58

Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document58
Filed08/18/11 Page1 of 61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
(All parties and counsel listed on Signature Page)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. BROADCOM CORP., Defendant. Date: Time: Judge: No date set N/A Hon. Richard Seeborg Courtroom 3, 17th Floor Case No. 3:10-cv-05437 RS UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. LSI CORPORATION, Defendant. RAMBUS INC.,
Case No. 3:10-cv-05446 RS
22 Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 MEDIATEK INC., 25 Defendant. 26 27 28

14838933.1
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
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 Pursuant to Rule 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Civil Local Rule 16-9, Plaintiff Rambus Inc. (Rambus) and Defendants Broadcom Corporation (Broadcom), LSI Corporation (LSI), Mediatek Inc. (Mediatek), and STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. (collectively, STMicro) hereby submit the following Updated Joint Case Management Statement and Rule 26(f) Report (Statement). This Statement relates only to the management of issues relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents, as Rambuss claims of infringement of the other asserted patents (the Dally and Barth patents) have been stayed by this Court in their entireties. By way of background, the parties previously submitted a Joint Case Management Statement on July 28, 2011, and the Court held a Case Management Conference on August 4, 2011. At the August 4th Conference, the Court directed the parties to confer (or confer further) regarding a number of issues, including the use and identity of a special master for this case, the parties proposed schedules, discovery limits, and an index of Rambuss anticipated production, and submit an Updated Case Management Statement by August 18, 2011. In doing so, the Court also provided its initial views on these issues, including that it believed that use of a special master may be appropriate here; that it did not wish to phase discovery in the way defendants proposed, but it would provide sufficient time for discovery to proceed. Defendants additionally understood the Court to specifically state, at the conclusion of the call, that: (1) it would relieve the parties from application of the default deadlines of the Local Patent Rules; and (2) it was inclined to agree that Rambus should provide Defendants with an index to make its production -114838933.1
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants.
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
more navigable and the parties should therefore confer about what type of roadmap that Rambus could provide. A. Date Cases Were Filed
All of the above-captioned cases were filed on December 1, 2010.1 A separate case was filed by Rambus against NVIDIA in July of 2008 involving some of the same families of patents (including the Barth and Farmwald/Horowitz families, as discussed below) now asserted against Broadcom, LSI, Mediatek, and STMicro. See Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., Case No. 3:08-cv-03343-SI (NVIDIA I). At the same time that Rambus brought suit against Broadcom, LSI, Mediatek, and STMicro on the Barth, Farmwald/Horowitz, and Dally patents, Rambus also brought a second suit against NVIDIA on the Dally patents only. See Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., Case No. 3:10-cv-05448-RS (NVIDIA II). NVIDIA II, which involved only the Dally patents and was assigned to this Court, was stayed in its entirety on January 25, 2011. For that reason, the parties do not understand a CMC statement to be due from NVIDIA at this juncture, and this CMC statement is not submitted on behalf of NVIDIA. B. List Of All Parties
The Related Cases are as follows: Case No. 3:10-cv-05437 RS 3:10-cv-05446 RS 3:10-cv-05447 RS 3:10-cv-05447 RS 3:10-cv-05449 RS Plaintiff Rambus Inc. Rambus Inc. Rambus Inc. Rambus Inc. Rambus Inc. Defendant(s) Broadcom Corporation LSI Corporation Mediatek Inc. NVIDIA Corporation STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. (collectively, STMicro)
As noted above, NVIDIA II has been stayed in its entirety, and NVIDIA I is not before this Court.
Rambus also filed the related action Rambus Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., Case No. 3:10-cv-05445 RS, which subsequently was dismissed pursuant to settlement on June 7, 2011. -214838933.1
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
C.
Summary Of All Claims And Counterclaims
The Related Cases are patent infringement actions arising under 35 U.S.C. 1 et seq., including 35 U.S.C. 271. Rambus has alleged infringement by Defendants of nineteen patents from three patent families: ten patents claiming technology invented by Rambus founders Michael Farmwald and Mark Horowitz (the Farmwald/Horowitz patents), three patents claiming technology invented by Richard Barth and others (the Barth patents), and six patents claiming technology invented by William J. Dally (the Dally patents) (collectively, the Asserted Patents). Broadcom, LSI, MediaTek, and STMicro have asserted a number of affirmative defenses to Rambuss claims. In addition, Broadcom, LSI, and STMicro have asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement of each the Asserted Patents. MediaTek did not assert any counterclaims in its Answer. Because the case against NVIDIA has been stayed (see below for more detail), NVIDIA has not yet answered the Complaint. D. Brief Description Of The Events Underlying The Action
Rambus has asserted the following patents against Defendants in the Related Cases: Family Farmwald/ Horowitz U.S. Patent Broadcom 6,034,918 6,038,195 6,260,097 6,304,937 6,426,916 6,564,281 6,584,037 6,715,020 6,751,696 7,209,997 Barth 6,470,405 X X X X X X X X X X X LSI X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X MediaTek X X X X X STMicro X X X X X X X X X X X NVIDIA2
26 27 28
2
As noted above, NVIDIA II has been stayed in its entirety, and, therefore, this CMC statement is not submitted on behalf of NVIDIA and the NVIDIA II case is not addressed here. -3JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
14838933.1
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
Family
U.S. Patent Broadcom 6,591,353 7,287,109 X X X X X X X X
LSI X X X X X X X X
MediaTek X X
STMicro X X X X X X X X
NVIDIA2
Dally
6,542,555 7,099,404 7,580,474 7,602,857 7,602,858 7,715,494
X X X X X X
The Barth and Dally patent families are the subject of an investigation pending before the United States International Trade Commission, Inv. No. 337-TA-753 (the 753 Investigation). Because Rambus asserted only patents from the Barth and Dally families against NVIDIA, on January 25, 2011, Judge Alsup granted NVIDIAs unopposed motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659 to stay the NVIDIA II case pending the resolution of the 753 Investigation. Subsequently, on June 13, 2011, this Court stayed proceedings related to the Barth and Dally patents in the Related Cases. As a result, only claims related to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents are proceeding at this time. Rambus has alleged that Defendants have infringed, contributed to the infringement of, and/or actively induced others to infringe the claims of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents by making, using, offering to sell, selling (directly or through intermediaries), and/or importing products in the United States consisting of or including SDR (Single Data Rate) memory controllers, DDR-type memory controllers (including DDR or Double Data Rate memory controllers, DDR2 or Double Data Rate 2 memory controllers, and DDR3 or Double Data Rate 3 memory controllers), GDDR-type memory controllers (including GDDR3 or Graphic Double Data Rate 3 memory controllers), and mobile and/or low power versions of the aforementioned memory controllers. E. Description Of Relief Sought And Damages Claimed
Rambus seeks actual damages adequate to compensate Rambus for Defendants acts of patent infringement, together with prejudgment and postjudgment interest, as well as an award of
-414838933.1
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
enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 284 for Defendants willful infringement of the asserted patents, as well as costs and attorneys fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. Rambus also seeks a permanent injunction enjoining Defendants from further acts of infringement. Defendants Broadcom, LSI, and STMicro request declaratory relief, namely, a judgment declaring that they have not infringed any valid and enforceable claim of the Asserted Patents and denying Rambuss request for damages. In addition, Defendants seek an award of reasonable attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 285. F. Proposed Discovery Plans3 1. Rambuss Proposed Discovery Plan (a) These Cases Should Proceed Without Further Delay
At the August 4 Conference, the Court indicated it would consider a schedule that permits the parties adequate time for discovery on both sides. For this reason, and because Defendants and their counsel will be busy with the trial in the ITC in October, Rambus has moved the deadline for invalidity contentions in its proposed pretrial schedule to November and has revised the other proposed dates for activities under the Patent Local Rules accordingly. Although Defendants claim that they need familiarity with Rambuss documents in order to prepare their invalidity contentions, under the Patent Local Rules of this District, infringement and invalidity contentions are typically prepared in the early stages of discovery, as Rambus has proposed here. In fact, rather than creating a disadvantage for Defendants, the prior history of litigation involving the Farmwald/Horowitz patents available here advantages Defendants: The reexamination proceedings filed by prior litigants against the Farmwald/Horowitz patents are publicly available and provide a roadmap to the best prior art that prior litigants could find. Further, Rambus has not proposed an accelerated schedule as Defendants claim, but has instead proposed a deadline for defendants invalidity contentions in November, a month later than the
Because the Court has stayed discovery related to the Barth and Dally patent families, the proposals in this section refer only to discovery related to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. -514838933.1
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
Patent Local Rules would prescribe, and Rambus has proposed a relatively lengthy period between the Markman hearing and the close of fact discovery. Moreover, Broadcoms and STMicros refusal to provide any proposed dates under the Patent Local Rules beyond the exchange of infringement and invalidity contentions represents yet another attempt to stay the claims involving the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. Rambuss proposed schedule reflects its view that the only efficient way to move this case forward is to prepare those claims for trial. Finally, Rambus does not believe that it is appropriate to include dates for Rambuss production of prior litigation materials in the schedule. Nevertheless, Rambus has proposed dates for these activities in case the Court is inclined to order such dates. 1. Defendants Request For A Document Production Index Following the August 4 Case Management Conference, Rambus has offered to Defendants the following two indexes to the prior litigation documents produced in the 753 Investigation, and which the parties contemplate will be produced again to Defendants in this case: An index that provides the Bates ranges corresponding to documents produced in prior Rambus litigations. This index is similar to production index (1) requested by Defendants in Section F.2.C below. An index that correlates the starting and ending R-ITC Bates numbers for all documents produced in the 753 Investigation to the corresponding R- Bates number with which those documents were originally produced in the prior Rambus litigations. This list will be useful to Defendants because the documents in the prior litigations were produced with R Bates numbers (e.g., R4000926), while documents in the 753 Investigation were produced with R-ITC Bates numbers (e.g., R-ITC-00000001). With this index, Defendants will be able to look at a trial transcript or expert report from a prior case and find the documents cited there within in Rambuss production.
-614838933.1
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
In addition, Rambus has agreed in Attachment B to provide OCR or extracted text for all of the documents in its productions, which will enable Defendants to search for documents of interest to them on their own. Rambus believes that, in combination, these indices and the OCR and extracted text on its documents will make it possible for Defendants to identify documents of interest in Rambuss production. In addition, Defendants already have indices to deposition transcripts and exhibits and trial transcripts that Rambus gave them in the 753 Investigation. Despite the fact that Rambus has provided or has agreed to provide several different kinds of indices to Defendants, Defendants still seek the production of a more comprehensive index cataloging a broad range of litigation documents from prior cases. However, Rambus does not have a comprehensive production index that covers all of the categories listed in Defendants proposal in Section F.2.C below. Moreover, indices created by individual attorneys or paralegals in the course of prior Rambus litigation are work product and, therefore, are not appropriate targets for discovery. See, e.g., 3M Co. v. Kanbar, No. C06-01225 JW (HRL), 2007 WL 1725448, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 14, 2007) (rejecting request for an index organizing documents by category of request, and stating that, although this was a voluminous production, there is no evidence of Plaintiff purposefully producing documents in a disorganized manner). Defendants proposal would shift the burden of preparing Defendants case to Rambus, and improperly seeks the disclosure of attorney work product. (b) Coordination Among The Related Cases And With NVIDIA I
For the reasons set forth in Rambuss letter to the Court on August 15, 2011, Rambus opposes consolidating NVIDIA I with the Related Cases and also opposes transferring NVIDIA I to this Court at this time. Nevertheless, Rambus believes that some coordination between NVIDIA I and the Related Cases is appropriate and desirable. In particular, Defendants in the Related Cases should coordinate their initial document requests to avoid unnecessary duplication and should coordinate depositions so the deponents with information relevant to multiple cases are not deposed multiple times. Moreover, six of the ten Farmwald/Horowitz patents asserted in the Related Cases are at issue in NVIDIA I, and for that reason Rambus believes it would be -714838933.1
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
efficient to coordinate at least certain depositions in these cases. To the extent a deponent has information relevant to both NVIDIA I and one or more of these Related Cases, it would be most efficient to have all interested parties attend a single deposition. (c) Discovery Limits
The parties proposals on discovery limits are shown in the table in Section J below. Since the Case Management Conference on August 4, Rambus has offered to compromise with Defendants on all discovery limits, but Defendants have refused to compromise. Accordingly, Rambus maintains its original proposal for discovery limits. This proposal is based on the fact that Defendants here will have use of extensive discovery from prior district court and ITC proceedings involving the Farmwald/Horowitz patents and other issues relevant to this litigation. With respect to deposition testimony specifically, Rambus notes the extensive prior record of testimony by Rambus witnesses regarding the Farmwald/Horowitz patents and the affirmative defenses and counterclaims raised by Defendants, as well as ITC discovery on issues relating to many of those affirmative defenses and counterclaims.4 Rambus further proposes that a party shall not repeat prior lines of questioning of a deponent without a good-faith basis to do so. Rambus reserves its right to seek modifications of such limits and agrees to confer in good faith if a need arises for additional discovery. (d) It Would Be Premature To Limit The Number Of Asserted Patent Claims
At the August 4 Case Management Conference, the Court denied Defendants request that it limit the number of asserted patent claims as premature. Defendants now ask the Court to set a date after the Defendants service of its invalidity contentions for Rambus to limit its asserted claims to 20. Rambus believes, however, that it would be more appropriate for the Court to
Rambuss current and former officers, directors, employees and agents have already given more than 1,585 hours of sworn testimony, generally all of which may be used by Defendants in the Related Cases. (Rambuss current and former officers, directors, employees and agents have testified in deposition or trial during which their testimony was time-stamped for more than 1,409 hours. They also have testified in depositions and trial where their testimony was not timestamped for an additional 8,820 pages. Assuming 50 pages to the hour, that adds another 176 hours of testimony.) -8JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
14838933.1
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
address this issue after the parties have exchanged infringement and invalidity contentions. At that point, both the Court and the parties will have a better sense of whether it will be necessary to limit the asserted claims before the close of discovery and, if so, how many claims should be permitted to proceed. 2. Defendants Proposed Discovery Plans (a) Broadcoms And STMicros Proposed Case Schedule
Broadcom and STMicro recognize and accept that the Court has determined that discovery should move forward on all issues relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents, without phasing. Broadcom and STMicros proposed schedule accomplishes this goal by opening written fact discovery immediately on all issues. This Court has not said, however, that it wishes to hold two Markman hearings in this case, that it wishes to have two sets of claim construction briefs in this case, and that it wishes to have multiple sets of expert reports from the same experts in this case. Under any theory, such an approach would be inefficient. Here, however, where the technology of the stayed Barth patents overlaps with the technology of the Farmwald/Horowitz patents, it makes no sense to set dates for claim construction and expert discovery. Indeed, at least some of the claim terms at issue with respect to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents are also found in the Barth patents (e.g., memory device, and write request/write command), meaning that the Courtunder Rambuss approachmight have to construe the same or similar claim terms twice here. The same experts are likely to be used for the Barth patents and the Farmwald/Horowitz patents, meaning that each expert would submit seriatim reports and be deposed multiple times. Even beyond claim construction, Rambuss proposal provides a date for the close of fact discovery for the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. The necessary corollary is that fact discovery relating to the Barth patents would then have to open later, without any Farmwald/Horowitz discovery allowed in parallel at that point. This approach is certain to lead to discovery disputes down the roadexactly the kind of disputes that the Court indicated that it wished to avoid when it rejected the idea of phased discovery. Moreover, Rambus proposes a final date for the submission of dispositive motions relating to Farmwald/Horowitz claims. A new window for -914838933.1
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
dispositive motions would then have to open (and close) for the Barth and Dally patents under Rambuss schedule, despite the fact that there are issues (e.g., spoliation and JEDEC-related defenses) that apply to both the Barth and Farmwald/Horowitz patents. The schedule that Rambus submitted on July 28th, and which this Court indicated that it was not inclined to follow, followed the Local Patent Rules exactly in terms of the ordering and timing of case events. The new schedule that Rambus now submits is identical, except that it pushes back the date for its own infringement contentions by almost two months, and then begins application of the Local Patent Rules at that point, with the exact same timing of each event, as if this was a typical, garden-variety patent case. With respect to invalidity contentions, for example, Rambus allows Defendants only 45 days after the receipt of infringement contentions before invalidity contentions are due.5 Rambuss infringement contentions will presumably assert infringement of more than a hundred claims across ten patents, and Rambuss proposed schedule provides Defendants with no time to consider the millions of pages of prior litigation materials relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents, including prior art located and produced in past cases, expert reports and analysis, Rambus and inventor testimony, and third-party materials obtained through prior art subpoenas. Rambuss suggestion that it is typical for patent cases to have early due dates for infringement and invalidity contentions, before past litigation materials are produced, entirely ignores the fact that it is not typical to have a trail of 24 prior relevant litigations and millions of pages of documents relevant to invalidity contentions.6
Rambus self-servingly suggests that its proposed movement of the deadline for invalidity contentions back by one month is generous to Defendants, but Rambus: (1) gives itself the entire benefit of that extension, moving the due date for its infringement contentions back; (2) continues to allow only forty-five days between infringement and invalidity contentions, exactly the minimum set by the Local Patent Rules; and (3) fails to mention that post-hearing briefing for the 753 Investigation is in November, with opening briefs due on November 8th and rebuttal briefs due on November 22nd.
Broadcom and STMicros proposal with respect to invalidity contentions departs from LSI and Mediateksand for good reason. Broadcom and ST submit that LSI and Mediatek are being overly optimistic both about the pace at which all third-party confidentiality issues will be resolved (and the parties will thus have all the prior litigation materials that may be relevant to prior art subpoenas) and the speed with which new parties and counsel to this case can digest the complex history of the Farmwald/Horowitz patents, particularly as party resources are - 10 14838933.1
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
Rambuss goal appears to be to have this case unnecessarily ready for trial on the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in the third quarter of 2012, although the Court has given no indication that it intends to bifurcate trial. Moreover, even setting aside the presence of the Barth and Dally claims, Rambus provides no good reason to accelerate a complicated ten-patent case with millions of pages of history to a pace far faster than would be typical of even a simple patent case, nor is it clear that it will be possible for the Courtgiven its own scheduleto set a trial on the pace Rambus seeks. Broadcom and STMicros proposal provides a path for the Farmwald/Horowitz case to progress promptly, so that the case will be ready for claim construction and expert reports as soon the Barth case comes live again. In other words, Broadcom and STMicros proposal gets the case as far along as reasonably and efficiently possible in light of the way Rambus has framed this casewithout unnecessarily rushing discovery for parties that do not have the benefit of having litigated the patents in suit twenty times previously. To avoid unnecessary duplication, Broadcom and STMicro provide default dates for events that relate to both Barth and Farmwald/Horowitz, such as claim construction, that are tied to the lift of the Barth stay, although these default dates can obviously be adjusted as the case progresses. In the interests of efficiency, Broadcom and STMicro delay the beginning of depositions until there has been a reasonable period of time for written discovery, and in the hopes that subsequent events will mean that the fact Farmwald/Horowitz depositions to be taken will not need to be repeated when fact discovery opens on the Barth and Dally patents. Broadcom and STMicros proposal additionally provides for regular, periodic check-ins with the Court. Each of these proposed further case management conferences provide the Court with additional opportunities to set or modify deadlines in light of the progress of the ITC case, the settlement discussions of the parties, and the Courts own docket. Broadcom and STMicros approachinstead of rigidly requiring the wasteful repetition of multiple stages of this single
simultaneously focused on the ITC hearing and post-hearing briefing. - 11 14838933.1
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
Northern District of California casegives everyone the flexibility needed to move the Farmwald/Horowitz case in an efficient and productive way. (b) LSIs And MediaTeks Proposed Case Schedule
Although Defendants LSI and MediaTek do not object to the other Defendants proposed schedule for the reasons stated above, LSI and MediaTek propose an alternative case schedule based on its recognition of the possibility that the Court may wish to conduct a separate Markman proceeding for the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. See Section I below. LSIs and MediaTeks proposed case schedule differs from the remaining Defendants proposed schedule in the following material ways: First, LSI proposes dates for the service of invalidity contentions on February 17, 2012. The proposed dates provide Defendants with the minimum amount of time that will be needed for Defendants to (1) make adequate progress toward digesting the multi-million-page document production that Rambus is expected to produce in these Related Cases, and (2) be able to prepare invalidity contentions for the dozens, if not hundreds, of claims that Rambus will likely assert in its infringement contentions. LSIs and MediaTeks proposed dates assume Rambus is able to timely produce all documents relating to prior art and invalidity contentions from prior cases involving the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, and a document production index identifying where such documents can be found. If Rambus, however, is unable to meet this proposed deadline, LSI and MediaTek reserve the right to seek a modification of the Courts schedule so that the deadline for invalidity contentions can be extended. Second, LSI and MediaTek propose dates for the claim construction phase of these Related Cases up through a proposed claim construction hearing date of July 12, 2012. If the Court is inclined at this time to order deadlines for the claim construction phase, LSI and MediaTek believe that their proposed dates are reasonable given the complexity and lengthy history of Rambuss litigation involving the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents. LSI and MediaTek further propose that the Court conduct a Further Case Management Conference in January 2012 to revisit the parties progress in complying with the Courts case schedule and to determine if
- 12 14838933.1
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
any modifications of the claim construction schedule are necessary in view of such progress or developments in the 753 Investigation that may impact planning in these Related Cases. Third, LSI and MediaTek propose that, at this time, the Court not set any deadlines after any scheduled claim construction hearing. Instead, LSI and MediaTek propose that the Court give the parties an opportunity to conduct ADR after the Court issues its claim construction order and then schedule a Further Case Management Conference approximately 14 days after ADR has been completed. At that time, the parties and the Court should be in a better position to set the remainder of the case schedule including, for example, dates for the close of fact and expert discovery, dispositive motions and the final pretrial conference. In other, less complicated patent cases, the Court has similarly delayed the setting of deadlines for such events until after the completion of claim construction. See, e.g., Interwoven, Inc. v. Vertical Computer Software, Inc., No. 10-CV-04645 RS, Dkt. No. 58 (N.D. Cal. May 13, 2011) and Shire LLC v. IMPAX Labs., Inc., No. 10-CV-05467 RS, Dkt. No. 106 (N.D. Cal. June 15, 2011). (c) Rambus Should Provide A Useful Index
For Defendants to be able to digest the large volume of relevant prior litigation materials, Rambus must provide Defendants with a gross-level index of the documents it will produce in this litigation. Given the over ten-year history of litigation surrounding the Farmwald/Horowitz patents and related patents and Defendants own experience in the 753 Investigation, Defendants anticipate Rambuss document production will be voluminous, difficult to search, and disorganized. Rambuss document productions have not been produced in an order in which one would expect documents to be kept in the ordinary course of a typical business or with any discernible organization. This makes the production extremely difficult to navigate it and makes it near-impossible to confirm that Rambus has actually produced what it claims to have produced. Any electronic search or review of Rambuss voluminous document production will be both unmanageable and unduly burdensome without a useful production index. For example, Defendants have observed that Rambuss voluminous production has multiple gaps, does not contain logical divisions between sets of documents from separate actions or relating to separate issues, contains filings and pleadings with missing exhibits and - 13 14838933.1
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
declarations, contains poorly scanned documents with missing or absent OCR, and contains multiple copies of the same document with the different production numbers. Furthermore, with respect to production documents from former litigations, it is oftentimes impossible to discern the litigations in which they were produced. In many instances, Rambus produced deposition and trial exhibits not in any coherent fashion, but haphazardly, sometimes depending on the confidentiality level of the individual exhibits. Documents produced in this manner do not satisfy the obligations of Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. Wagner v. Dryvit Sys., 208 F.R.D. 606, 610 (D. Neb. 2001) ([P]roducing large amounts of documents in no apparent order does not comply with a party's obligation under Rule 34.). In addition, many documents from prior litigations that occurred starting over a decade ago are of too poor quality for accurate searching. Importantly, Defendants are not requesting a page-by-page, or even a document-bydocument, index. They are instead requesting the types of indices that Rambus itself must use to navigate its own production and also the types of indices that are routinely created during litigation (pleadings indices, document production indices, etc.). Specifically, Defendants submit that Rambus should provide Defendants with an index or indices that include: (1) separately for each lawsuit identified in Attachment A, the Bates ranges corresponding to documents from such prior litigation, including an indication of where in each range are the following: document productions (including a listing of which parties from each litigation produced which documents), written discovery including infringement and validity contentions required under any local rules, privilege logs, case-related correspondence, expert reports, orders, pleadings/filings, deposition transcripts and exhibits, and trial testimony and exhibits; (2) all indices created during the course of the litigations identified in Attachment A, including "fact" work product indices of any document productions, sets of pleadings or deposition or trial exhibits; (3) for all documents that were produced by Rambus in any prior litigation identified in Attachment A, an identification of the source of the documents produced (i.e., an identification of the custodian, network drive, law firm, or other person/place from which the documents were originally obtained), to the extent known; and (4) the Bates ranges corresponding to any documents falling within the categories of documents required to be produced under Patent L.R. 3-2. To comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, Rambus must do more than merely represent that documents have been produced as they are kept in the ordinary course of business. Pass &
- 14 14838933.1
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
Seymour, Inc. v. Hubbell Inc., 255 F.R.D. 331, 334 (N.D.N.Y. 2008).7 Rambus must provide reasonable information about the contents of its productions. See, e.g., id. at 338 (ordering a party that had produced approximately 400,000 documents, supposedly as kept in the "ordinary course of business," to produce an index identifying the custodian, location, and general description of all documents produced); Residential Constructors, LLC v. Ace Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36943, 4-5 (D. Nev. June 5, 2006) (requiring producing party to provide a general production index where the producing party gathered documents together from different entities and locations and has assembled the documents together , which have now been imaged onto a computer data base); Cardenas v. Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc., 230 F.R.D. 611, 618-19 (D. Kans. 2005) (mere assertions that documents are produced as kept in the ordinary course of business are insufficient, and a party producing nine bankers' boxes was ordered to specifically point out which ranges corresponded to various document requests); In re Mentor Corp. Obtape Transobturator Sling Prods. Liab. Lit., MDL No. 2004. 2009 WL 152495, at *2 (M.D. Ga. Jan. 22, 2009) (even providing an index to documents asserted to have been produced as kept in the ordinary course of business is not sufficient unless the index is sufficiently understandable that the receiving party can "reasonably locate which documents are responsive to specific requests"). Moreover, Rambus is required to provide any document production, pleadings, and other similar factual indices prepared during the course of the litigations identified in Attachment A that might make the productions relating to those litigations more understandable, even if such indices might ordinarily be considered "fact" work product. See, e.g., Washington Bancorporation v. Said, 145 F.R.D. 274 (D.D.C. 1992) (objective index of 2400 boxes cannot be withheld on work product grounds). Rambus has offered to produce two indices that provide cross-references between documents produced in different litigations with different Bates numbers and documents later
Moreover, although Rambus recited to the Court that it has produced documents as kept in the ordinary course of business, Rambuss counsel confirmed to Defendants counsel that it has organized sets of, e.g., expert reports from past litigations that are accessed by outside counsel in a manner different than they have been produced during litigations. - 15 14838933.1
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
produced under R-ITC Bates numbers. These are not traditional indices that allow a reviewer to locate particular categories of documents within a large production. Instead, the first one, which Defendants already have, is a 16,000-page document that does little more than list the Bates numbers of a subset of the production documents. For the Courts convenience, and so the Court can get a sense of the challenge facing Defendants, a sampling of those 16,000 pages is attached hereto as Attachment C.8 Based on the description provided by Rambus, the second index sounds similar to Attachment C. Although these proposed indices may allow the receiving party to cross-reference certain documents already known to the reviewer, they do nothing to provide any organization to the production or to provide a check that Rambus has in fact produced all responsive documents from the prior litigations. On the other hand, Attachment D, produced by Rambus in the 753 Investigation, although only concerned with a very small subset of documents (deposition transcripts and exhibits from prior litigations), is the type of index that does provide a guide to Rambuss production.9 Defendants are now requesting an index (or a combination of indices) that accomplishes what Attachment D provides, but for Rambuss entire production, not simply the small subset of deposition transcripts and exhibits contained in Attachment D.10 Rambus claims that it does not have a comprehensive production index that covers all of the categories listed in Defendants proposal in Section F.2.C below (emphasis added), but does not deny that it has one or more indices that include someor, in combination, allof the information sought. It strains credulity to suggest that none of Rambuss counsel in any of the past 24 litigations have created any document production or pleading indices, nor is it credible
The Court instructed the parties to discuss how Rambus could provide Defendants with a roadmap to its production. Attachment C, as the Court will see, is hardly such a roadmap. 9 The production of this index contradicts Rambuss current assertion that such indices are work product. In any event, however, if indices are in fact work product, Rambus should nevertheless produce them because Defendants have a substantial need and are unable to obtain the information without undue hardship. See In re Enforcement of Subpoena Issued by the FDIC, No. 3:11-mc-80066-CRB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69065, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. June 28, 2011).
10
Attachment D also demonstrates the problem of Rambus failing to produce documents in a logical order: roughly half of the exhibit Bates numbers in Attachment D are separated by hundreds or even thousands of pages from the transcripts to which they correspond. - 16 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
14838933.1
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
that Rambuss current counsel has no way to navigate Rambuss multi-million page production. In fact, it is contradictory of Rambus to claim that it is producing relevant materials from myriad law firms and litigations but has no way of tracking what it is actually producing. In any event, accepting Rambuss contention at face value, Defendants maintain that common sense and the precedent cited above dictate that Rambus must create the types of gross-level indices requested. (d) The Court Should Limit The Number Of Asserted Patent Claims To A Reasonable Number
During the August 4, 2011 Case Management Conference, the Court indicated that it was not inclined to require Rambus to narrow the number of asserted claims at this early stage of discovery. Rambus argued that before any limitation on the number of asserted claims is considered, it should first be able to conduct discovery on Defendants accused products and invalidity contentions. In view of the Courts preference, Defendants propose that the Court set a date after the Defendants service of its invalidity contentions at which Rambus will narrow the number of asserted claims to 20 for the remainder of discovery. Defendants have proposed dates for this event in their proposed schedules in Section I below. Defendants arguments and supporting authority on this issue are set forth in more detail in the parties initial Joint CMC Statement. Docket No. 49 at 14:11-16:3. (e) Coordination Among The Related Cases And With NVIDIA I
Defendants agree to make reasonable best efforts to coordinate discovery between the Related Cases. Defendants, however, do not believe it is feasible or appropriate for the discovery in the Related Cases to be coordinated with the NVIDIA I case, because that case has been litigated for almost three years to date and accordingly discovery in the NVIDIA I case is farther along that in the Related Cases. Defendants cannot be prepared to take depositions as early as they may start in the NVIDIA I case, nor should Defendants be forced to prematurely accelerate the schedule in the Related Cases to match the schedule of the NVIDIA I case that has been pending for three years. For these same reasons, Defendants oppose consolidation (or relating) of the NVIDIA I cases with these Related Cases, which is a subject that was addressed by NVIDIAs counsel on the August 4th CMC call and by Rambus in its letter to the Court on August 15, 2011.
- 17 14838933.1
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
(f)
Discovery Limits For Farmwald/Horowitz Patents
The parties proposals on discovery limits are shown in the table in Section J below. Defendants proposed discovery limits incorporate only minor deviations from what is normally afforded under the default Federal Rulesand, in some cases, give Defendants collectively less discovery than allowed under the rules. For example, Defendants are requesting only 160 hours of collective deposition time across four cases, where the default Federal Rules would allow a total of 240 hours for the four Related Cases (or 70 hours per Defendant in each of the four separate cases). Rambuss attempt to unduly constrain discovery in these cases should be rejected. Rambus has brought numerous actions against a host of defendants alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in damages against each. Defendants should be provided adequate and ample discovery to defend themselves against such claims and to build their cases without being constrained to the choices made by entities who happen to have litigated with Rambus earlier. This is particularly true in the circumstances here, where Rambus attempts to limit Defendants discovery before even producing in this case its discovery responses from past cases. Additionally, the Defendants ability to rely on discovery responses from prior actions will not be as useful as Rambus suggests. For example, although Defendants can rely on prior written discovery responses, Rambus is under no duty to supplement or amend those responses in this case, and Defendants cannot move to compel on such responses because they are from different cases. Accordingly, with respect to discovery limits, Defendants do not agree to the strict limitations proposed by Rambus. Defendants additionally propose that each response to any interrogatory in the Related Cases can be used by any party in any of the Related Cases without restriction and with all objections preserved, even if the serving party were to be dismissed from this matter. Defendants do not agree that they should be limited, as Rambus proposes, to not repeating prior or similar lines of questioning from depositions that occurred in other cases, although ST proposes that parties not repeat prior or similar lines of questioning of those witnesses who were deposed in the 753 Investigation. While Defendants do not intend to waste witnesses time by wholesale repetition of prior questions, Defendants should be able to conduct their own - 18 14838933.1
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
depositions as they see fit in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Additionally, limiting Defendants scope of deposition questions would be unduly burdensome and prejudicial because it would require Defendants to memorize tens of thousands of lines of deposition testimony in the scores of depositions that have occurred in multiple prior cases in which the Defendants did not participate.11 Such a requirement would also undoubtedly raise unproductive discovery disputes during depositions, which would disrupt the deposition process. Defendants agree that the parties reserve all rights to seek modifications of such limits and agree to confer in good faith if a need arises for additional discovery. 3. The Parties Agreement With Respect To The Use Of A Special Master
Rambus continues to believe that the use of a special master in the Related Cases will multiply rather than minimize the discovery disputes this Court will have to address. Rambus understands, however, that the Court may wish to designate a special master. Accordingly, the parties have agreed in principal to the use of a special master for handling discovery disputes in these Related Cases. Because the parties are still meeting and conferring over the selection of a particular special master, the parties request that the Court give the parties another two weeks to meet and confer on this issue. If the parties cannot agree on a particular special Master by September 1, 2011, each party will submit to the Court no more than three names of potential special masters and, if necessary, competing proposals as to how the cost for the special master will be divided among the parties. The Court can then select a special master to be assigned to these Related Cases and resolve any disputes related thereto. 4. The Parties Agreement On Cross-Use Of Discovery
All discovery and testimony (including, e.g., responses to written discovery, documents, depositions, declarations and affidavits, and trial or hearing testimony) cross-produced in these Related Cases from any other action (including the 753 Investigation and the cases/proceedings
Indeed, Rambus has informed us that as of 2006, over 950 hours of deposition testimony has been taken in related, pending litigations/proceedings, as well as many more hours since then. - 19 14838933.1
11
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
identified in Attachment A) may be used in these Related Cases as if the discovery or testimony had been taken in these Related Cases, (i) subject to any rights of and obligations owed to third parties, (ii) subject to any applicable protective order(s), and (iii) subject to and without waiving any objection that may be applicable to the use, for any purpose, of any discovery or testimony, or the admissibility, relevance, or materiality of any such discovery or testimony to any issue in these Related Cases.12 Although cross-produced discovery from other cases/proceedings may be used in these Related Cases, such discovery shall not count against any discovery limits (e.g., written discovery or deposition limits) that may be set in these Related Cases. 5. The Parties Agreement On Document Production
The parties have agreed to abide by the provisions set forth in Attachment B. In addition, the parties agree to meet and confer in an attempt to prepare a joint submission and proposed order regarding the production of privileged documents previously ordered produced in other Rambus litigation, similar to the order entered by the Special Master, Judge Edward I. Infante, in NVIDIA I, Docket No. 210. 6. Other
The parties exchanged initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) on July 28, 2011. The parties consent to accept service of all service papers (e.g., pleadings, discovery, expert reports, and briefs) by electronic means, as contemplated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2)(E). The parties further agree that the service of all contentions and disclosures and discovery requests and responses will be by email, that the parties will provide one another with Word-format copies of discovery requests and privilege logs, and that all document production cover letters will, in addition to being sent via overnight mail with the production media, also be emailed to the other parties. G. Procedural History Of The Related Cases And ADR Agreement
12
Rambus understands that this provision does not allow the use of documents or testimony from other litigation over which Rambus continues to claim privilege or work product immunity and does not agree otherwise by signing this Joint Statement. Absent a court order, Rambus will not produce such privileged materials. Defendants disagree with Rambuss position and intend to seek a court order absent an agreement between the parties. - 20 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
14838933.1
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
As discussed above, on January 25, 2011, Judge Alsup granted NVIDIAs unopposed motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1659 to stay the Rambus/NVIDIA case pending the resolution of ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-753. On June 13, 2011, this Court stayed proceedings related to the Barth and Dally patents in the other Related Cases, pending the resolution of the same 753 Investigation. No motions are currently pending before the Court. The parties in the cases that are not stayed in their entirety have agreed to employ private ADR pursuant to the JAMS rules. The parties have submitted the required stipulation and certifications pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-5. The parties have further agreed to hold the ADR session within 60 days from the date of the Courts claim construction order. H. Other Deadlines In Place
The only deadline currently in place is the deadline on December 7, 2011, for Rambus and NVIDIA to file a joint status report providing an update to the Court on the progress of the ITC investigation, pursuant to Judge Alsups order entered January 25, 2011. I. Proposed Pretrial Schedule
Subject to the Courts approval, the parties propose the following schedules:
Event
Rambuss Proposed Dates
Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates T=0
LSIs and MediaTeks Alternative Proposed Dates
Protective Order Entered Deadline for Rambus to send first round of letters to third parties whose confidential information is part of the prior litigation documents, seeking their consent to produce13
T + 3 weeks
As stated in Section F.1.A above, Rambus does not believe that it is appropriate to include dates for Rambuss production of prior litigation materials in the schedule. Nevertheless, Rambus is providing proposed dates for these activities in case the Court is inclined to order such dates. - 21 14838933.1
13
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 - 22 14838933.1
Event
Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates
Deadline for third parties to object to the Court to production under Protective Order (Under the draft Protective Order, third parties have 21 days to file a motion with the Court) Deadline for Defendants to produce its document productions from the 753 Investigation Deadline for Rambuss production of all prior litigation documents (i.e., the prior litigation documents produced in the 753 ITC investigation) (except any materials Rambus is unable to produce due to third-party confidentiality issues) Rambuss identification of prior litigation materials not produced due to third-party confidential information Deadline for Defendants to report to the Court on any objections or plan for addressing unresolved third-party confidentiality issues Rambuss production of an index or indices as described in Section F2(c) above Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions Tuesday October 4, 2011
T + 6 weeks
T + 9 weeks
T + 9 weeks
T + 9 weeks
T + 13 weeks
T + 13 weeks
T + 13 weeks Tuesday October 4, 2011 Thursday January 12, 2012
Tuesday October 4, 2011 Thursday January 12, 2012 Monday February 13, 2012
Further Case Management Conference
Deposition discovery opens
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
14
Event
Rambuss Proposed Dates Friday November 18, 2011
Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates
LSIs and MediaTeks Alternative Proposed Dates Friday February 17, 201214 Friday March 2, 2012
Disclosure of Invalidity Contentions Rambus to narrow the number of asserted claims to no more than 20 Further Case Management Conference Exchange of Proposed Terms for Construction and other deadlines for claim construction-related events (P.L.R. 4-1)
Friday April 20, 2012 Friday May 25, 2012 Thursday June 22, 2012
Monday December 2, 2011
TBD at CMC, or 3 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 3 months after staylifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 4 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 5 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 6 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set
Friday March 9, 2012
Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Witness for Claim Construction
Monday December 2, 2011
Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence (P.L.R. 4-2)
Wednesday December 21, 2011
Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement (60 days after Invalidity Contentions) (P.L.R. 4-3)
Wednesday January 18, 2012
Friday April 20, 2012
Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (P.L.R. 4-4)
Friday February 17, 2012
Thursday May 25, 2012
LSI and MediaTek reserve the right to move the Court for a continuance of this and subsequent deadlines to the extent that there is an unreasonable delay in the start of Rambus production (T=0) above. - 23 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
14838933.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Further Case Management Conference 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 24 14838933.1
Event
Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates TBD at CMC, or 6.5 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 7.5 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set 60 Days after Courts CC Ruling
Rambuss Opening Brief on Claim Construction (P.L.R. 4-5)
Thursday June 7, 2012
Defendants Responsive Briefs (P.L.R. 4-5)
Rambuss Reply Brief (P.L.R. 4-5)
Friday March 23, 2012 Friday April 6, 2012 (subject to Courts calendar) 60 Days after Courts CC Ruling
Claim Construction Hearing (P.L.R. 46)
Thursday July 12, 2012
Deadline for parties to complete ADR Session
60 Days after Courts CC Ruling 14 Days after ADR Session
Deadline for Joining Parties and Amending Pleadings
Friday May 4, 2012
TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set
TBD at Further CMC
Fact Discovery Cut-Off
Friday August 3, 2012
TBD at Further CMC
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Pretrial Conference 17 18 19 20 J. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
15
Event
Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set TBD at CMC, or 8 months after stay lifts as to Barth patents if no further dates are set To be determined. To be determined.
Initial Expert Reports on Issues where party Bears Burden of Proof. Rambus will provide any report on secondary considerations at this time.
Friday September 7, 2012
TBD at Further CMC
Rebuttal Expert Reports
Friday October 5, 2012
TBD at Further CMC
Expert Discovery Cut-Off
Friday October 19, 2012
TBD at Further CMC
Last Day to File Dispositive Motions
Friday November 16, 2012 To be determined. To be determined.
TBD at Further CMC
To be determined. To be determined.
Trial
Table Showing Discovery Limit Proposals For Farmwald/Horowitz Patents Rambuss Position Rambus 25 each case 60 hrs/case 25 each case Defendants 15 joint; 5 ind. 100 collective hrs. 15 joint; 5 ind. Defendants Position Rambus 25 each case 60 hrs/case 50 each case Defendants 15 joint; 20 ind. 160 collective hrs. 20 joint; 50 ind.
Discovery Type Interrogatories Fact Depositions RFAs15
Plaintiffs and Defendants proposed numbers of RFAs are exclusive of RFAs directed solely to the authentication, foundation, and/or admissibility of documents or other evidence, of which the parties agree that they may each have an unlimited number. - 25 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
14838933.1
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
K.
Consent To Magistrate Judge
The parties do not consent to have a Magistrate Judge conduct trial in this matter.
Respectfully submitted, MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP By: /s/ Heather E. Takahashi Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) gregory.stone@mto.com Peter E. Gratzinger (SBN 228764) peter.gratzinger@mto.com Heather E. Takahashi (SBN 245845) heather.takahashi@mto.com David H. Pennington (SBN 272238) david.pennington@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) peter.detre@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP By: /s/ Gillian Thackray Charles K. Verhoeven (SBN 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com Sean Pak (SBN 219032) seanpak@quinnemanuel.com Gillian Thackray (SBN 196756) gillianthackray@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4788 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Attorneys for BROADCOM CORPORATION Attorneys for MEDIATEK INC. - 26 14838933.1
DATED: August 18, 2011
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 - 27 14838933.1
PERKINS COIE LLP By: /s/ Amanda Tessar Bobbie Wilson (SBN 148317) E-mail: BWilson@perkinscoie.com Heather R. Bobkova (SBN 257014) E-mail: HBobkova@perkinscoie.com Perkins Coie LLP 3150 Porter Drive Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 838-4300 Facsimile: (650) 838-4350 Amanda Tessar (pro hac vice admission pending) E-mail: ATessar@perkinscoie.com Perkins Coie LLP 1900 Sixteenth St., Suite 1400 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 291-2357 Facsimile: (303) 291-2487 Attorneys for BROADCOM CORPORATION KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
By: /s/ Robert John Artuz David E. Sipora (SBN 124951) dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 571-4000 Facsimile: (303) 571-4321 Julie J. Han (SBN 215279) jhan@kilpatricktownsend.com Robert John Artuz (SBN 227789) rartuz@kilpatricktownsend.com 379 Lytton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Telephone: (650) 326-2400 Facsimile: (650) 326-2422 Attorneys for LSI CORPORATION
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
K&L GATES LLP
By: /s/ Elaine Y. Chow Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196) mike.bettinger@klgates.com Stephen M. Everett (SBN 121619) stephen.everett@klgates.com Curt Holbreich (SBN 168053) curt.holbreich@klgates.com Elaine Y. Chow (SBN 194063) elaine.chow@klgates.com Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 882-8200 Fax: (415) 882-8220 Attorneys for STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. and STMICROELECTRONICS, INC. Filers Attestation I, Heather E. Takahashi, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this UPDATED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that the above-named signatories concur in this filing. DATED: August 18, 2011 /s/ Heather E. Takahashi
- 28 14838933.1
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 DATED: August _____, 2011
Case Management Order The Case Management Statement and Proposed Order submitted by the parties is hereby adopted by the Court as the Case Management Order for the case and the parties are ordered to comply with this Order.
Judge Richard Seeborg UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
- 29 14838933.1
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 19) 13) 14) 15) 16) 17) 18) 10) 11) 12) 9) 7) 8) 5) 6) 1) 2) 3) 4)
Attachment A - Other Actions Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG, Case No. Civ.A. 3:00-CV-524 REP (E.D. Va. 2000); Micron Tech. Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. Civ. 00-792-SLR (D. Del. 2000); Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., et al. v. Rambus, Inc., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 1454-N; Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No., 5:00-CV-20905 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2000); FTC v. Rambus Inc. (2002); Rambus Inc. v. Micron Tech., Inc., Micron Semiconductor Prods., Inc., Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Siemens AG, Siemens Corp., Infineon Techs. AG, Infineon Techs North America Corp., Case No. CGC-04-431105 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2004); Samsung Electronics Co. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. 3:05-CV-406 REP (E.D. Va. 2005); Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Nanya Tech. Corp., Nanya Tech. Corp. U.S.A., Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2005); Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Case No. 5:05-CV-2298 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2005); Rambus Inc. v. Micron Tech. Inc., Case No. 5:06-CV-244 RMW (N.D. Cal. 2006); Rambus Inc. v. Hitachi Ltd, 1:00-CV-29 (D. Del. 2000), 1:00-CV-130 (D. Del. 2000), 4:00-CV-1351 (N.D. Cal. 2000), 4:00-CV-1716 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre v. Rambus Inc., (aka T.R. Labs.) C-0602595 (N.D. Cal.), 05CV789 (E.D. Va.); Holiday Matinee v. Rambus, CV-806325 (Cal. Sup. Ct, Santa Clara, 2002); European Commission (EC) Directorate-General matter; In re Rambus Antitrust Litigation, 5:06-cv-04852-RMW (N.D. Cal.); Micron Technology, Inc., v. Rambus Inc., 1:06-cv-00269-SLR (D. Del. 2006); Rambus / Infineon case filed August 7, 2000, in Manheim, Germany (see, e.g., Rambuss orm 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, at page 69); Rambus / Micron cases filed in September 2000 in Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy (see, e.g., Rambuss Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, at page 70); Rambus / Micron cases filed in December 2000 in Italy and Germany (see, e.g., Rambuss Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, at page 70);
03990.51704/4309205.1
14838933.1
1 2 3 4 5 6
20)
Rambus / Hyundai (later known as Hynix) cases filed in September 2000 in Germany, France and Great Britain (see, e.g., Rambuss Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2003, at page 71); The Hynix and Micron European Patent Infringement Cases (see, e.g., Rambuss Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005, at pages 75, 76-77; Rambuss Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2008, at pages 86 and 88); In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controller and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-661; Rambus, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case No. 3:08-cv-03343-SI (N.D. Cal.); and In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-753.
21)
22) 23)
7 24) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
03990.51704/4309205.1
14838933.1
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
Attachment B - The Parties Agreement on Document Production 1. Tiff Images All paper documents and electronically stored information, except as indicated below, will be produced as: black-and-white, single page, 300 DPI, Group IV TIFF images that can be loaded into popular litigation software packages. The parties will accommodate reasonable requests for production of specific images in color. Each TIFF file will be labeled with a production number on the corresponding page and/or as an electronically stamped filename (e.g., BATES000001.TIF). The producing party will provide a document image load file (e.g., IPRO .LFP file and Concordance .DAT file) for each set of page images produced. Data load files shall be provided in Concordance .DAT delimited text format and shall contain document breaks indicating the beginning and ending production numbers for each document and each document family (e.g., e-mail and attachments). For electronic documents, extracted text will be provided as single page text files (.txt) and each text file will be named using its corresponding image file (e.g., BATES000001.TXT). For scanned paper documents and electronic documents that do not have extractable text, the parties agree to provide optical character recognition (OCR) data for each image in document level .TXT files. Each party shall bear its own costs of producing relevant paper documents in its possession or control. 2. Metadata No party shall be required to produce metadata (other than document text) associated with any document produced in electronic form. However, upon a showing of good cause, any party may request the production of metadata files for specifically-identified, individual documents. Any disputes regarding the production of metadata or native-format files shall be handled in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 3. Source Code If a party agrees to produce electronically-stored source code, the parties will meet-andconfer in good faith to determine the format and conditions of production.
03990.51704/4309205.1
14838933.1
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
4. Native Files The parties further agree that, in the event a party requests that certain information be produced in its native format, the producing party shall confer in good faith with the requesting party to comply with such request. Upon written request from an opposing party, a producing party will produce Microsoft Excel files in native file format to the extent such files are still available and are reasonably accessible to the producing party. The parties will accommodate other reasonable requests for production of specific electronically stored information in native file format. Text will be extracted from native files during processing and provided as single page text (.txt) files. A link will be provided to the native files with the matching TIFF image, and the native file will be named with the production number identifying the native file with the appropriate file extension (e.g., BATES00001.XLS). Electronically stored information requested to be produced in native file format (including Microsoft Excel files) containing information that requires redaction will be produced as TIFF files per specifications outlined in Section F.4.(a) above. Finally, parties may produce other files in native format that are not suitable for production in TIFF format (e.g., voluminous spreadsheets and database reports, file formats that are not traditionally produced in TIFF format, such as CAD files, etc., including as discussed below). Any disputes regarding the production of native-format files shall be handled in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 5. Non-Convertible Files Certain types of files such as system, program, and sound files may not be amenable to conversions into anything meaningful in TIFF format. These will be produced in native format. Other files may not be able to be converted to TIFF due to password protection or corruption (for example). If reasonable efforts to obtain useful TIFF images of these files are unsuccessful, these will be produced in native format. Some examples of file types that may not convert include file types with the following extensions: *.exp *.ilk *.res *.trg *.tlh *.idb *.pdb *pch *.opt *.lib *.cab *.mov *.mp3 *.swf *.psp *.chi *.chm *.com *.dll *.exe *.hlp *.ivi *.ivt *.ix *.msi *.nls *.obj
03990.51704/4309205.1
14838933.1
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
*.ocx *.rmi *.sys *.tmp *.ttf *.vbx *.wav *.wpg *.iso *.pdb *.eps *.mpeg *.mpg *.ram *.rm *.psd *.ai *.aif *.bin *.hqx *.snd *.mpe *.wmv *.wma *.xfd *.db.
03990.51704/4309205.1
14838933.1
ATTACHMENT C
ATTACHMENT D
DEPONENT Abhyankar, Anderson, Anderson, Baksi, Baksi, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Barth, Bendell, Blumberg, Blumberg, Bridgewater, Bridgewater, Brill, Brown Cates, Cates, Cates, Cates, Chan, Chan, Chan, Chan, Chan, Chen, Chen, Chenneour, Chu, Chu, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, DATE 5/22/2009 12/22/2004 12/13/2007 2/19/2009 5/14/2009 1/7/2003 3/11/2008 3/12/2008 8/22/2008 8/2/2001 2/26/2004 5/7/2009 5/8/2009 6/7/2005 6/4/2008 5/19/2009 6/7/2005 7/25/2006 9/20/2005 10/9/2009 9/1/2006 6/3/2008 6/4/2008 1/10/2003 4/9/2008 4/10/2008 6/20/2008 4/11/2008 4/27/2004 11/13/2007 11/14/2007 12/21/2000 1/31/2008 1/30/2008 11/8/2000 3/5/2001 5/12/2004 10/16/2004 4/23/2001 CASE ITC '661 Hynix Hynix IBM Interference ITC '661 FTC Price Fixing Price Fixing Coordinated Cases Micron [DE] Infineon II ITC '661 ITC '661 Hynix Coordinated Cases ITC '661 Hynix Micron [DE] Hynix ITC '661 Micron [DE] Price Fixing Price Fixing FTC Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Hynix Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon Infineon Infineon II Infineon II Micron [DE] Transcript Bates Begin R-ITC-53344437 RITC01669404 RITC01674358 RITC10079749 R-ITC-53345668 RITC00365056 RITC00371088 RITC00365220 RITC10041736 RITC10007375 RITC10008139 R-ITC-53346548 R-ITC-53347370 R-ITC-40009565 RITC10064277 R-ITC-53350335 RITC24630089 RITC01672945 RITC01672722 R-ITC-53357097 RITC01673744 RITC01677130 RITC01677377 RITC1003183 RITC01675970 RITC01676289 RITC01677536 RITC10064548 RITC10078537 RITC01673885 RITC01674012 RITC10040030 RITC01674489 RITC10064784 RITC10098653 RITC10002739 RITC10006999 RITC10118270 RITC10065382
Transcript Bates End R-ITC-53344614 RITC01669457 RITC01674395 RITC10079840 R-ITC-53345862 RITC00365119 RITC00371171 RITC00365261 RITC10041761 RITC10007473 RITC10008215 R-ITC-53346759 R-ITC-53347502 R-ITC-40009705 RITC10064547 R-ITC-53350598 RITC24630152 RITC01672977 RITC01672747 R-ITC-53357205 RITC01673776 RITC01677184 RITC01677428 RITC10031942 RITC01676019 RITC01676344 RITC01677566 RITC10064783 RITC10078581 RITC01673942 RITC01674070 RITC10040073 RITC01674504 RITC10065065 RITC10098718 RITC10002779 RITC10007077 RITC10118299 RITC10065577 Exhibits Bates Begin R-ITC-53345066 RITC01669458 RITC01674396 No exhibits R-ITC-53346420 RITC00365120 RITC00371172 RITC00365262 RITC01681726 RITC10007474 RITC10008216 R-ITC-53347913 R-ITC-53348892 R-ITC-40022912 RITC10041843 R-ITC-53350723 RITC24631082 RITC01672978 RITC01672644 No exhibits RITC01673777 RITC01677185 RITC01677429 RITC10031943 RITC01676020 RITC01676345 RITC01677567 RITC10042140 3PC RITC01673943 RITC01674071 RITC10040074 RITC01674505 RITC10042612 RITC01681894 RITC10002780 RITC10033381 RITC10118300 RITC10042712 Exhibits Bates End R-ITC-53345525 RITC01671331 RITC01674488 R-ITC-53346493 RITC00365309 RITC00371209 RITC00365309 RITC01681841 RITC10008138 RITC10008886 R-ITC-53348891 R-ITC-53349599 R-ITC-40023030 RITC10042139 R-ITC-53356803 RITC24631201 RITC01673012 RITC01672721 RITC01673884 RITC01677376 RITC01677536 RITC10032033 RITC01676289 RITC01676489 RITC01677605 RITC10042611 RITC01674011 RITC01674297 RITC10040171 RITC01674532 RITC10042711 RITC01682171 RITC10002783 RITC10033484 RITC10118347 RITC10043095
Abhijit Paul Paul Karen Karen Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Adam Ira Ira Gary Gary Alan Jonathan Julie Julie Julie Julie Andy Andy Andy Andy Andy Steven Steven Denise Andy Andy Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard
Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Crisp, Cunningham, Danforth, Davidow, Davidow, Davidow, Davidow, Davidow, Davis Deley, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Diepenbrock, Donnelly, Donnelly, Dunlevie, Dunlevie, Eulau, Farmwald, Farmwald, Farmwald, Farmwald, Farmwald, Farmwald, Farmwald, Farmwald, Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Richard Sean John William William William William William Paul William Anthony Anthony Anthony Anthony Anthony Anthony Anthony Anthony Anthony Kevin Kevin Bruce Bruce Robert Michael Michael Michael Michael Michael Michael Michael Michael 4/24/2001 7/20/2001 8/10/2001 11/9/2000 11/9/2000 2/14/2003 7/28/2006 3/4/2006 4/13/2001 11/30/2004 6/26/2008 4/13/2001 7/19/2006 1/31/2001 1/21/2003 8/5/2008 4/25/2009 6/27/2008 7/16/2008 2/19/2004 10/11/2004 6/26/2001 1/30/2003 4/11/2001 3/14/2001 1/12/2001 5/22/2009 2/25/2004 2/18/2011 1/24/2001 7/25/2001 7/15/2008 1/23/2001 8/25/2008 1/22/2004 7/14/2006 1/22/2001 7/25/2001 7/26/2001 1/7/2003 Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon Infineon FTC Micron [DE] Hynix Infineon Infineon II Coordinated Cases Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon FTC Price Fixing ITC '661 Coordinated Cases Coordinated Cases Infineon II Infineon II Micron [DE] FTC Infineon Infineon Infineon ITC '661 Infineon II Qimonda Infineon Micron [DE] Price Fixing Infineon Coordinated Cases Hynix Micron [DE] Infineon Micron [DE] Micron [DE] FTC RITC10065578 RITC10065797 RITC10066020 RITC10065066 RITC10065066 RITC10066338 R-ITC-40009706 RITC10078582 RITC10004962 R-ITC-40008615 RITC05002105 RITC10034523 RITC24630189 RITC10041579 RITC10066612 RITC10066888 R-ITC-53357265 RITC10102944 RITC01680858 RITC10005739 R-ITC-40008363 RITC10067138 RITC10012161 RITC10094856 RITC10003413 RITC10000113 R-ITC-53358537 RITC10032964 R-ITC-54350371 RITC10041311 RITC10011663 RITC01678012 RITC10040942 RITC01680153 RITC10012543 RITC10103653 RITC10067572 RITC10067904 RITC10068151 RITC10068423
RITC10065796 RITC10066019 RITC10066337 RITC10065381 RITC10065381 RITC10066611 R-ITC-40009808 RITC10078647 RITC10005024 R-ITC-40008786 RITC05002375 RITC10034578 RITC24630236 RITC10041650 RITC10066887 RITC10067137 R-ITC-53357494 RITC10103079 RITC01680876 RITC10005808 R-ITC-40008387 RITC10067421 RITC10012219 RITC10094996 RITC10003438 RITC10000158 R-ITC-53358799 RITC10033018 R-ITC-54350462 RITC10041358 RITC10011700 RITC01678091 RITC10040970 RITC01680237 RITC10012608 RITC10103702 RITC10067903 RITC10068150 RITC10068422 RITC10068728 RITC10043096 RITC10043229 RITC10043363 RITC10043731 RITC10044492 RITC10046289 R-ITC-40016129 3PC No exhibits R-ITC-40022528 RITC05001747 RITC10034579 RITC24631202 RITC10041651 RITC10046434 RITC10046559 R-ITC-53357833 RITC10103847 RITC01680877 RITC10005809 R-ITC-40013200 RITC10011375 RITC10012220 RITC10094765 No exhibits R-ITC-53359130 RITC10033019 RITC10041359 RITC10011701 RITC01678092 RITC10040971 RITC01680240 RITC10012609 RITC10103703 RITC10046710 RITC10046770 RITC10047005 RITC10047444 RITC10043228 RITC10043362 RITC10043730 RITC10044491 RITC10046288 RITC10046433 R-ITC-40016294
R-ITC-40022601 RITC05002104 RITC10034885 RITC24631384 RITC10041689 RITC10046558 RITC10046709 R-ITC-53358412 RITC10104044 RITC01680882 RITC10005937 R-ITC-40013355 RITC10011662 RITC10012542 RITC10094855
R-ITC-53359608 RITC10033040 RITC10041453 RITC10011774 RITC01678674 RITC10041101 RITC01680449 RITC10013091 RITC10104044 RITC10046769 RITC10047004 RITC10047443 RITC10047845
Farmwald, Frank, Frank, Gamini, Gardner, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Garrett, Gasbarro, Gasbarro, Gillespie, Girvin, Griffin, Griffin, Griffin, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Hampel, Harmon, Harmon, Harmon, Harmon, Harmon, Harmon, Holt, Holt, Horowitz, Horowitz, Horowitz, Horowitz, Horowitz, Michael Melissa Melissa Nader Dirk Billy Wayne Billy Wayne Billy Wayne Billy Wayne Billy Wayne Billy Wayne James James Charles John Matthew Matthew Matthew Craig Craig Craig Craig Craig Craig Craig Craig Craig Gary Gary Gary Gary Gary Gary Sharon Sharon Mark Mark Mark Mark Mark 7/2/2008 3/6/2008 3/24/2008 5/13/2008 9/7/2005 2/17/2006 1/16/2003 3/27/2001 11/9/2000 3/26/2001 4/2/2001 1/10/2003 5/8/2009 7/20/2006 12/1/2004 8/19/2008 8/20/2008 4/21/2009 5/28/2004 7/20/2001 2/4/2003 4/2/2008 6/23/2008 4/3/2008 4/4/2008 5/19/2009 5/20/2009 7/28/2008 3/8/2001 7/18/2008 1/8/2003 7/28/2006 7/29/2008 12/13/2007 5/14/2009 7/16/2008 4/30/2004 1/20/2001 1/21/2001 8/6/2001 Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Hynix Hynix FTC Micron [DE] Infineon Micron [DE] Micron [DE] FTC ITC '661 Micron [DE] Infineon II Coordinated Cases Coordinated Cases ITC '661 Infineon II Micron [DE] FTC Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing ITC '661 ITC '661 Price Fixing Micron [DE] Coordinated Cases FTC Micron [DE] Price Fixing Coordinated Cases ITC '661 Price Fixing Hynix Infineon Infineon Micron [DE] RITC10068729 RITC01674638 RITC01675577 RITC10078648 RITC01672499 RITC01680805 RITC10069483 RITC10069216 RITC10068973 RITC10003896 RITC10004912 RITC10069737 R-ITC-53360933 RITC10069860 R-ITC-40008787 RITC10007078 RITC10080426 R-ITC-53361628 RITC01668653 RITC00366196 RITC10069900 RITC10070125 RITC10095151 RITC10095011 RITC10095114 R-ITC-53364333 R-ITC-53364404 RITC01679480 RITC10036512 RITC24630068 RITC10031669 RITC01679480 RITC10070410 RITC10103080 R-ITC-53366624 RITC01678675 RITC10033485 RITC10040172 RITC10040756 RITC10070625
RITC10068972 RITC01674694 RITC01675655 RITC10078715 RITC01672548 RITC01680833 RITC10069736 RITC10069482 RITC10069215 RITC10003951 RITC10004961 RITC10069859 R-ITC-53361098 RITC10069899 R-ITC-40008892 RITC10007105 RITC10080438 R-ITC-53361733 RITC01668693 RITC00366268 RITC10070124 RITC10070409 RITC10095225 RITC10095082 RITC10095137 R-ITC-53364403 R-ITC-53364473 RITC01679543 RITC10036568 RITC24630088 RITC10031731 RITC01679543 RITC10070624 RITC10103345 R-ITC-53366876 RITC01678741 RITC10033582 RITC10040278 RITC10040811 RITC10070819 RITC10047846 RITC01674695 RITC01675656 3PC RITC01672549 RITC01680834 RITC10047942 RITC10050598 RITC10049280 RITC10101908 RITC10050598 RITC10051218 R-ITC-53360089 RITC10051268 R-ITC-40022434 RITC10007106 No exhibits Exhibits Bates listed RITC01668694 RITC00366269 RITC10051287 RITC10051378 RITC10093668 RITC10094157 RITC10094638 R-ITC-53362086 R-ITC-53363219 RITC01679544 RITC10036569 RITC24634142 RITC10031732 RITC01679544 RITC10051811 RITC10104045 R-ITC-53365847 RITC01675742 RITC10033583 RITC10040279 RITC10040812 RITC10052280 RITC10047941 RITC01674733 RITC01675875 RITC01672645 RITC01680857 RITC10049279 RITC10051217 RITC10050207 RITC10102584 RITC10051217 RITC10051267 R-ITC-53360932 RITC10051286 R-ITC-40022526 RITC10007374
RITC01668853 RITC00366357 RITC10051377 RITC10051810 RITC10094156 RITC10094637 RITC10094764 R-ITC-53363062 R-ITC-53364293 RITC01679663 RITC10036786 RITC24634198 RITC10031862 RITC01679663 RITC10052226 RITC10104206 R-ITC-53366559 RITC01678981 RITC10033844 RITC10040755 RITC10040941 RITC10052409
Horowitz, Horowitz, Horowitz, Hughes, Hung, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Johnson, Kabealo, Kabealo, Kanadjian, Kanadjian, Kanadjian, Kanadjian, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Karp, Kaufman, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Kramer, Larsen, Lau, Lau, Leal, Mark Mark Mark Harold C.Y. Dan Dan Dan Mark Michael Michael Avo Avo Avo Avo Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Joel Melinda Robert Robert Robert Robert Robert Robert Robert Robert Robert Ed Harlan Kay Peter 2/27/2003 8/29/2008 8/2/2001 7/16/2008 5/15/2008 10/25/2005 11/23/2004 7/28/2001 6/30/2001 6/24/2008 8/6/2004 4/3/2001 1/9/2003 8/14/2008 8/15/2008 10/8/2004 8/7/2001 4/9/2001 4/10/2001 7/28/2006 2/5/2003 10/23/2007 7/10/2008 7/11/2008 1/8/2001 9/9/2008 5/18/2004 6/10/2005 8/18/2005 8/19/2005 9/28/2005 4/23/2003 8/21/2003 2/26/2004 12/20/2002 8/31/2004 5/18/2004 5/1/2001 5/20/2008 10/13/2004 FTC Coordinated Cases Micron [DE] Coordinated Cases Price Fixing Hynix Infineon II Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Price Fixing Hynix Micron [DE] FTC Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon II Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Micron [DE] FTC Coordinated Cases Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon Price Fixing Infineon II Hynix Hynix Hynix Hynix Hynix Hynix Infineon II Hynix Hynix Infineon II Micron [DE] Price Fixing Infineon II RITC10070820 RITC10095226 RITC01668518 RITC10103346 RITC10078716 R-ITC-40010251 R-ITC-40010416 RITC04196795 RITC10035063 RITC0167656 RITC05264137 RITC10071069 RITC10071277 RITC10071410 RITC10078760 RITC24630690 RITC10005513 RITC10071708 RITC10071875 R-ITC-40010966 RITC10071971 RITC24630758 RITC10072287 RITC10072542 RITC10000000 R-ITC-40009542 RITC01668574 RITC01671332 RITC01671985 RITC01672084 RITC01672748 RITC10032746 RITC10032873 RITC10033041 RITC10036310 RITC10078789 RITC10041690 RITC10034952 RITC01676663 R-ITC-40008518
RITC10071068 RITC10095291 RITC01668573 RITC10103652 RITC10078759 R-ITC-40010415 R-ITC-40010645 RITC04196868 RITC10035169 RITC01677741 RITC05264178 RITC10071276 RITC10071409 RITC10071707 RITC10078788 RITC24630757 RITC10005602 RITC10071874 RITC10071970 R-ITC-40011341 RITC10072286 RITC24631082 RITC10072541 RITC10072646 RITC10000112 R-ITC-40009564 RITC01668606 RITC01671377 RITC01672039 RITC01672135 RITC01672770 RITC10032808 RITC10032917 RITC10033101 RITC10036385 RITC10078830 RITC10041717 RITC10034980 RITC01676713 R-ITC-40008614 RITC10052410 No exhibits No exhibits RITC10104207 3PC R-ITC-40021359 R-ITC-40021151 RITC10092808 RITC10035170 RITC01677742 RITC05264179 RITC10052926 RITC10052976 RITC10053115 3PC RITC24631385 RITC10005603 RITC10053581 RITC10053965 RITC10054154 RITC10054917 RITC24631553 RITC10055933 RITC10056097 No exhibits RITC01668607 RITC01671378 RITC01672040 RITC01672136 RITC01672771 RITC10032809 RITC10032918 RITC10033102 RITC10036386 3PC RITC10041718 RITC10034981 RITC01676714 R-ITC-40022391 RITC10052925
RITC10104734 R-ITC-40021584 R-ITC-40021358 RITC10093635 RITC10035363 RITC01677951 RITC05264269 RITC10052975 RITC10053114 RITC10053580 RITC24631448 RITC10005738 RITC10053964 RITC10054153 RITC10054916 RITC10055932 RITC24631714 RITC10056096 RITC10056461
RITC01668652 RITC01671984 RITC01672083 RITC01672398 RITC01672782 RITC10032872 RITC10032963 RITC10033112 RITC10036511 RITC10041735 RITC10035062 RITC01676913 R-ITC-40022433
Leal, Lee, Lee, Lisi, Marshall, Mitchell, Mitchell, Mithani, Mithani, Mithani, Moniz, Moniz, Moniz, Moniz, Montana, Montana, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Mooring, Myers, Nimmagadda, Nimmagadda, Nimmagadda, Nyugen Patel, Patel, Peter Victor Victor David Christopher Jeff Jeff Deepak Deepak Deepak Joe Joe Joe Joe John John David David David David David David David David David David David David David David David David David Justin Srinivas Srinivas Srinivas David Samir Samir 10/29/2005 2/20/2008 2/21/2008 10/12/2004 7/25/2006 8/2/2001 4/9/2001 8/6/2008 6/13/2008 7/29/2004 9/4/2008 5/15/2008 2/19/2009 5/27/2009 8/1/2006 7/20/2009 8/10/2004 8/8/2008 4/13/2004 10/24/2001 4/9/2001 4/10/2001 11/15/2000 11/16/2000 1/26/2001 1/19/2005 10/14/2004 8/15/2008 7/27/2001 5/6/2008 1/24/2003 8/7/2008 1/18/2005 6/30/2006 2/13/2008 2/14/2008 2/15/2008 4/23/2009 5/29/2008 5/30/2008 Hynix Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon II Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon Price Fixing Price Fixing Hynix Coordinated Cases Coordinated Cases IBM Interference ITC '661 Micron [DE] ITC '661 Hynix Price Fixing Infineon II Hynix Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon Infineon Infineon Hynix Infineon II Price Fixing Micron [DE] Coordinated Cases FTC Price Fixing Hynix Micron [DE] Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing ITC '661 Price Fixing Price Fixing R-ITC-40008893 RITC10072647 RITC01674561 R-ITC-40008439 R-ITC-40009001 RITC10036043 RITC10036785 RITC01679664 RITC10073063 RITC10078831 RITC10120047 RITC05265407 RITC10079671 R-ITC-53370157 R-ITC-40009220 R-ITC-53370999 RITC01669021 RITC01679924 RITC10033113 RITC10036084 RITC10037019 RITC10037191 RITC10039343 RITC10039425 RITC10041454 RITC24630174 R-ITC-40011666 RITC01681335 RITC10073374 RITC24630402 RITC10073540 RITC10073854 RITC10078888 RITC01672783 RITC10074120 RITC10074490 RITC10074783 R-ITC-53371420 RITC01676914 RITC10074899
R-ITC-40008952 RITC10073062 RITC01674637 R-ITC-40008481 R-ITC-40009111 RITC10036083 RITC10036786 RITC01679709 RITC10073373 RITC10078887 RITC10120065 RITC05265692 RITC10079748 R-ITC-53370442 R-ITC-40009520 R-ITC-53371024 RITC01669051 RITC01680449 RITC10033190 RITC10036189 RITC10037080 RITC10037249 RITC10039424 RITC10039446 RITC10041534 RITC24630188 R-ITC-40011811 RITC01681426 RITC10073539 RITC24630689 RITC10073853 RITC10074119 RITC10078930 RITC01672836 RITC10074489 RITC10074782 RITC10074898 R-ITC-53371607 RITC01676971 RITC10075119 No exhibits RITC10056462 R-ITC-40022350 R-ITC-40022849 RITC10005440 RITC10036787 RITC01679710 RITC10056593 3PC RITC10120066 RITC05264270 No exhibits R-ITC-53367249 R-ITC-10237643 R-ITC-53370937 RITC01669052 RITC01679984 RITC10033191 RITC10036190 RITC10037081 RITC10037250 No exhibits RITC10039447 RITC10041535 RITC24634115 R-ITC-40014552 RITC01681427 RITC10056885 RITC24631715 RITC10057202 RITC10057690 3PC RITC01672837 RITC10057834 RITC10058016 RITC10058132 No exhibits RITC01676972 RITC10058190
RITC10056592 R-ITC-40022390 R-ITC-40022907 RITC10005458 RITC10037018 RITC01679804 RITC10056884 RITC10120101 RITC05265349 R-ITC-53370156 R-ITC-10237862 R-ITC-53370998 RITC01669403 RITC01679988 RITC10033380 RITC10036309 RITC10037090 RITC10039342 RITC10040029 RITC10041578 RITC24634141 R-ITC-40014572 RITC01681725 RITC10057201 RITC24632001 RITC10057689 RITC10057833 RITC01672944 RITC10058015 RITC10058131 RITC10058189 RITC01677129 RITC10058942
Perego, Perego, Przybylski, Przybylski, Przybylski, Przybylski, Richardson, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Roberts, Savage, Schroeder, Shemwell, Shemwell, Slocum, Slocum, Slocum, Slocum, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Smith, Sobelman Sobelman Sobelman Stark, Stark, Stark, Stark, Stark, Stark, Steinberg, Richard Richard Steven Steven Steven Steven Wayne Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen Allen David David Diane Michael Charles Charles Chris Chris Chris Chris Brian Brian Jared Jared Jared Michael Michael Michael Don Don Laura Laura Laura Laura Neil 3/6/2009 4/22/2009 4/17/2001 4/18/2001 3/28/2001 7/13/2009 5/6/2008 5/19/2008 8/7/2008 2/25/2003 4/14/2001 7/24/2001 1/23/2001 10/14/2004 8/8/2008 6/24/2008 6/25/2008 10/12/2004 8/30/2006 12/20/2007 3/5/2009 12/6/2007 1/31/2008 12/7/2007 1/3/2008 3/9/2008 3/8/2008 2/26/2008 2/27/2008 2/28/2008 8/3/2004 7/15/2008 7/16/2008 7/8/2008 6/4/2009 5/28/2004 5/4/2004 8/21/2008 8/22/2008 3/7/2001 IBM Interference ITC '661 Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon ITC '661 Price Fixing Coordinated Cases Price Fixing FTC Infineon Micron [DE] Infineon Infineon II Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon II Samsung [DE] Coordinated Cases IBM Interference Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Coordinated Cases Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Price Fixing Hynix Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Price Fixing ITC '661 Infineon II Hynix Price Fixing Price Fixing Micron [DE] RITC10079067 R-ITC-53372471 RITC20274768 RITC20274855 RITC24629535 R-ITC-53707044 RITC10078931 RITC01676490 RITC01679805 RITC10032034 RITC10034886 RITC10035364 RITC10041102 RITC24630153 RITC10075120 RITC01677952 RITC01681137 R-ITC-40008482 RITC01673013 RITC24630247 RITC10079524 RITC01674298 RITC01674533 RITC10075423 RITC01674459 RITC01674734 RITC10076267 RITC10075697 RITC10075901 RITC10076144 R-ITC-54350463 R-ITC-54350549 R-ITC-54350669 RITC10077133 R-ITC-53378347 RITC01668854 RITC10033845 RITC10076534 RITC10076837 RITC10002784
RITC10079233 R-ITC-53372642 RITC20274854 RITC20274902 RITC24629729 R-ITC-53707609 RITC10078989 RITC01676561 RITC01679867 RITC10032132 RITC10034951 RITC10035422 RITC10041156 RITC24630173 RITC10075422 RITC01677092 RITC01681205 R-ITC-40008517 RITC01673039 RITC24630401 RITC10079670 RITC01674357 RITC01674552 RITC10075696 RITC01674488 RITC01674818 RITC10076533 RITC10075900 RITC10076143 RITC10076266 R-ITC-54350548 R-ITC-54350668 R-ITC-54350791 RITC10077375 R-ITC-53378492 RITC01668885 RITC10033945 RITC10076836 RITC10077132 RITC10002876 No exhibits R-ITC-53372093 RITC10238080 RITC10238080 RITC24629730 R-ITC-53373168 3PC RITC01676562 RITC01679868 RITC10032133 RITC10034952 RITC10035423 RITC10041157 RITC24634199 RITC10058943 RITC01677093 RITC01681206 R-ITC-40022759 RITC01673040 RITC24631449 No exhibits RITC01674553 RITC10059010 RITC01674819 RITC10059157 RITC10059399 RITC10059504 RITC10059719
R-ITC-53372426 RITC10238533 RITC10238533 RITC24630037 R-ITC-53375793 RITC01676662 RITC01679923 RITC10032745 RITC10034980 RITC10036042 RITC10041310 RITC24634204 RITC10059009 RITC01678011 RITC01681334 R-ITC-40022848 RITC01673743 RITC24631552
RITC01674560 RITC10059156 RITC01675243 RITC10059398 RITC10059503 RITC10059718 RITC10059829
RITC10059830 R-ITC-53377456 RITC01668886 RITC10033946 RITC10059935 RITC10060101 RITC10002877
RITC10059934 R-ITC-53377456 RITC01669020 RITC10034522 RITC10060100 RITC10060272 RITC10003364
Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Steinberg, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Tate, Toprani, Toprani, Toprani, Tsern, Tsern, Vidal, Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Neil Neil Neil Neil Neil Neil Neil Neil Neil Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Geoff Subodh Subodh Subodh Ely Ely John Lester Lester Lester Lester Lester Lester 3/8/2001 3/14/2001 4/21/2004 10/6/2004 1/16/2001 7/17/2006 1/22/2003 5/23/2008 8/1/2001 1/30/2006 2/8/2006 8/28/2008 8/29/2008 1/17/2001 3/16/2001 3/29/2001 3/30/2001 4/16/2001 2/23/2004 3/25/2005 10/16/2004 7/31/2001 7/31/2006 1/16/2001 1/22/2003 8/27/2008 12/7/2007 5/28/2004 7/24/2008 8/4/2004 7/25/2008 3/5/2009 4/30/2009 6/18/2008 8/28/2008 10/15/2004 11/30/2004 2/3/2003 1/12/2001 3/14/2001 Micron [DE] Infineon Infineon II Infineon II Infineon Micron [DE] FTC Coordinated Cases Micron [DE] Hynix Hynix Price Fixing Price Fixing Infineon Infineon Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon Infineon II Hynix Infineon II Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon FTC Price Fixing Coordinated Cases Infineon II Price Fixing Hynix Price Fixing IBM Interference ITC '661 Price Fixing Coordinated Cases Infineon II Infineon II FTC Infineon Infineon RITC10003365 RITC10003439 RITC10006196 R-ITC-40008242 RITC10000159 R-ITC-40012013 RITC10077376 R-ITC-40011812 RITC10005459 RITC01680450 RITC01680682 RITC01680883 RITC01681052 RITC10001684 RITC10003799 RITC10003952 RITC10004351 RITC10005025 RITC10005938 RITC10098819 R-ITC-40012430 RITC10005288 R-ITC-40012617 RITC10010797 RITC10077587 RITC10077930 RITC10112380 RITC10118348 RITC01678928 RITC10078990 RITC10079043 RITC10079234 R-ITC-53379606 RITC10078230 R-ITC-40009940 R-ITC-40010646 R-ITC-40010856 RITC04195636 RITC04196190 RITC04196325
RITC10003412 RITC10003512 RITC10006261 R-ITC-40008294 RITC10000293 R-ITC-40012429 RITC10077586 R-ITC-40012012 RITC10005512 RITC01680531 RITC01680733 RITC01680965 RITC01681097 RITC10001819 RITC10003895 RITC10004350 RITC10004460 RITC10005091 RITC10006009 RITC10098835 R-ITC-40012616 RITC10005389 R-ITC-40012961 RITC10010881 RITC10077929 RITC10078229 RITC10112638 RITC10118360 RITC01678981 RITC10079042 RITC10079066 RITC10079396 R-ITC-53379955 RITC10078536 R-ITC-40010053 R-ITC-40010855 R-ITC-40010965 RITC04195858 RITC04196324 RITC04196448 RITC10002877 RITC10003513 RITC10006262 R-ITC-40013420 RITC10000294 R-ITC-40013768 RITC10060273 R-ITC-40014752 No exhibits RITC01680532 RITC01680734 RITC01680966 RITC01681098 RITC10001820 RITC10003856 RITC10004051 RITC10004461 RITC10005092 RITC10006010 RITC01681841 R-ITC-40013589 RITC10011843 R-ITC-40014308 RITC10010882 RITC10060784 RITC10062297 RITC10112639 RITC10118361 RITC01678982 3PC 3PC No exhibits R-ITC-53378923 RITC10062395 R-ITC-40018596 R-ITC-40020938 R-ITC-40021011 RITC10089689 RITC10003364 RITC10003798 RITC10006998 R-ITC-40013588 RITC10001683 R-ITC-40014307 RITC10060783 R-ITC-40016126 RITC01680681 RITC01680804 RITC01681051 RITC01681136 RITC10002738 RITC10003895 RITC10004350 RITC10004911 RITC10005287 RITC10006195 RITC01681841 R-ITC-40013591 RITC10012160 R-ITC-40014551 RITC10011374 RITC10062296 RITC10062394 RITC10112916 RITC10118412 RITC01679543
R-ITC-53379605 RITC10062593 R-ITC-40020937 R-ITC-40021010 R-ITC-40021150 RITC10090198
Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Vincent, Ward, Ware, Ware, Ware, Ware, Ware, Ware, Woo, Woo, Woo, Zsarnay, Lester Lester Lester Lester Lester Emily Fred Fred Fred Fred Fred Fred Steven Steven Steven John 4/11/2001 4/12/2001 7/11/2001 7/12/2001 10/9/2001 7/28/2006 2/24/2004 2/13/2003 8/9/2001 8/12/2008 5/21/2009 5/22/2009 3/18/2008 3/19/2008 2/20/2009 9/6/2005 Infineon Infineon Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Micron [DE] Infineon II FTC Micron [DE] Coordinated Cases ITC '661 ITC '661 Price Fixing Price Fixing IBM Interference Hynix RITC04196449 RITC04196544 RITC04196869 RITC04197037 RITC04197194 R-ITC-40009112 RITC00368583 RITC00368223 RITC10008887 RITC10041762 R-ITC-53382235 R-ITC-53382701 RITC01675244 RITC01675374 RITC10079397 RITC01672399
RITC04196543 RITC04196794 RITC04197036 RITC04197193 RITC04197415 R-ITC-40009219 RITC00368637 RITC00368297 RITC10009974 RITC10041842 R-ITC-53382402 R-ITC-53382872 RITC01675288 RITC01675426 RITC10079523 RITC01672436 RITC10090199 RITC10090420 RITC10091758 RITC10092129 RITC10092732 R-ITC-40022602 RITC00368638 RITC00368298 RITC10062594 RITC10062594 R-ITC-53380559 R-ITC-53381275 RITC01675289 RITC01675427 No exhibits RITC01672437 RITC10090419 RITC10091757 RITC10092128 RITC10092732 RITC10092807 R-ITC-40022758 RITC00368731 RITC00368582 RITC10063672 RITC10064276 R-ITC-53381274 R-ITC-53382171 RITC01675373 RITC01675576 RITC01672498

58

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

58

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document58

(All parties and counsel listed on Signature Page)

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. LSI CORPORATION, Defendant. RAMBUS INC.,

Case No. 3:10-cv-05446 RS

Case No. 3:10-cv-05447 RS

22 Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 MEDIATEK INC., 25 Defendant. 26 27 28

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants.

Case No. 3:10-cv-05449 RS

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Summary Of All Claims And Counterclaims

U.S. Patent Broadcom 6,591,353 7,287,109 X X X X X X X X

6,542,555 7,099,404 7,580,474 7,602,857 7,602,858 7,715,494

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

simultaneously focused on the ITC hearing and post-hearing briefing. - 11 14838933.1

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Discovery Limits For Farmwald/Horowitz Patents

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Rambuss Proposed Dates

Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates T=0

LSIs and MediaTeks Alternative Proposed Dates

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Rambuss Proposed Dates

Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates

LSIs and MediaTeks Alternative Proposed Dates

T + 13 weeks Tuesday October 4, 2011 Thursday January 12, 2012

Further Case Management Conference

Deposition discovery opens

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

Rambuss Proposed Dates Friday November 18, 2011

Broadcom and STs Proposed Dates

Monday December 2, 2011

Friday March 9, 2012

Deadline for Disclosure of Expert Witness for Claim Construction

Monday December 2, 2011

Friday March 9, 2012

Exchange of Preliminary Claim Constructions and Extrinsic Evidence (P.L.R. 4-2)

Wednesday December 21, 2011

Friday March 30, 2012

Wednesday January 18, 2012

Friday April 20, 2012

Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (P.L.R. 4-4)

Friday February 17, 2012

Thursday May 25, 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Further Case Management Conference 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 24 14838933.1

Rambuss Proposed Dates

LSIs and MediaTeks Alternative Proposed Dates

Rambuss Opening Brief on Claim Construction (P.L.R. 4-5)

Friday March 2, 2012

Thursday June 7, 2012

Defendants Responsive Briefs (P.L.R. 4-5)

Friday March 16, 2012

Thursday June 21, 2012

Rambuss Reply Brief (P.L.R. 4-5)