2239-2
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 2239-2 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 999
- Pages: 4
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
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]
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 4
Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 900131010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Email: [email protected] 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 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 16
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,
17 18 19
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants.
20 21
Date: Time: Location: Judge:
22 23 24
RAMBUS INC.,
25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF KEITH R. D. HAMILTON IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUS INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER
September 24, 2008 2:30 p.m. Courtroom 6 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW Plaintiff,
v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants 5960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
RAMBUS INC.,
2 3 4 5
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
Page 2 of 4
CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW Plaintiff,
v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Defendants.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -25960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
Page 3 of 4
DECLARATION OF KEITH R. D. HAMILTON
2
I, Keith R. D. Hamilton, do hereby declare and say:
3
1.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, counsel of
4
record for Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) in this case, and am admitted to practice before this Court. I
5
submit this declaration in support of Rambus’s Supplemental Brief on the Court’s September 5,
6
2008 Tentative Order. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and could and
7
would testify competently to each of them.
8 9 10
2.
Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of a publication from the
Institute For Progress entitled Examining Inter Partes Reexam (2008). The document is available from www.instituteforprogress.com.
11
3.
Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of Andrew S. Baluch &
12
Stephen B. Maebius, The Surprising Efficacy of Inter Partes Rexaminations (2008), available at
13
http://www.foley.com/files/tbl_s31Publications/FileUpload137/5234/InterPartesReexam.pdf.
14
4.
Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of Stuart Weinberg,
15
Worried About That Infringement Case? Ask For A Reexam, Dow Jones Newswires, May 30,
16
2008.
17
5.
Attached as Exhibit D hereto is a true and correct copy of Robert Greene Sterne et
18
al., Reexamination Practice With Concurrent District Court Patent Litigation, The Sedona
19
Conference Journal, Vol. 9, at 53 (2008).
20
6.
Attached as Exhibit E hereto are true and correct copies of the transactional
21
histories of Reexamination No. 95/000,006 (Patent No. 6,357,595); Reexamination No.
22
95/000,009 (Patent No. 6,399,670); and Reexamination No. 95/000,030 (Patent No. 6,508,393).
23
These histories were taken from the PTO web site at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.
24
Also attached hereto are the true and correct copies of the related decisions of the Board of Patent
25
Appeals and Interferences: NEC Corp. et al. v. Entegris, Inc., 2007 WL 952194 (Bd. Pat. App. &
26
Interf. Mar. 26, 2007) (Patent No. 6,357,595); Lobo v. Congoleum Corp., 2007 WL 988649 (Bd.
27
Pat. App. & Interf. Mar. 30, 2007) (Patent No. 6,399,670); and Watson & Chalin Manufacturing,
28 -15960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
Page 4 of 4
1
Inc. v. Hendrickson U.S.A., 2008 WL 345059 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. Feb. 6, 2008) (Patent No.
2
6,508,393).
3
7.
Attached as Exhibit F hereto are true and correct copies of the transactional
4
histories of Reexamination No. 95/000, 178 (Patent No. 6,324,120); Reexamination No.
5
95/001,026 (Patent No. 6,378,020); and Reexamination No. 95/000,250 (Patent No. 6,452, 863);
6
Reexamination No. 95/000,166 (Patent No. 6,426,916); and Reexamination No. 95/000,183
7
(Patent No. 6,182,184). These histories were taken from the PTO web site at
8
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.
9
8.
Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Netapp, Inc.’s Opp’n to Def.
10
Sun Microsystems, Inc.’s Mot. For Partial Stay, Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems,
11
Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL (Apr. 29, 2008).
12
9.
Attached as Exhibit H hereto is a true and correct copy of excerpts from United
13
States Patent and Trademark Office, Performance And Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2007
14
(2007), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2007/2007annualreport.pdf.
15 16 17 18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of September, 2008 at San Jose, California.
19 20
________/s/ Keith R.D. Hamilton________ Keith R. D. Hamilton
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --2-5960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
1 2 3 4 5
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
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]
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 4
Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 900131010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Email: [email protected] 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 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 16
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,
17 18 19
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants.
20 21
Date: Time: Location: Judge:
22 23 24
RAMBUS INC.,
25 26 27 28
DECLARATION OF KEITH R. D. HAMILTON IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUS INC.’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER
September 24, 2008 2:30 p.m. Courtroom 6 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
CASE NO.: C 05-02298 RMW Plaintiff,
v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al., Defendants 5960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
RAMBUS INC.,
2 3 4 5
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
Page 2 of 4
CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW Plaintiff,
v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Defendants.
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -25960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
Page 3 of 4
DECLARATION OF KEITH R. D. HAMILTON
2
I, Keith R. D. Hamilton, do hereby declare and say:
3
1.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, counsel of
4
record for Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) in this case, and am admitted to practice before this Court. I
5
submit this declaration in support of Rambus’s Supplemental Brief on the Court’s September 5,
6
2008 Tentative Order. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth herein and could and
7
would testify competently to each of them.
8 9 10
2.
Attached as Exhibit A hereto is a true and correct copy of a publication from the
Institute For Progress entitled Examining Inter Partes Reexam (2008). The document is available from www.instituteforprogress.com.
11
3.
Attached as Exhibit B hereto is a true and correct copy of Andrew S. Baluch &
12
Stephen B. Maebius, The Surprising Efficacy of Inter Partes Rexaminations (2008), available at
13
http://www.foley.com/files/tbl_s31Publications/FileUpload137/5234/InterPartesReexam.pdf.
14
4.
Attached as Exhibit C hereto is a true and correct copy of Stuart Weinberg,
15
Worried About That Infringement Case? Ask For A Reexam, Dow Jones Newswires, May 30,
16
2008.
17
5.
Attached as Exhibit D hereto is a true and correct copy of Robert Greene Sterne et
18
al., Reexamination Practice With Concurrent District Court Patent Litigation, The Sedona
19
Conference Journal, Vol. 9, at 53 (2008).
20
6.
Attached as Exhibit E hereto are true and correct copies of the transactional
21
histories of Reexamination No. 95/000,006 (Patent No. 6,357,595); Reexamination No.
22
95/000,009 (Patent No. 6,399,670); and Reexamination No. 95/000,030 (Patent No. 6,508,393).
23
These histories were taken from the PTO web site at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.
24
Also attached hereto are the true and correct copies of the related decisions of the Board of Patent
25
Appeals and Interferences: NEC Corp. et al. v. Entegris, Inc., 2007 WL 952194 (Bd. Pat. App. &
26
Interf. Mar. 26, 2007) (Patent No. 6,357,595); Lobo v. Congoleum Corp., 2007 WL 988649 (Bd.
27
Pat. App. & Interf. Mar. 30, 2007) (Patent No. 6,399,670); and Watson & Chalin Manufacturing,
28 -15960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2239-2
Filed 09/19/2008
Page 4 of 4
1
Inc. v. Hendrickson U.S.A., 2008 WL 345059 (Bd. Pat. App. & Interf. Feb. 6, 2008) (Patent No.
2
6,508,393).
3
7.
Attached as Exhibit F hereto are true and correct copies of the transactional
4
histories of Reexamination No. 95/000, 178 (Patent No. 6,324,120); Reexamination No.
5
95/001,026 (Patent No. 6,378,020); and Reexamination No. 95/000,250 (Patent No. 6,452, 863);
6
Reexamination No. 95/000,166 (Patent No. 6,426,916); and Reexamination No. 95/000,183
7
(Patent No. 6,182,184). These histories were taken from the PTO web site at
8
http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair.
9
8.
Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of Netapp, Inc.’s Opp’n to Def.
10
Sun Microsystems, Inc.’s Mot. For Partial Stay, Network Appliance, Inc. v. Sun Microsystems,
11
Inc., No. C-07-06053 EDL (Apr. 29, 2008).
12
9.
Attached as Exhibit H hereto is a true and correct copy of excerpts from United
13
States Patent and Trademark Office, Performance And Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2007
14
(2007), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/annual/2007/2007annualreport.pdf.
15 16 17 18
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 19th day of September, 2008 at San Jose, California.
19 20
________/s/ Keith R.D. Hamilton________ Keith R. D. Hamilton
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 --2-5960401.1 HAMILTON DECL. I/S/O RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF ON THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 5, 2008 TENTATIVE ORDER; CASE NOS. 05-00334-RMW, 05-02298-RMW, C 06-00244-RMW
