3109
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 3109 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,159
- Pages: 7
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6
12 13
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
8 9 10
MCKOOL SMITH
11
14
RAMBUS INC.,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Page 1 of 7
Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 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] 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: [email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
15 16
Filed 01/13/2009
Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408) Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298) 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: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769) Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 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: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
Document 3109
Plaintiff, vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING UNCONTESTED CLAIM LIMITATIONS AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Date: Friday January 16, 2009 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor
24 25 26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11
Document 3109
RAMBUS INC.,
Filed 01/13/2009
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,) ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) RAMBUS INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )
Page 2 of 7
Case No. C 05-002298 RMW
Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 16, 2009 or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Rambus Inc. hereby moves (1) for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment as to claim limitations for which the Court has granted summary judgment or which the Manufacturers have not contested, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and (2) to shorten the time period for briefing of the foregoing motion and underlying motion as set forth in the attached Memorandum. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, all of the Court’s records and files in this action, and on such other and further written and oral argument and authorities as may be properly presented at or before the hearing on this matter.
25 26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Dated: January 13, 2008
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 3 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
2
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
3
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
4
MCKOOL SMITH
5 6 7
/s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 4 of 7
In view of the parties’ continuing inability to finalize the terms under which the Manufacturers will not contest infringement, Rambus hereby moves for leave to file a motion for summary judgment as to claim limitations that are no longer in dispute so that the parties may focus on the limitations that would be argued to the jury for purposes of infringement. Rambus first asked the Manufacturers to stipulate to the claim limitations that need to be tried to jury in early December 2008. Despite repeated requests from Rambus, the Manufacturers did not agree to stipulate. Then, on December 19, 2008, the Manufacturers indicated that they would not contest infringement at all.
But as the Court noted at the January 6, 2009 hearing, the
Manufacturers’ terms were unworkable. Because the Manufacturers have not yet presented workable terms, Rambus files this motion. In light of the impending trial date, Rambus also moves to shorten time on the briefing, with respect to both the motion for leave and the underlying motion for summary judgment. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s motion for leave and to shorten time so as to streamline the trial and avoid unnecessary testimony regarding claim limitations about which there is no legitimate dispute.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS On December 3, 2008, Rambus proposed that the Manufacturers stipulate as to
infringement of certain limitations, so as to streamline the trial. The Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s correspondence. See Declaration of Craig N. Tolliver in Support of Motion for Leave (“Tolliver Decl.”) Ex. 1. On December 9, 2008, Rambus again proposed that the Manufacturers stipulate. Again, the Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s correspondence. See id. Then, on December 19, 2008 the Manufacturers sent a letter to the Court announcing that “[i]n light of the Court’s November 24, 2008 order, which rejected as a matter of law most of the Manufacturers’ noninfringement arguments, the Manufacturers have decided not to contest the remaining infringement issues with respect to the twelve claims-in-suit.” See December 19, 2008 Letter from Bobrow, Dkt. No. 2948, 334 Case. 1 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6
9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14 15
18 19
the Manufacturers proposed not contesting were (1) the synchronous output limitations, (2) the synchronous sampling limitations, (3) the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations, and (4) the “synchronous” device limitations. See December 29, 2008 Letter from Cherensky, Dkt. No. 3003, 334 Case. On December 29, 2008, in view of the Manufacturers’ indications that they would not contest infringement, Rambus again asked the Manufacturers to stipulate as to infringement issues per Rambus’s December 3 email. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1. Micron and Samsung continued to ignore Rambus request altogether. Nanya responded, “We have been in discussions with Mr. Stone regarding a proposal by Nanya and Nanya USA to not contest infringement by the DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM products at trial. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to determine whether to enter into a stipulation regarding the issues set forth in your email below until this is resolved.” Hynix likewise rejected the stipulation “under the circumstances.” See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 2. The Manufacturers proposed a protocol by which infringement would not be tried to the jury. At the hearing on January 6, 2009, the Court recognized the serious problems with the Manufacturers’ proposal and granted them leave to make a new proposal that remedied those problems.
20 21
Page 5 of 7
“remaining infringement issues,” stating that the remaining categories of claim limitations that
16 17
Filed 01/13/2009
In a letter dated December 29, 2008, the Manufacturers subsequently identified
7 8
Document 3109
As of this date, with trial rapidly approaching, the Manufacturers have not made a new proposal.
22 23 24
II.
THE COURT SHOULD GRANT RAMBUS LEAVE TO FILE THE ATTACHED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS MEET CERTAIN LIMITATIONS THAT THE MANUFACTURERS DO NOT DISPUTE ARE MET, IF INFRINGEMENT IS TO BE TRIED
25 26
Rambus brings this motion as part of its ongoing efforts to streamline the issues for trial.
27
The Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s invitations to streamline the infringement issues, only to
28
2 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 6 of 7
indicate themselves late last month that that they would not contest infringement at all. The Manufacturers proposed such unworkable terms, however, that the Court granted the Manufacturers leave to make a new proposal. As of this date the Manufacturers have not changed their terms, so Rambus files this motion for leave to file the motion for summary judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A to clarify the remaining infringement issues.
The
relatively short summary judgment motion simply identifies the claim limitations that would be in dispute at trial for purposes of infringement, taking into account the Court’s November 24, 2008 Summary Judgment Order, the Manufacturers’ expert reports, and the Manufacturers’ own admissions.1
The attached motion does not involve substantive argument as to any claim
limitation, but instead simply identifies which claim limitations remain in dispute. Rambus believes that the disputed infringement issues identified by this motion are consistent with those identified in the Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter. See Letter, Dkt. No. 3003, at 2-3. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s motion for leave to file the attached motion.
15 16
III.
17 18 19 20 21 22
GIVEN THE TIME REMAINING UNTIL TRIAL, THE COURT SHOULD SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD FOR BRIEFING ON RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE AND ON RAMBUS’S UNDERLYING MOTION Resolution of the attached motion will clarify the issues to be tried, and the evidence to
be presented, to the jury. Because trial is presently scheduled to begin during the week of January 19, Rambus requests that the Court shorten the briefing time periods both as to this motion for leave and also for the underlying attached motion for partial summary judgment, to the extent the Court grants the motion for leave, as follows.
23
Rambus proposes this schedule for the motion for leave and to shorten time:
24
•
Opposition: Due Thursday January 15, 2009;
25 1
26 27 28
Because Nanya also has refused to stipulate that its DDR3 parts infringe for the same reasons as its own DDR2 parts and other Manufacturers’ DDR3 parts despite the Court’s invitation that the parties reach such a stipulation, see Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1, Rambus’s underlying motion also seeks summary judgment of infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3 parts. 3 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 7 of 7
1
•
Reply: Rambus waives its right to a written Reply;
2
•
Hearing: Friday January 16, 2009 coinciding with the hearing between
3
the parties already on the Court’s calendar.
4 5 6 7
Rambus also requests that if the Court grants Rambus’s motion for leave and to shorten time, that the Court also shorten time on the briefing and hearing of Rambus’s underlying motion for summary judgment in view of the rapidly approaching trial, subject to the Court’s and the parties’ availability to be discussed at the hearing on Friday January 16th.
8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11
IV.
CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s
motion for leave to file the attached motion for partial summary judgment and to shorten time.
12 13
Dated: January 13, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
14
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
15
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
16
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
17 18 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
19 20 21
Austin 47997v6
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6
12 13
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
8 9 10
MCKOOL SMITH
11
14
RAMBUS INC.,
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Page 1 of 7
Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 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] 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: [email protected]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
15 16
Filed 01/13/2009
Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408) Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298) 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: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769) Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 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: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
7
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
Document 3109
Plaintiff, vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING UNCONTESTED CLAIM LIMITATIONS AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte Date: Friday January 16, 2009 Time: 1:30 p.m. Courtroom: 6, 4th Floor
24 25 26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11
Document 3109
RAMBUS INC.,
Filed 01/13/2009
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,) ) et al., ) ) Defendants. ) RAMBUS INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., ) ) Defendants. )
Page 2 of 7
Case No. C 05-002298 RMW
Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 16, 2009 or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, in the Courtroom of the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Rambus Inc. hereby moves (1) for leave to file a motion for partial summary judgment as to claim limitations for which the Court has granted summary judgment or which the Manufacturers have not contested, for the reasons set forth in the attached Memorandum and (2) to shorten the time period for briefing of the foregoing motion and underlying motion as set forth in the attached Memorandum. This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities attached hereto, all of the Court’s records and files in this action, and on such other and further written and oral argument and authorities as may be properly presented at or before the hearing on this matter.
25 26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Dated: January 13, 2008
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 3 of 7
Respectfully submitted,
2
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
3
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
4
MCKOOL SMITH
5 6 7
/s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 4 of 7
In view of the parties’ continuing inability to finalize the terms under which the Manufacturers will not contest infringement, Rambus hereby moves for leave to file a motion for summary judgment as to claim limitations that are no longer in dispute so that the parties may focus on the limitations that would be argued to the jury for purposes of infringement. Rambus first asked the Manufacturers to stipulate to the claim limitations that need to be tried to jury in early December 2008. Despite repeated requests from Rambus, the Manufacturers did not agree to stipulate. Then, on December 19, 2008, the Manufacturers indicated that they would not contest infringement at all.
But as the Court noted at the January 6, 2009 hearing, the
Manufacturers’ terms were unworkable. Because the Manufacturers have not yet presented workable terms, Rambus files this motion. In light of the impending trial date, Rambus also moves to shorten time on the briefing, with respect to both the motion for leave and the underlying motion for summary judgment. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s motion for leave and to shorten time so as to streamline the trial and avoid unnecessary testimony regarding claim limitations about which there is no legitimate dispute.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
I.
STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS On December 3, 2008, Rambus proposed that the Manufacturers stipulate as to
infringement of certain limitations, so as to streamline the trial. The Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s correspondence. See Declaration of Craig N. Tolliver in Support of Motion for Leave (“Tolliver Decl.”) Ex. 1. On December 9, 2008, Rambus again proposed that the Manufacturers stipulate. Again, the Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s correspondence. See id. Then, on December 19, 2008 the Manufacturers sent a letter to the Court announcing that “[i]n light of the Court’s November 24, 2008 order, which rejected as a matter of law most of the Manufacturers’ noninfringement arguments, the Manufacturers have decided not to contest the remaining infringement issues with respect to the twelve claims-in-suit.” See December 19, 2008 Letter from Bobrow, Dkt. No. 2948, 334 Case. 1 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6
9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14 15
18 19
the Manufacturers proposed not contesting were (1) the synchronous output limitations, (2) the synchronous sampling limitations, (3) the “in response to” rising/falling edge limitations, and (4) the “synchronous” device limitations. See December 29, 2008 Letter from Cherensky, Dkt. No. 3003, 334 Case. On December 29, 2008, in view of the Manufacturers’ indications that they would not contest infringement, Rambus again asked the Manufacturers to stipulate as to infringement issues per Rambus’s December 3 email. See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1. Micron and Samsung continued to ignore Rambus request altogether. Nanya responded, “We have been in discussions with Mr. Stone regarding a proposal by Nanya and Nanya USA to not contest infringement by the DDR2 and DDR3 SDRAM products at trial. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to determine whether to enter into a stipulation regarding the issues set forth in your email below until this is resolved.” Hynix likewise rejected the stipulation “under the circumstances.” See Tolliver Decl. Ex. 2. The Manufacturers proposed a protocol by which infringement would not be tried to the jury. At the hearing on January 6, 2009, the Court recognized the serious problems with the Manufacturers’ proposal and granted them leave to make a new proposal that remedied those problems.
20 21
Page 5 of 7
“remaining infringement issues,” stating that the remaining categories of claim limitations that
16 17
Filed 01/13/2009
In a letter dated December 29, 2008, the Manufacturers subsequently identified
7 8
Document 3109
As of this date, with trial rapidly approaching, the Manufacturers have not made a new proposal.
22 23 24
II.
THE COURT SHOULD GRANT RAMBUS LEAVE TO FILE THE ATTACHED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS MEET CERTAIN LIMITATIONS THAT THE MANUFACTURERS DO NOT DISPUTE ARE MET, IF INFRINGEMENT IS TO BE TRIED
25 26
Rambus brings this motion as part of its ongoing efforts to streamline the issues for trial.
27
The Manufacturers ignored Rambus’s invitations to streamline the infringement issues, only to
28
2 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11 12 13 14
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 6 of 7
indicate themselves late last month that that they would not contest infringement at all. The Manufacturers proposed such unworkable terms, however, that the Court granted the Manufacturers leave to make a new proposal. As of this date the Manufacturers have not changed their terms, so Rambus files this motion for leave to file the motion for summary judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A to clarify the remaining infringement issues.
The
relatively short summary judgment motion simply identifies the claim limitations that would be in dispute at trial for purposes of infringement, taking into account the Court’s November 24, 2008 Summary Judgment Order, the Manufacturers’ expert reports, and the Manufacturers’ own admissions.1
The attached motion does not involve substantive argument as to any claim
limitation, but instead simply identifies which claim limitations remain in dispute. Rambus believes that the disputed infringement issues identified by this motion are consistent with those identified in the Manufacturers’ December 29, 2008 letter. See Letter, Dkt. No. 3003, at 2-3. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s motion for leave to file the attached motion.
15 16
III.
17 18 19 20 21 22
GIVEN THE TIME REMAINING UNTIL TRIAL, THE COURT SHOULD SHORTEN THE TIME PERIOD FOR BRIEFING ON RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE AND ON RAMBUS’S UNDERLYING MOTION Resolution of the attached motion will clarify the issues to be tried, and the evidence to
be presented, to the jury. Because trial is presently scheduled to begin during the week of January 19, Rambus requests that the Court shorten the briefing time periods both as to this motion for leave and also for the underlying attached motion for partial summary judgment, to the extent the Court grants the motion for leave, as follows.
23
Rambus proposes this schedule for the motion for leave and to shorten time:
24
•
Opposition: Due Thursday January 15, 2009;
25 1
26 27 28
Because Nanya also has refused to stipulate that its DDR3 parts infringe for the same reasons as its own DDR2 parts and other Manufacturers’ DDR3 parts despite the Court’s invitation that the parties reach such a stipulation, see Tolliver Decl. Ex. 1, Rambus’s underlying motion also seeks summary judgment of infringement of claim 16 of the ‘285 patent by Nanya’s DDR3 parts. 3 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 3109
Filed 01/13/2009
Page 7 of 7
1
•
Reply: Rambus waives its right to a written Reply;
2
•
Hearing: Friday January 16, 2009 coinciding with the hearing between
3
the parties already on the Court’s calendar.
4 5 6 7
Rambus also requests that if the Court grants Rambus’s motion for leave and to shorten time, that the Court also shorten time on the briefing and hearing of Rambus’s underlying motion for summary judgment in view of the rapidly approaching trial, subject to the Court’s and the parties’ availability to be discussed at the hearing on Friday January 16th.
8 9
MCKOOL SMITH
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS
10 11
IV.
CONCLUSION For the forgoing reasons, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant Rambus’s
motion for leave to file the attached motion for partial summary judgment and to shorten time.
12 13
Dated: January 13, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
14
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
15
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
16
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
17 18 /s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Rambus Inc.
19 20 21
Austin 47997v6
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4 RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION (1) FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND (2) TO SHORTEN TIME CASE NOS. C 05-00334 RMW, C 05-02298 RMW, C 06-00244 RMW
