial CMC. LSI seeks to continue the parties’ obligations under

13 FRCP 16 and FRCP 26 to provide this Court time to decide LSI’s Motion to Stay and then allow

14 the parties to apply the Court’s decision to the case management and discovery issues. Rambus

15 will not be prejudiced by this short continuance since the only patents that could go forward in this

16 case – the Farmwald-Horowitz patents – have expired or will expire by September 2011. Further,

17 because “Rambus is primarily concerned with monetary compensation for use of its patented

18 technology,” Rambus will not suffer any harm (irreparable or other) from a short continuance.

19 Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 951, 986 (N.D. Cal. 2009) (denying

20 Rambus’s request for injunction relief). Given the reasonably short continuance LSI is seeking

21 and the fact that the case has only advanced through the pleading stage, the requested continuance

22 will not prejudice Rambus nor significantly impact the case schedule.

23 III. CONCLUSION
24 For all of the foregoing reasons, LSI respectfully requests that the Court continue the

25 parties’ obligations under FRCP 16 and 26 in this case until 30 days after it issues a decision on

26 LSI’s Motion to Stay.

27 ///

28 ///
LSI CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16 AND 26 - CASE NO. C 10-05446 RS -4-
RELATED CASE NOS. C 10-05445 RS, C 10-05447 RS, C 10-05448 RS, C-10-05449 RS
Case3:10-cv-05446-RS Document31 Filed03/17/11 Page5 of 5

1 DATED: March 17, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

2 KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

4 By: /s/ Julie J. Han


DAVID E. SIPIORA
5 JULIE J. HAN
6 Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant
LSI CORPORATION
7

8 63160980 v4

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
LSI CORPORATION ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS UNDER
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 16 AND 26 - CASE NO. C 10-05446 RS -5-
RELATED CASE NOS. C 10-05445 RS, C 10-05447 RS, C 10-05448 RS, C-10-05449 RS