2131-2
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 2131-2 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,336
- Pages: 4
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4
Document 2131-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 4
Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329) 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]
5 6 7 8 9
Burton A. Gross (State Bar No. 166285) Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976) 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]
10 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14
RAMBUS INC.,
15 16 17
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
Plaintiff, vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUS’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Date: September 5, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 21 22
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
23 24 25 26
CASE NO.: C-05-02298 RMW
vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
27 28 Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2131-2
1
I, Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, hereby declare:
2
1.
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 4
I am an attorney with the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, counsel of record
3
for Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) in the above-entitled actions. I am licensed in the State of
4
California and admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration based on my
5
personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to
6
the matters set forth below.
7
2.
Since August 14, 2008, I have been engaged in negotiations with counsel for
8
Samsung regarding the manner and scope of presentation of certain issues at the upcoming
9
September 22 Trial. Part of these negotiations involved a proposed stipulation regarding the
10
claims and defenses listed in Samsung’s September 2, 2008 Proposed Order Granting Samsung’s
11
Administrative Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defenses (hereinafter the “Disputed
12
Claims”). The basic premise of the negotiations was to negotiate a stipulation that would dismiss
13
the Disputed Claims unless and until the August 11, 2008 summary judgment order on Counts IV
14
through VII was overturned on appeal.
15
3.
During the stipulation negotiations, I made it clear that Rambus would not agree
16
that Samsung could pursue its Disputed Claims in the pending San Francisco Superior Court
17
action, or any other action, while the August 11, 2008 summary judgment order was on appeal.
18
At no point during our stipulation negotiations did Samsung’s counsel state that it wanted to drop
19
the Disputed Claims so that it could pursue them in San Francisco Superior Court. Initially,
20
Samsung’s counsel proposed that the Disputed Claims be dismissed without prejudice, but in an
21
August 22, 2008 email, I explained that Rule 41(a) does not allow for dismissal without prejudice
22
of only part of an action. A true and correct redacted copy of that email is attached hereto as
23
Exhibit I. In the stipulation attached to my August 22, 2008 email, I proposed revisions to the
24
stipulation that would dismiss the Disputed Claims with prejudice and that would explicitly
25
preclude Samsung from pursuing or litigating them in other forums. In response, counsel for
26
Samsung sent a draft stipulation on August 25, 2008 that agreed to dismiss the Disputed Claims
27
with prejudice and agreed that Samsung would not raise, pursue, or litigate the Disputed Claims
28
in the San Francisco Superior Court action, or in any other case. -1-
Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
4.
Document 2131-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 4
At the time of the filing of the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement, on August 27,
2
2008, the parties had not yet finalized the language of the stipulation. At that point, the operative
3
draft contained a stipulation with prejudice and a bar on pursuing the Disputed Claims in other
4
forums. I explained to Samsung’s counsel on August 27, 2008 that I thought that we should
5
postpone the pretrial submissions related to the Disputed Claims to September 2, 2008, in the
6
hope that the parties would finalize the stipulation before that date. Samsung’s counsel agreed to
7
my proposal. The parties stated this agreement in their Joint Pretrial Statement that they filed on
8
August 27, 2008.
9
5.
The afternoon of August 29, 2008, counsel for Samsung informed me that
10
Samsung had “revisited” the stipulation and now required a dismissal without prejudice of the
11
Disputed Claims, and it wanted to delete the paragraph of the stipulation that precluded Samsung
12
from pursuing the Disputed Claims in other cases such as the San Francisco Superior Court
13
action. I told Samsung’s counsel that Rambus would not agree to the stipulation under those
14
conditions. Rambus then proceeded to supplement its pretrial disclosures on September 2, 2008
15
with evidence related to the Disputed Claims.
16 17 18
6.
A true and correct copy of a letter from David Healey to the Court, dated
November 2, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7.
A true and correct copy of Samsung’s Notice of Motion, Motion and
19
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Administrative Relief To Set a
20
Case Management Conference, Docket No. 537 (filed Nov. 13, 2007) is attached hereto as
21
Exhibit B.
22
8.
A true and correct copy of Rambus Inc.’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion for
23
Administrative Relief To Set a Case Management Conference To Be Excused From January 22
24
Trial, Docket No. 548 (filed Nov. 16, 2007), is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
25 26 27 28
9.
A true and correct copy of a letter from David Healey to the Court, dated
December 10, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 10.
A true and correct copy of excerpts of the Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings in
this Court on December 13, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. -2-
Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3
11.
Document 2131-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 4
A true and correct copy of excerpts of the Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings in
this Court on December 14, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 12.
A true and correct copy of the Superseding Order Regarding Procedural Schedule
4
and Related Matters for the September 22, 2008 Trial, Docket No. 777 (filed May 7, 2008) is
5
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
6
13.
A true and correct copy of the Public Redacted Order Granting Rambus’s Motion
7
for Summary Judgment on Counts IV-VI of Samsung’s Counterclaims (Case No. 05-CV-00334-
8
RMW, Docket No. 2059) (filed Aug. 18, 2008) is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
9
14.
A true and correct copy of Answer of Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., LTD to
10
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 04-0431105 is attached
11
hereto as Exhibit J.
12
15.
A true and correct copy of Cross-Complaint of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
13
Against Cross-Defendant Rambus, Inc., filed in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 04-
14
0431105 is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
15 16 17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
18 19
Executed on September 4, 2008 at San Jose, California.
20 ____/s/ Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
1 2 3 4
Document 2131-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 4
Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329) 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]
5 6 7 8 9
Burton A. Gross (State Bar No. 166285) Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976) 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]
10 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 13 14
RAMBUS INC.,
15 16 17
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
Plaintiff, vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
18
Defendants.
19
DECLARATION OF CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUS’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Date: September 5, 2008 Time: 9:00 a.m.
20 21 22
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant
23 24 25 26
CASE NO.: C-05-02298 RMW
vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al. Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
27 28 Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2131-2
1
I, Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, hereby declare:
2
1.
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 4
I am an attorney with the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, counsel of record
3
for Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) in the above-entitled actions. I am licensed in the State of
4
California and admitted to practice before this Court. I make this declaration based on my
5
personal knowledge and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to
6
the matters set forth below.
7
2.
Since August 14, 2008, I have been engaged in negotiations with counsel for
8
Samsung regarding the manner and scope of presentation of certain issues at the upcoming
9
September 22 Trial. Part of these negotiations involved a proposed stipulation regarding the
10
claims and defenses listed in Samsung’s September 2, 2008 Proposed Order Granting Samsung’s
11
Administrative Motion to Dismiss Certain Claims and Defenses (hereinafter the “Disputed
12
Claims”). The basic premise of the negotiations was to negotiate a stipulation that would dismiss
13
the Disputed Claims unless and until the August 11, 2008 summary judgment order on Counts IV
14
through VII was overturned on appeal.
15
3.
During the stipulation negotiations, I made it clear that Rambus would not agree
16
that Samsung could pursue its Disputed Claims in the pending San Francisco Superior Court
17
action, or any other action, while the August 11, 2008 summary judgment order was on appeal.
18
At no point during our stipulation negotiations did Samsung’s counsel state that it wanted to drop
19
the Disputed Claims so that it could pursue them in San Francisco Superior Court. Initially,
20
Samsung’s counsel proposed that the Disputed Claims be dismissed without prejudice, but in an
21
August 22, 2008 email, I explained that Rule 41(a) does not allow for dismissal without prejudice
22
of only part of an action. A true and correct redacted copy of that email is attached hereto as
23
Exhibit I. In the stipulation attached to my August 22, 2008 email, I proposed revisions to the
24
stipulation that would dismiss the Disputed Claims with prejudice and that would explicitly
25
preclude Samsung from pursuing or litigating them in other forums. In response, counsel for
26
Samsung sent a draft stipulation on August 25, 2008 that agreed to dismiss the Disputed Claims
27
with prejudice and agreed that Samsung would not raise, pursue, or litigate the Disputed Claims
28
in the San Francisco Superior Court action, or in any other case. -1-
Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
4.
Document 2131-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 4
At the time of the filing of the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement, on August 27,
2
2008, the parties had not yet finalized the language of the stipulation. At that point, the operative
3
draft contained a stipulation with prejudice and a bar on pursuing the Disputed Claims in other
4
forums. I explained to Samsung’s counsel on August 27, 2008 that I thought that we should
5
postpone the pretrial submissions related to the Disputed Claims to September 2, 2008, in the
6
hope that the parties would finalize the stipulation before that date. Samsung’s counsel agreed to
7
my proposal. The parties stated this agreement in their Joint Pretrial Statement that they filed on
8
August 27, 2008.
9
5.
The afternoon of August 29, 2008, counsel for Samsung informed me that
10
Samsung had “revisited” the stipulation and now required a dismissal without prejudice of the
11
Disputed Claims, and it wanted to delete the paragraph of the stipulation that precluded Samsung
12
from pursuing the Disputed Claims in other cases such as the San Francisco Superior Court
13
action. I told Samsung’s counsel that Rambus would not agree to the stipulation under those
14
conditions. Rambus then proceeded to supplement its pretrial disclosures on September 2, 2008
15
with evidence related to the Disputed Claims.
16 17 18
6.
A true and correct copy of a letter from David Healey to the Court, dated
November 2, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7.
A true and correct copy of Samsung’s Notice of Motion, Motion and
19
Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Administrative Relief To Set a
20
Case Management Conference, Docket No. 537 (filed Nov. 13, 2007) is attached hereto as
21
Exhibit B.
22
8.
A true and correct copy of Rambus Inc.’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion for
23
Administrative Relief To Set a Case Management Conference To Be Excused From January 22
24
Trial, Docket No. 548 (filed Nov. 16, 2007), is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
25 26 27 28
9.
A true and correct copy of a letter from David Healey to the Court, dated
December 10, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 10.
A true and correct copy of excerpts of the Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings in
this Court on December 13, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit E. -2-
Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3
11.
Document 2131-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 4
A true and correct copy of excerpts of the Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings in
this Court on December 14, 2007, is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 12.
A true and correct copy of the Superseding Order Regarding Procedural Schedule
4
and Related Matters for the September 22, 2008 Trial, Docket No. 777 (filed May 7, 2008) is
5
attached hereto as Exhibit G.
6
13.
A true and correct copy of the Public Redacted Order Granting Rambus’s Motion
7
for Summary Judgment on Counts IV-VI of Samsung’s Counterclaims (Case No. 05-CV-00334-
8
RMW, Docket No. 2059) (filed Aug. 18, 2008) is attached hereto as Exhibit H.
9
14.
A true and correct copy of Answer of Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., LTD to
10
Plaintiff’s Complaint, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. 04-0431105 is attached
11
hereto as Exhibit J.
12
15.
A true and correct copy of Cross-Complaint of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
13
Against Cross-Defendant Rambus, Inc., filed in San Francisco Superior Court Case No. 04-
14
0431105 is attached hereto as Exhibit K.
15 16 17
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
18 19
Executed on September 4, 2008 at San Jose, California.
20 ____/s/ Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-
Luedtke Declaration in Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice Case Nos. 05-02298 RMW & 05-00334 RMW
