You are on page 1of 8

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 1 of 8

1 Attorneys Listed on Signature Page
2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
10

11
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
12
Plaintiff, STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL UNDER
13 FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(ii)
vs.
14 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
15
Defendants.
16

17 STIPULATION
18 WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint in this matter
19 on June 6, 2005;
20 WHEREAS Count IX of the First Amended Complaint asserts infringement of
21 U.S. Patent No. 6,493,789 (“the ‘789 patent”);
22 WHEREAS Count X of the First Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S.
23 Patent No. 6,496,897 (“the ‘897 patent”);
24 WHEREAS defendants Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
25 America, Inc., and Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
26 UK Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (“Hynix”) filed Counterclaims in this
27 matter on June 27, 2005 and July 30, 2007;
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
-1- CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 2 of 8

1 WHEREAS Hynix’s Counterclaims 6, 7, and 8 of its June 27, 2005 Answer to

2 First Amended Complaint and Counterclaims and its July 30, 2007 Hynix's Answer To Rambus's

3 Reply to Hynix's First Amended Answer and Counterclaims and Rambus's Counterclaims in

4 Reply seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and

5 unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents;

6 WHEREAS defendants Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics

7 America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P.

8 (“Samsung”) filed Counterclaims in this matter on January 31, 2007 and January 4, 2008;

9 WHEREAS Samsung’s Counts VIII, IX, and X of its January 31, 2007 and

10 January 4, 2008 Counterclaims seek, inter alia, declaratory judgments of noninfringement,

11 invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents;

12 WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus filed Counterclaims against Hynix and Samsung on

13 July 9, 2007;

14 WHEREAS Counts V and VI of Rambus’s Counterclaims against Hynix and

15 Samsung assert infringement of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents respectfully;

16 WHEREAS defendants Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology

17 Corporation USA (“Nanya”) filed Counterclaims in this matter on July 9, 2007 and December 21,

18 2007.

19 WHEREAS Nanya’s Counterclaims 5, 6, and 7 of its July 9, 2007 First Amended

20 Answer to First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Affirmative Defenses, and

21 Counterclaims and December 21, 2007 Reply to Rambus Inc.’s Counterclaims in Reply,

22 Affirmative Defenses thereto, and Counterclaims in Reply thereto seek, inter alia, declaratory

23 judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents;

24 WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus filed Counterclaims against Nanya on July 24, 2007;

25 WHEREAS Counts V and VI of Rambus’s Counterclaims against Nanya assert

26 infringement of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents respectfully;

27 WHEREAS, defendant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) has filed with the Court and

28 provided to Samsung, Hynix, and Nanya a covenant not to sue with respect to the ‘789 Patent and

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
-2- CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 3 of 8

1 the ‘897 Patents, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“the Covenant”);

2 WHEREAS the parties agree that the Covenant eliminates any need for declaratory

3 relief that Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix may have had with respect to the ‘789 Patent and the ‘897

4 Patent, and mutually wish to dismiss all claims and counterclaims relating to the ‘789 and ‘897

5 patents;

6 WHEREAS Hynix, Nanya, and Samsung each do not concede that the ‘789 Patent

7 and the ‘897 Patent are valid, enforceable, or infringed by Hynix, Nanya, or Samsung, but, to the

8 contrary, contend that those patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed;

9 WHEREAS, in granting the Covenant to the Manufacturers, Rambus in no way

10 concedes the allegations of Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix that the ’789 patent and the ’897 patent

11 are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the Manufacturers, but, to the contrary, denies

12 those allegations;

13 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate

14 to the dismissal with prejudice of Rambus’s claims and counterclaims for infringement of the

15 ‘789 and ‘897 patents and Samsung’s, Nanya’s, and Hynix’s counterclaims for declarations that

16 the ‘789 Patent and the ‘897 Patent are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed.

17 Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.

18 //

19 //

20 //

21 //

22 //

23 //

24 //

25 //

26 //

27 //

28 //

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
-3- CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 4 of 8

DATED: September 16, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
1
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
3

4
By: /s/ Jennifer L. Polse
5
JENNIFER L. POLSE
6
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
7
THEODORE BROWN III
DATED: September 16, 2008
8 TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW,
LLP
9

10

11 By /s/ Theodore Brown III
THEODORE BROWN III
12
Attorneys for HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
13 INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
AMERICA INC., HYNIX
14 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
AMERICA INC., HYNIX
15 SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND
16 GmbH

17 MATTHEW ANTONELLI
DATED: September 16, 2008 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
18

19
By: /s/ Matthew Antonelli
20 MATTHEW ANTONELLI

21 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
22 AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., AND SAMSUNG
23 AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.

24

25

26

27

28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
-4- CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 5 of 8

THERESA NORTON
DATED: September 16, 2008
1 ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
LLP
2

3
By: /s/ Theresa E. Norton
4 THERESA E. NORTON
5 Attorneys for NANYA TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY
6 CORPORATION U.S.A.
7

8

9

10 Filer's Attestation:

11 I, Jennifer L. Polse, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to

12 file this STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(II). In compliance

13 with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Theodore Brown, Matthew Antonelli and Theresa

14 Norton concur in this filing.

15 By: ________/s/ Jennifer L. Polse_______________
Jennifer L. Polse
16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
-5- CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 6 of 8

Exhibit A
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 7 of 8
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2212 Filed 09/16/2008 Page 8 of 8