2310[1]
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 2310[1] as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,481
- Pages: 4
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 2310
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 1 of 4
ROBERT E. FREITAS (STATE BAR NO. 80948) CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (STATE BAR NO. 159458) VICKIE L. FEEMAN (STATE BAR NO. 177487) THERESA E. NORTON (STATE BAR NO. 193530) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-614-7400 Facsimile: 650-614-7401 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11 RAMBUS INC.,
Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW
12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.,
DECLARATION OF KRISTIN S. CORNUELLE IN SUPPORT OF NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION’S AND NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA’S REPLY TO RAMBUS’ OPPOSITION TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL RAMBUS TO PRODUCE A WITNESS TO TESTIFY ON 30(B)(6) TOPICS 35 AND 36 (RAMBUS’ COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHERS) Date: Time: Location: Judge:
October 1, 2008 8:30 a.m. Telephonic Hearing Hon. Read A. Ambler (Ret.)
Defendants.
23 AND RELATED ACTIONS. 24 25 26 27 28 CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON TOPICS 35 AND 36 CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2310
1
I, Kristin S. Cornuelle, declare as follows:
2
1.
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 2 of 4
I am an attorney with the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
3
counsel of record for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Nanya Technology Corporation
4
(“Nanya”) and Nanya Technology Corporation USA (“Nanya USA”). I have personal
5
knowledge of the following facts and if called as a witness I could and would testify
6
competently to them.
7
2.
I have read the deposition of Geoff Tate in the Micron Technology, Inc. v.
8
Rambus Inc. case, No. 00-792-JJF, dated March 30, 2001. This deposition transcript has been
9
designated “Confidential-Outside Counsel Only” pursuant to the Protective Order entered into
10
in the above-captioned case on June 21, 2007, because it contains information regarding
11
licensing meetings, discussions and negotiations. See Protective Order at ¶ 20.
12
3.
Mr. Tate testifies in a 30(b)(6) capacity intermittently throughout pages 507:3 –
13
554:23 of the deposition. The subject matter he covers as a 30(b)(6) witness relates solely to
14
Rambus’ SDRAM and DDR licensing negotiations with various manufacturers.
15
4.
Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rollin A. Ransom in Support of Rambus Inc.’s
16
Opposition to Nanya and Nanya USA’s Motion to Compel on 30(b)(6) Topics 35 and 36
17
(“Ransom Declaration”) is an excerpt from the deposition transcript of Andrew Heller, a
18
representative of Kleiner Perkins, taken in the Infineon action on January 25, 2001. Mr. Heller
19
is asked if he had a good understanding of Rambus’ intentions. See Ransom Decl., Exh. B at
20
12:8-9. Mr. Heller testifies that he understood why an approach based on Rambus’ ideas would
21
be valuable. Id. at 13-15. Mr. Heller is then asked about what Rambus’ presentation showed
22
and testifies as to what he remembers regarding its contents. Id. at 12:16-13:10. Mr. Heller is
23
not asked further questions about communications between Kleiner Perkins and Rambus, nor
24
asked any follow-up questions about what Rambus told him or Kleiner Perkins specifically
25
about Rambus’ inventions during the presentation.
26
5.
Exhibit D to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
27
of Bruce Dunlevie, a Merrill Pickard representative, taken in the Micron ‘792 action on July 25,
28
2001. Mr. Dunlevie is asked about whether, based on his layman understanding of Rambus’ 1
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON TOPICS 35 AND 36 CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2310
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 3 of 4
1
technology, he considered the technology fundamental or revolutionary. See Ransom Decl.,
2
Exh. D at 59:6-15. Mr. Dunlevie responds that he thought the technology was innovative, but
3
not fundamental or revolutionary. Id. Mr. Dunlevie was not asked further questions about the
4
substance of any communications between Merrill Pickard and Rambus, nor what Rambus told
5
him or Merrill Pickard specifically about Rambus’ inventions.
6
6.
Exhibit F to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
7
of Michael Farmwald, founder of Rambus, taken in the FTC action on January 7, 2003. Mr.
8
Farmwald authenticates and explains some of the handwritten notes he took during meetings
9
with third parties, including potential investors. See Ransom Decl., Exh. F at 96:19-99:1;
10
100:21-104:25. His notes suggest that Andy Heller, a representative of Kleiner Perkins whom
11
he met with, thought the Rambus technology would work sooner than expected. Id. at 99:2-8.
12
Mr. Farmwald also wrote down in his notes that the “Key to success is establishing de facto
13
standard.” Id. at 99:16-21. He is asked if he remembers who made this statement, and Mr.
14
Farmwald testifies that either Andy Heller or someone else at Kleiner probably said something
15
to this effect and he wrote it down. Id. at 99:22-100:4.
16
7.
Exhibit G to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
17
of Gary Harmon, the former CFO of Rambus, taken in the FTC action on January 8, 2003. Mr.
18
Harmon testifies that Morgan Stanley, the underwriter for Rambus’ IPO, pitched to Rambus
19
that it could help the company despite the fact that Rambus was an IP company that was going
20
to make its money off royalties rather than selling a product. See Ransom Decl., Exh. G at
21
156:3-4. Mr. Harmon was then asked whether Morgan Stanley expressed any concerns about
22
this business model, to which Mr. Harmon said that they did. Id. at 156:22-157:8. Mr. Harmon
23
does not further discuss the substance of communications between Rambus and Morgan
24
Stanley surrounding the IPO, nor was Mr. Harmon asked any such questions.
25
8.
Exhibit H to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt of the deposition transcript of
26
James Mannos, a colleague of Michael Farmwald involved in early Rambus presentations,
27
taken in the Hynix ‘905 action on October 4, 2001. Mr. Mannos is asked whether any venture
28
capital firm told him or suggested to him that Rambus’ success would be based on whether 2
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON COMMUNICATION CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2310
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 4 of 4
1
Rambus obtained a standard which was dependent on its patents. See Ransom Decl., Exh. H at
2
73:11-13. Mr. Mannos responds affirmatively, that someone expressed that the success of
3
Rambus’ business model would be dependent on Rambus’ technology being standardized and
4
adopted by the bulk of the users and producers of DRAM. Id. at 73:14-74:8. Mr. Mannos does
5
not discuss the substance of any further communications between Rambus and venture capital
6
firms, nor is he asked such questions. The majority of the excerpt is devoted to Mr. Mannos
7
identifying, authenticating and explaining presentations.
8
9.
Exhibit I to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt of the deposition transcript of
9
William Davidow, a Mohr Davidow representative, taken in the Infineon action on January 31,
10
2001. Mr. Davidow is asked what he meant in regards to a previous comment he had made that
11
Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz were smart enough to make the technology work. See
12
Ransom Decl., Exh. I at 17:12-14. Mr. Davidow responds that it seemed improbable that they
13
could have developed such technology. Id. at 17:15-23. Later Mr. Davidow is asked one
14
question about how Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz explained their vision, and he testifies
15
that Mr. Farmwald explained to him that the “bus structure” could be used in computers and
16
televisions. Id. at 21:8-13. Mr. Davidow was then asked to clarify his understanding of what
17
he meant by “bus structure” and to confirm his understanding of Rambus’ technology. Id. at
18
21:14-22:9. Mr. Davidow was not asked further questions about the substance of the
19
communications with Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz or what they told him or Mohr
20
Davidow specifically about their inventions.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the Unites States of America that the
22
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
23
Executed this 29th day of September, 2008 in Menlo Park, California.
24 25
/s/ Kristin S. Cornuelle Kristin S. Cornuelle
26 27 28
OHS West:260522549.1
3
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON COMMUNICATION CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 2310
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 1 of 4
ROBERT E. FREITAS (STATE BAR NO. 80948) CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (STATE BAR NO. 159458) VICKIE L. FEEMAN (STATE BAR NO. 177487) THERESA E. NORTON (STATE BAR NO. 193530) ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-614-7400 Facsimile: 650-614-7401 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11 RAMBUS INC.,
Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW
12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.,
DECLARATION OF KRISTIN S. CORNUELLE IN SUPPORT OF NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION’S AND NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION USA’S REPLY TO RAMBUS’ OPPOSITION TO ITS MOTION TO COMPEL RAMBUS TO PRODUCE A WITNESS TO TESTIFY ON 30(B)(6) TOPICS 35 AND 36 (RAMBUS’ COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHERS) Date: Time: Location: Judge:
October 1, 2008 8:30 a.m. Telephonic Hearing Hon. Read A. Ambler (Ret.)
Defendants.
23 AND RELATED ACTIONS. 24 25 26 27 28 CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON TOPICS 35 AND 36 CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2310
1
I, Kristin S. Cornuelle, declare as follows:
2
1.
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 2 of 4
I am an attorney with the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
3
counsel of record for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Nanya Technology Corporation
4
(“Nanya”) and Nanya Technology Corporation USA (“Nanya USA”). I have personal
5
knowledge of the following facts and if called as a witness I could and would testify
6
competently to them.
7
2.
I have read the deposition of Geoff Tate in the Micron Technology, Inc. v.
8
Rambus Inc. case, No. 00-792-JJF, dated March 30, 2001. This deposition transcript has been
9
designated “Confidential-Outside Counsel Only” pursuant to the Protective Order entered into
10
in the above-captioned case on June 21, 2007, because it contains information regarding
11
licensing meetings, discussions and negotiations. See Protective Order at ¶ 20.
12
3.
Mr. Tate testifies in a 30(b)(6) capacity intermittently throughout pages 507:3 –
13
554:23 of the deposition. The subject matter he covers as a 30(b)(6) witness relates solely to
14
Rambus’ SDRAM and DDR licensing negotiations with various manufacturers.
15
4.
Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rollin A. Ransom in Support of Rambus Inc.’s
16
Opposition to Nanya and Nanya USA’s Motion to Compel on 30(b)(6) Topics 35 and 36
17
(“Ransom Declaration”) is an excerpt from the deposition transcript of Andrew Heller, a
18
representative of Kleiner Perkins, taken in the Infineon action on January 25, 2001. Mr. Heller
19
is asked if he had a good understanding of Rambus’ intentions. See Ransom Decl., Exh. B at
20
12:8-9. Mr. Heller testifies that he understood why an approach based on Rambus’ ideas would
21
be valuable. Id. at 13-15. Mr. Heller is then asked about what Rambus’ presentation showed
22
and testifies as to what he remembers regarding its contents. Id. at 12:16-13:10. Mr. Heller is
23
not asked further questions about communications between Kleiner Perkins and Rambus, nor
24
asked any follow-up questions about what Rambus told him or Kleiner Perkins specifically
25
about Rambus’ inventions during the presentation.
26
5.
Exhibit D to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
27
of Bruce Dunlevie, a Merrill Pickard representative, taken in the Micron ‘792 action on July 25,
28
2001. Mr. Dunlevie is asked about whether, based on his layman understanding of Rambus’ 1
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON TOPICS 35 AND 36 CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2310
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 3 of 4
1
technology, he considered the technology fundamental or revolutionary. See Ransom Decl.,
2
Exh. D at 59:6-15. Mr. Dunlevie responds that he thought the technology was innovative, but
3
not fundamental or revolutionary. Id. Mr. Dunlevie was not asked further questions about the
4
substance of any communications between Merrill Pickard and Rambus, nor what Rambus told
5
him or Merrill Pickard specifically about Rambus’ inventions.
6
6.
Exhibit F to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
7
of Michael Farmwald, founder of Rambus, taken in the FTC action on January 7, 2003. Mr.
8
Farmwald authenticates and explains some of the handwritten notes he took during meetings
9
with third parties, including potential investors. See Ransom Decl., Exh. F at 96:19-99:1;
10
100:21-104:25. His notes suggest that Andy Heller, a representative of Kleiner Perkins whom
11
he met with, thought the Rambus technology would work sooner than expected. Id. at 99:2-8.
12
Mr. Farmwald also wrote down in his notes that the “Key to success is establishing de facto
13
standard.” Id. at 99:16-21. He is asked if he remembers who made this statement, and Mr.
14
Farmwald testifies that either Andy Heller or someone else at Kleiner probably said something
15
to this effect and he wrote it down. Id. at 99:22-100:4.
16
7.
Exhibit G to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
17
of Gary Harmon, the former CFO of Rambus, taken in the FTC action on January 8, 2003. Mr.
18
Harmon testifies that Morgan Stanley, the underwriter for Rambus’ IPO, pitched to Rambus
19
that it could help the company despite the fact that Rambus was an IP company that was going
20
to make its money off royalties rather than selling a product. See Ransom Decl., Exh. G at
21
156:3-4. Mr. Harmon was then asked whether Morgan Stanley expressed any concerns about
22
this business model, to which Mr. Harmon said that they did. Id. at 156:22-157:8. Mr. Harmon
23
does not further discuss the substance of communications between Rambus and Morgan
24
Stanley surrounding the IPO, nor was Mr. Harmon asked any such questions.
25
8.
Exhibit H to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt of the deposition transcript of
26
James Mannos, a colleague of Michael Farmwald involved in early Rambus presentations,
27
taken in the Hynix ‘905 action on October 4, 2001. Mr. Mannos is asked whether any venture
28
capital firm told him or suggested to him that Rambus’ success would be based on whether 2
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON COMMUNICATION CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2310
Filed 09/29/2008
Page 4 of 4
1
Rambus obtained a standard which was dependent on its patents. See Ransom Decl., Exh. H at
2
73:11-13. Mr. Mannos responds affirmatively, that someone expressed that the success of
3
Rambus’ business model would be dependent on Rambus’ technology being standardized and
4
adopted by the bulk of the users and producers of DRAM. Id. at 73:14-74:8. Mr. Mannos does
5
not discuss the substance of any further communications between Rambus and venture capital
6
firms, nor is he asked such questions. The majority of the excerpt is devoted to Mr. Mannos
7
identifying, authenticating and explaining presentations.
8
9.
Exhibit I to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt of the deposition transcript of
9
William Davidow, a Mohr Davidow representative, taken in the Infineon action on January 31,
10
2001. Mr. Davidow is asked what he meant in regards to a previous comment he had made that
11
Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz were smart enough to make the technology work. See
12
Ransom Decl., Exh. I at 17:12-14. Mr. Davidow responds that it seemed improbable that they
13
could have developed such technology. Id. at 17:15-23. Later Mr. Davidow is asked one
14
question about how Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz explained their vision, and he testifies
15
that Mr. Farmwald explained to him that the “bus structure” could be used in computers and
16
televisions. Id. at 21:8-13. Mr. Davidow was then asked to clarify his understanding of what
17
he meant by “bus structure” and to confirm his understanding of Rambus’ technology. Id. at
18
21:14-22:9. Mr. Davidow was not asked further questions about the substance of the
19
communications with Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz or what they told him or Mohr
20
Davidow specifically about their inventions.
21
I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the Unites States of America that the
22
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
23
Executed this 29th day of September, 2008 in Menlo Park, California.
24 25
/s/ Kristin S. Cornuelle Kristin S. Cornuelle
26 27 28
OHS West:260522549.1
3
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON COMMUNICATION CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
