2066

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

1 2 3 4 5

Document 2066

Filed 08/19/2008

Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329) Steven M. Perry (State Bar No. 106154) Sean Eskovitz (State Bar No. 241877) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Email: [email protected]

6

11

Peter A. Detre (State Bar No. 182619) Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976) Jennifer L. Polse (State Bar No. 219202) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

12

Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

7 8 9 10

Page 1 of 6

Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice) Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice) McKOOL SMITH PC 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

15 16

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,

17 18 19

CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW

vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,

RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR THE FARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENTS AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

Defendants.

20 21 22 23

RAMBUS INC.,

CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW Plaintiff,

v.

24 25 26

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants.

27 28 RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 2066

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 2 of 6

1 2

CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW RAMBUS INC.,

3 Plaintiff, 4 vs. 5 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al, 6 Defendants. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

1

I.

Document 2066

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 3 of 6

INTRODUCTION The Court’s Claim Construction Order for the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents

2 3

(“Order”) finds that the term “memory device,” as used in the asserted claims of the

4

Farmwald/Horowitz patents-in-suit, need not refer to a single chip. The Court’s construction is

5

contrary to intrinsic evidence showing that the essence of the Farmwald/Horowitz inventions is to

6

enable single memory chips to achieve levels of performance that would have required multiple

7

prior art chips. Moreover, the Court’s construction is contrary to extrinsic evidence regarding

8

what one of skill in the art would understand the term “memory device” to mean. Whether the

9

term “memory device” is construed to be a single chip has significant implications with respect to

10

the Manufacturers’ invalidity arguments. Consequently, Rambus respectfully requests that the

11

Court grant Rambus leave to file the motion for reconsideration of the construction of the term

12

“memory device” attached hereto as Exhibit A. In addition, the Court’s constructions of “sample” “samples” and “sampling” may

13 14

be read as introducing unintended distinctions among these terms as to the number of points in

15

time at which values are to be obtained. Nothing in either the evidence presented to the Court or

16

in the Court’s analysis supports such a distinction. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court

17

clarify its Order to make clear that all three terms involve obtaining values at “one or more

18

distinct points in time.”

19

II.

20

A.

21 22 23

DISCUSSION The Court Should Grant Leave for Rambus to File A Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Construction of “Memory Device.” Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) indicates that leave to file a motion for reconsideration of an

order may be granted in the case of “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court” prior to the order in question.1 In

24 25 26 27 28

1

Rambus recognizes that Local Rule 7-9(c) provides that “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered.” Rambus respectfully submits, however, that in order to show “a manifest failure by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court,” as provided in Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), it must refer to those facts or arguments. -1-

RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 2066

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 4 of 6

1

this case, as set forth in the motion for reconsideration that Rambus seeks leave to file, attached

2

hereto as Exhibit A, the Court’s claim construction order indicates that the Court failed to

3

consider material facts that cannot be reconciled with the Court’s construction of the term

4

“memory device.”

5

In particular:

6

(1) The Court, as indicated in the Order, failed to appreciate the import of a portion

7

of the specification cited by Rambus clearly indicating, contrary to the Order, that a “memory

8

device” must be a single chip;

9

(2) The Court failed to consider a portion of the prosecution history cited by

10

Rambus also clearly indicating, contrary to the Order, that a “memory device” must be a single

11

chip; and

12

(3) The Court failed to consider extrinsic evidence, in the form of the testimony of

13

one of the Manufacturers’ own experts, demonstrating that a person of skill in the art would

14

consider the term “memory device” to consist of a single chip.

15

The Manufacturers’ have asserted prior art, consisting of multiple chips that they

16

argue anticipate certain claims. Because the Court failed to consider intrinsic and extrinsic

17

evidence showing that “memory device,” as used in the Farmwald patent claims, refers to a single

18

chip, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant leave for Rambus to file the attached

19

motion for reconsideration.

20 21

B.

The Court Should Clarify Its Construction of the Terms “sample,” “samples” and “sampling” The Court has construed “ ‘sample’ to mean ‘to obtain at a discrete point in time,’

22 ‘samples’ as ‘obtains at discrete points in time,’ and ‘sampling’ as ‘obtaining at discrete points in 23 time.’” Order at 55. Thus, in what may have been an unintended distinction, the Court’s 24 construction seems to suggest that “sample” involves obtaining a value at a single discrete point 25 in time, while “samples” and “sampling” both involve obtaining values at multiple discrete points 26 in time. Nothing in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, or in the Court’s discussion of the terms, 27 supports such a distinction. To the contrary, “sample” “samples” and “sampling” are simply 28 -2-

RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

Document 2066

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 5 of 6

1

different conjugations of the same verb that cannot change the sense of the verb as the Court’s

2

construction may imply. Simply put, if “I sample” means that I obtain a value at one or more

3

discrete points in time, then “he samples” must mean that he obtains a value at one or more

4

discrete points in time; nothing in the different conjugations of the verb should affect the number

5

of values being obtained by the subject. As the Court’s constructions recognize, to sample may

6

mean to obtain at one or more distinct points in time.

7

Indeed, to hold otherwise would lead to inconsistent constructions of similar claim

8

language. For example, claim 30 of the ’020 patent includes the limitation: “input receiver

9

circuitry to sample an operation code synchronously with respect to a first transition of an

10

external clock signal,” while claim 29 of the ’120 patent includes the limitation that “the input

11

receiver circuitry samples the first operation code synchronously with respect to the external

12

clock signal.” Under the Court’s current construction, the former limitation would be interpreted

13

as involving the sampling of the operation code at a single discrete point in time, while the latter

14

limitation could involve sampling the operation code at multiple discrete points in time.

15

To avoid confusion, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court clarify its ruling

16

to make clear that “sample,” “samples,” and “sampling” are to be construed similarly as “obtain

17

at one or more discrete points in time,” “obtains at one or more discrete points in time,” and

18

“obtaining at one or more discrete points in time,” respectively.

19

III.

20

CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court (1)

21

grant leave for Rambus to file the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s construction of the

22

term “memory device,” attached hereto as Exhibit A, and (2) clarify its ruling to make clear that

23

“sample,” “samples,” and “sampling” are to be construed similarly as “obtain at one or more

24

discrete points in time,” “obtains at one or more discrete points in time,” and “obtaining at one or

25

more discrete points in time,” respectively.

26 27 28 -3-

RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW

1

Document 2066

DATED: August 19, 2008

Filed 08/19/2008

Page 6 of 6

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

2

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

3

McKOOL SMITH P.C.

4 5

By:

6

/s/ Peter A. Detre PETER A. DETRE

Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-

RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW