Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4135 Filed03/22/12 Page1 of 3

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
RONALD L. OLSON ROBERT E. DENHAM JEFFREY I. WEINBERGER CARY B. LERMAN CHARLES D. SIEGAL RONALD K. MEYER GREGORY P. STONE BRAD D. BRIAN BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS GEORGE M. GARVEY WILLIAM D. TEMKO ROBERT B. KNAUSS STEPHEN M. KRISTOVICH JOHN W. SPIEGEL TERRY E. SANCHEZ STEVEN M. PERRY MARK B. HELM JOSEPH D. LEE MICHAEL R. DOYEN MICHAEL E. SOLOFF GREGORY D. PHILLIPS LAWRENCE C. BARTH KATHLEEN M. M C DOWELL GLENN D. POMERANTZ THOMAS B. WALPER RONALD C. HAUSMANN PATRICK J. CAFFERTY, JR. JAY M. FUJITANI O'MALLEY M. MILLER SANDRA A. SEVILLE-JONES MARK H. EPSTEIN HENRY WEISSMANN KEVIN S. ALLRED BART H. WILLIAMS JEFFREY A. HEINTZ JUDITH T. KITANO KRISTIN LINSLEY MYLES MARC T.G. DWORSKY JEROME C. ROTH STEPHEN D. ROSE GARTH T. VINCENT TED DANE STUART N. SENATOR
† †

MARTIN D. BERN DANIEL P. COLLINS RICHARD E. DROOYAN ROBERT L. DELL ANGELO BRUCE A. ABBOTT JONATHAN E. ALTMAN MARY ANN TODD MICHAEL J. O'SULLIVAN KELLY M. KLAUS DAVID B. GOLDMAN KEVIN S. MASUDA HOJOON HWANG DAVID C. DINIELLI PETER A. DETRE PAUL J. WATFORD DANA S. TREISTER CARL H. MOOR DAVID H. FRY LISA J. DEMSKY MALCOLM A. HEINICKE GREGORY J. WEINGART TAMERLIN J. GODLEY JAMES C. RUTTEN J. MARTIN WILLHITE RICHARD ST. JOHN ROHIT K. SINGLA LUIS LI CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE C. DAVID LEE MARK H. KIM BRETT J. RODDA SEAN ESKOVITZ FRED A. ROWLEY, JR. KATHERINE M. FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG RANDALL G. SOMMER MARIA SEFERIAN MANUEL F. CACHÁN ROSEMARIE T. RING JOSEPH J. YBARRA KATHERINE K. HUANG MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TODD J. ROSEN

355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2

560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7

March 22, 2012

TRUC T. DO MELINDA EADES LeMOINE SETH GOLDMAN SUSAN R. SZABO LINDSAY D. M C CASKILL BRIAN R. HOCHLEUTNER GRANT A. DAVIS-DENNY JONATHAN H. BLAVIN KAREN J. EPHRAIM LIKA C. MIYAKE ANDREW W. SONG VICTORIA L. BOESCH HAILYN J. CHEN BRAD SCHNEIDER MIRIAM KIM MISTY M. SANFORD AIMEE FEINBERG KATHERINE KU KIMBERLY A. CHI SHOSHANA E. BANNETT DEREK J. KAUFMAN MARCUS J. SPIEGEL BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH WILLIAM E. CANO HENRY E. ORREN BENJAMIN W. HOWELL JACOB S. KREILKAMP ERIC P. TUTTLE HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI KEITH R.D. HAMILTON, II SORAYA C. KELLY PATRICK ANDERSON JEFFREY Y. WU MARK R. CONRAD L. ASHLEY AULL M. LANCE JASPER ALISSA BRANHAM ADAM R. LAWTON RACHEL L. STEIN AVI BRAZ DAVID C. LACHMAN JENNY H. HONG AARON SEIJI LOWENSTEIN

LAURA D. SMOLOWE SARALA V. NAGALA LEO GOLDBARD MATTHEW A. MACDONALD CAROLYN V. ZABRYCKI MARGARET G. ZIEGLER ESTHER H. SUNG MIRIAM SEIFTER BENJAMIN J. MARO RENEE DELPHIN-RODRIGUEZ MICHAEL J. MONGAN KATHRYN A. EIDMANN JOEL M. PURLES KYLE A. CASAZZA RICHARD C. CHEN AARON GREENE LEIDERMAN ERIN J. COX CLAIRE YAN DAVID H. PENNINGTON BRAM ALDEN MARK R. SAYSON JOHN M. RAPPAPORT DAVID C. THOMPSON ANNE HENRY LEE MATTHEW M. STEINBERG CHRISTIAN K. WREDE PETER E. GRATZINGER ––-––––– OF COUNSEL † RICHARD D. ESBENSHADE † ROBERT K. JOHNSON † ALAN V. FRIEDMAN RICHARD S. VOLPERT ALLISON B. STEIN SUSAN E. NASH ALLEN M. KATZ WILLIANA CHANG –––––––E. LEROY TOLLES (1 922-2008)

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

WRITER’S DIRECT LINE

VIA E-FILE The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge Northern District of California 280 South First Street, Courtroom Six San Jose, California 95113 Re: Dear Judge Whyte:

(213) 683-9255 (213) 683-5155 FAX Gregory.Stone@mto.com

Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. CV-00-20905 RMW

I write in response to Mr. Nissly’s letter of March 16, 2012, regarding Administrative Law Judge Essex’s Initial Determination (“ID”) in International Trade Commission Investigation No. 337-TA-753. The portions of the ID Hynix cites pertain to U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405, 6,591,353, and 7,287,109 (the “Barth Patents”), which address memory controller technology. These patents were issued between 2002 and 2007, long after the document destruction at issue, and are not members of the Farmwald-Horowitz family involved in this case. Judge Essex held all of the Barth patent claims before him invalid on grounds of anticipation and obviousness. ID 365. In addition, he held those claims to be unenforceable under the unclean hands doctrine. ID 366. Rambus has petitioned for review of the ID by the full International Trade Commission. The International Trade Commission staff has also filed a contingent petition for Commission review. Judge Essex’s unclean hands analysis does not provide a new perspective on the issues pending in this Court. It relies on many of the same arguments that Hynix previously made, which are unpersuasive for reasons Rambus discussed at length in prior briefing and oral argument.
16946314.1

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4135 Filed03/22/12 Page2 of 3 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP March 22, 2012 Page 2

First, Judge Essex opined that the duty to preserve evidence attached in July 1998, before Shred Day One. However, even the Delaware Court was unwilling to find the onset of a duty that early in Micron, instead fixing the duty date as December 1998. And even that later date was not adopted by the Federal Circuit, which affirmed only on the “binary” basis that the duty attached before Shred Day Two in August 1999. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311, 1321-22 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Micron II”). In fact, throughout 1998, Rambus understood licensing to be a back-up line of defense, something the company contemplated only for the unlikely, hypothetical scenario in which Rambus did not meet with complete success on RDRAM. Second, with respect to bad faith, the ID touches on the same grounds that have been covered in prior briefing in this Court, including the role of outside counsel, the meaning of the phrases “battle ready” and “look for things to keep,” and the manner in which the document policy was adopted and implemented. ID 266-69. The evidence shows that Rambus adopted and implemented its content-neutral policy at the behest of outside counsel, with no intent to hide adverse information or to stymie litigation opponents. Third, given the lack of bad faith, the ID incorrectly placed the burden on Rambus to show lack of prejudice. Furthermore, regardless of who bears the burden, the ID fails to articulate a persuasive or even coherent theory of how Rambus’s document policy could have prejudiced its opponents. ID 312-14. The only defense the ID deems to have been prejudiced is invalidity, but the opinion does not explain how the objective invalidity inquiry could have been materially affected by any destruction of internal Rambus documents. See Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 255 F.R.D. 135, 151 n.59 (D. Del. 2009) (“Micron I”) (no prejudice to invalidity defenses because “prior art references (by definition) must be publicly available”). Indeed, the lack of prejudice to the Respondents’ invalidity defense is demonstrated by the ID itself, inasmuch as Judge Essex held the asserted Barth patent claims invalid on the basis of prior art. In a related proceeding, the International Trade Commission has taken the position that there was no prejudice irrespective of where the burden fell. Judge Essex was also the Administrative Law Judge in Investigation No. 337-TA-661, which raised similar issues respecting Rambus’s document retention policy and which also involves patents in the Barth family. In a Rule 28(j) letter to the Federal Circuit in an appeal arising from that investigation, the full International Trade Commission – which will review Judge Essex’s decision in Investigation No. 337-TA-753 – explained that the prejudice element was not satisfied regardless of which party bore the burden of proof on that issue. (Dkt. No. 4074-1, Ex. A to Rambus’s Answering Brief on Remand, Oct. 14, 2011.) Moreover, the ID’s analysis of Respondents’ other defenses confirms that no prejudice resulted from Rambus’s document destruction. Following the Federal Circuit’s Infineon and Hynix decisions, Judge Essex rejected Respondents’ JEDEC-based equitable estoppel defense, reasoning that the Barth Patents were not necessary to practice JEDEC standards. ID 317-21. He further rejected their inequitable conduct defense because the allegedly omitted prior art was cumulative and immaterial. ID 246. Because these

16946314.1

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4135 Filed03/22/12 Page3 of 3 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP March 22, 2012 Page 3

determinations did not depend on internal Rambus documents, those defenses could not possibly have been prejudiced. Thus, to the extent the ID contributes anything at all to the Court’s consideration of the issues in this case, it only confirms that the objective legal standards governing Hynix’s defenses defeat any inference of material prejudice. See, e.g., Micron I, 255 F.R.D. at 151 n.59 (objective standards for invalidity defenses); Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1104 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he JEDEC test in fact depends on whether claims reasonably might read on the standard. A member’s subjective beliefs, hopes, and desires are irrelevant”). Rambus has discussed these issues extensively in prior briefing, along with the fact that Rambus in any event did preserve and produce the relevant JEDEC and patent documents. See Dkt. No. 4084, Br. ISO Rambus’s Proposed Findings, Nov. 14, 2011, at 18-22; Dkt. No. 4088, Response Br. ISO Rambus’s Proposed Findings, Dec. 5, 2011, at 39-49; Dkt. No. 4091-1, Rambus’s Supp. Proposed Findings (Non-Annotated), Dec. 5, 2011, at 85-93. The Court has seen and heard the evidence first hand and is well-positioned to resolve Hynix’s unclean hands defense based on its own analysis. Sincerely, /s/ Gregory P. Stone Gregory P. Stone GPS:ath cc: Kenneth L. Nissly, Esq. (via e-mail and e-file) All Counsel on ECF Service List (via e-file)

16946314.1

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful