3882
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 3882 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,564
- Pages: 6
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
Page 1 of 6
KENNETH L. NISSLY (SBN 77589) [email protected] SUSAN van KEULEN (SBN 136060) [email protected] SUSAN ROEDER (SBN 160897) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 473-2600 Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 [Additional counsel listed on signature page.] Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
10 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14 15 16
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,
Case No. C-00-20905 RMW HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
17 Plaintiffs, 18 19 20
v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
RAMBUS INC.,
Case No. C-05-00334 RMW
Plaintiff, v.
2 3 4
Page 2 of 6
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,
5 6 7
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
8 9 10
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A., Defendants.
11 12 13 14
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix
15
Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Hynix
16
Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively “Hynix”)
17
hereby request that the Court take judicial notice of the following items:
18
1.
The following documents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
19
reexaminations of Rambus’s patents, which are properly the subject of judicial notice (see Fed. R.
20
Evid. 201; Coinstar, Inc. v. CoinBank Automated Systems, Inc., 998 F.Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D.
21
Cal. 1998)):
22 a.
Inter Partes Reexaminations filed with the United States Patent Office:
23 24
Attached Hereto As Exhibit
Subject Patent
Filing or 371(c) Date
A
US Patent No. 6,182,184 Reexam Control No. 95/001,112
November 17, 2008
25 26 27 28
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations
-1-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1 2 3
Attached Hereto As Exhibit
Subject Patent
B
US Patent No. 6,182,184 Reexam Control No. 95/001,112 US Patent No. 6,426,916 Reexam Control No. 95/001,122 US Patent No. 6,426,916 Reexam Control No. 95/001,122 US Patent No. 6,452,863 Reexam Control No.95/001,124 US Patent No. 6,452,863 Reexam Control No.95/001,124 US Patent No. 6,378,020 Reexam Control No. 95/001,128 US Patent No. 6,266,285 Reexam Control No. 95/001,131 US Patent No. 6,266,285 Reexam Control No. 95/001,131 US Patent No. 6,314,051 Reexam Control No. 95/001,132 US Patent No. 6,314,051 Reexam Control No. 95/001,132
4 5 6
C
7 8
D
9 10
E
11 12 13
F
14 15
G
16 17
H
18 19 20
I
21 22
J
23 24 25 26
Document 3882
K
Filed 01/26/2009
Filing or 371(c) Date
Page 3 of 6
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations January 16, 2009
November 20, 2008
January 16, 2009
November 24, 2008
January 16, 2009
December 15, 2008
December 31, 2008
January 22, 2009
December 31, 2008
January 22, 2009
27 28 -2-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1 2
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
Attached Hereto As Exhibit
Subject Patent
Filing or 371(c) Date
L
US Patent No. 6,378,020 Reexam Control No. 95/000,427 US Patent No. 6,751,696 Reexam Control No. 95/001,133 US Patent No. 6,751,696 Reexam Control No. 95/001,133
January 9, 2009
3 4 5
M1
6 7
N
8 9 10
Page 4 of 6
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations
December 31, 2008
January 22, 2009
11 b.
12 13 14
to U.S. Patent Number 6,715,020 (Reexam Control No. 95/001,008) entitled Action Closing Prosecution (37 CFR 1.949) mailed on December 22, 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit O. 2.
15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The materials identified in Samsung’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed with
this Court on January 19, 2009, in which motion Hynix hereby joins, which are properly the subject of judicial notice for the reasons set forth in that Motion: a.
18 19
The following document issued by the United States Patent Office relating
Certain pleadings, transcripts, indices of exhibits, filings, documents and
relevant briefing Micron Technology, Inc. v Rambus Inc., No. 1:00-cv-00792-SLR, United States District Court, District of Delaware (“Delaware Action”). In particular, Hynix requests that the court take judicial notice of the following items attached to the Declaration of Steven Cherensky In Support of Motion for Entry of Motion and for Entry of Judgment of Unenforcement of Rambus’s Asserted Patents as Against Samsung and Dismissal of Rambus’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Samsung Or, in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment filed on January 19, 2008 at D.E. 3127 (“Cherensky Decl.”): 1
Even though the cover sheet filed with the reexamination request stated it was a request relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 (and this number appears on some of the Patent Office records), the Request itself relates to U.S. Patent No. 6,751,696, and the Examiner so construed the request in granting it (see, Exhibit N at p.3.) -3-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
(1)
1 2
Filed 01/26/2009
Page 5 of 6
The order and opinion from the Delaware Action dated January 9,
2009 (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 29); (2)
3 4
Document 3882
Rambus Inc.’s Supplemental and Second Amended counterclaims
(see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 20); (3)
Rambus’s Answer and Counterclaims (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex.
7
(4)
Micron’s Amended Complaint (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 30);
8
(5)
Trial Transcript excerpts dated November 8-9, 13-15, 2007 and
5 6
9
21);
telephonic hearing transcript dated January 16, 2009 (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 10 and 26);
10 11
(6)
the index of trial exhibits dated December 6, 2007(see Cherensky
(7)
relevant briefs from the Delaware Action (Micron’s Post-Trial Brief
Decl. at Ex. 11); and
12 13
Regarding Rambus’s Duty to Preserve Evidence, dated February 5, 2008; Post-Trial Opposition
14
Brief of Rambus Inc. on the Issue of When the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arose, dated March 27,
15
2008; Micron’s Post-Trial Reply Brief Regarding When Rambus’s Duty to preserve Evidence
16
Arose, dated April 30, 2008; Rambus Inc.’s Post-Trial Brief on Micron’s Unclean Hands Defense,
17
dated June 30, 2008; Micron’s Post-Trial Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct and
18
the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s Spoliation, dated June 30, 2008; Rambus Inc.’s Post-Trial Brief
19
in Response to Micron’s Brief Regarding Rambus’s Alleged Litigation Misconduct and Sanctions,
20
dated August 4, 2008; and Micron’s Reply Post-Trial Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation
21
Misconduct and the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s Spoliation, dated August 4, 2008) (see
22
Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 12-18).
23
b.
The following documents from the Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, Civ.
24
No. 3:00cv524, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia case: excerpts from the
25
trial transcript dated February 21-24 and March 1, 2005, (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 1).
26
c.
The following documents from the Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Rambus,
27
Inc., No. 3:05cv406, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia case: the case
28
docket, the index of trial exhibits, Rambus’s Objections to Filing by Samsung, and Samsung’s -4-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
Page 6 of 6
1
submission of the Infineon record, and the exceptional case hearing transcript from (E.D. Va.)
2
litigation (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 5-9); d.
3
Rambus's Opening Brief For Defendant-Appellant Rambus Inc., Samsung
4
Elecs. Co. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2006-1579 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2006) (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex.
5
28)); charts prepared by Samsung showing the Farmwald-Horowitz patent family tree and the
6
accused products involved in both the Delaware Action and this patent trial (see Cherensky Decl.
7
at Exs. 22, 23); and the expert reports of William Huber (dated August 16, 2001) and Robert
8
Murphy (dated September 5, 2008) (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 4, 19).
9
Dated: January 26, 2009
10
By: /s/ Kenneth L. Nissly Kenneth L. Nissly KENNETH L. NISSLY SUSAN van KEULEN SUSAN ROEDER O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
11 12 13
KENNETH R. O’ROURKE WALLACE A. ALLAN BELINDA M. VEGA
14 15
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 16 THEODORE G. BROWN III JULIE J. HAN TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
17 18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
19 20 21 22 23 24 MP1:1171674.1
25 26 27 28 -5-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
Page 1 of 6
KENNETH L. NISSLY (SBN 77589) [email protected] SUSAN van KEULEN (SBN 136060) [email protected] SUSAN ROEDER (SBN 160897) [email protected] O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: (650) 473-2600 Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 [Additional counsel listed on signature page.] Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
10 11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
SAN JOSE DIVISION
14 15 16
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,
Case No. C-00-20905 RMW HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE
17 Plaintiffs, 18 19 20
v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant.
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
RAMBUS INC.,
Case No. C-05-00334 RMW
Plaintiff, v.
2 3 4
Page 2 of 6
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,
5 6 7
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
8 9 10
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A., Defendants.
11 12 13 14
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix
15
Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Hynix
16
Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively “Hynix”)
17
hereby request that the Court take judicial notice of the following items:
18
1.
The following documents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
19
reexaminations of Rambus’s patents, which are properly the subject of judicial notice (see Fed. R.
20
Evid. 201; Coinstar, Inc. v. CoinBank Automated Systems, Inc., 998 F.Supp. 1109, 1114 (N.D.
21
Cal. 1998)):
22 a.
Inter Partes Reexaminations filed with the United States Patent Office:
23 24
Attached Hereto As Exhibit
Subject Patent
Filing or 371(c) Date
A
US Patent No. 6,182,184 Reexam Control No. 95/001,112
November 17, 2008
25 26 27 28
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations
-1-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1 2 3
Attached Hereto As Exhibit
Subject Patent
B
US Patent No. 6,182,184 Reexam Control No. 95/001,112 US Patent No. 6,426,916 Reexam Control No. 95/001,122 US Patent No. 6,426,916 Reexam Control No. 95/001,122 US Patent No. 6,452,863 Reexam Control No.95/001,124 US Patent No. 6,452,863 Reexam Control No.95/001,124 US Patent No. 6,378,020 Reexam Control No. 95/001,128 US Patent No. 6,266,285 Reexam Control No. 95/001,131 US Patent No. 6,266,285 Reexam Control No. 95/001,131 US Patent No. 6,314,051 Reexam Control No. 95/001,132 US Patent No. 6,314,051 Reexam Control No. 95/001,132
4 5 6
C
7 8
D
9 10
E
11 12 13
F
14 15
G
16 17
H
18 19 20
I
21 22
J
23 24 25 26
Document 3882
K
Filed 01/26/2009
Filing or 371(c) Date
Page 3 of 6
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations January 16, 2009
November 20, 2008
January 16, 2009
November 24, 2008
January 16, 2009
December 15, 2008
December 31, 2008
January 22, 2009
December 31, 2008
January 22, 2009
27 28 -2-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
1 2
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
Attached Hereto As Exhibit
Subject Patent
Filing or 371(c) Date
L
US Patent No. 6,378,020 Reexam Control No. 95/000,427 US Patent No. 6,751,696 Reexam Control No. 95/001,133 US Patent No. 6,751,696 Reexam Control No. 95/001,133
January 9, 2009
3 4 5
M1
6 7
N
8 9 10
Page 4 of 6
Order Granting Request for Inter Partes Reexaminations
December 31, 2008
January 22, 2009
11 b.
12 13 14
to U.S. Patent Number 6,715,020 (Reexam Control No. 95/001,008) entitled Action Closing Prosecution (37 CFR 1.949) mailed on December 22, 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit O. 2.
15 16 17
20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
The materials identified in Samsung’s Motion to Take Judicial Notice filed with
this Court on January 19, 2009, in which motion Hynix hereby joins, which are properly the subject of judicial notice for the reasons set forth in that Motion: a.
18 19
The following document issued by the United States Patent Office relating
Certain pleadings, transcripts, indices of exhibits, filings, documents and
relevant briefing Micron Technology, Inc. v Rambus Inc., No. 1:00-cv-00792-SLR, United States District Court, District of Delaware (“Delaware Action”). In particular, Hynix requests that the court take judicial notice of the following items attached to the Declaration of Steven Cherensky In Support of Motion for Entry of Motion and for Entry of Judgment of Unenforcement of Rambus’s Asserted Patents as Against Samsung and Dismissal of Rambus’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Samsung Or, in the Alternative, For Summary Judgment filed on January 19, 2008 at D.E. 3127 (“Cherensky Decl.”): 1
Even though the cover sheet filed with the reexamination request stated it was a request relating to U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 (and this number appears on some of the Patent Office records), the Request itself relates to U.S. Patent No. 6,751,696, and the Examiner so construed the request in granting it (see, Exhibit N at p.3.) -3-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
(1)
1 2
Filed 01/26/2009
Page 5 of 6
The order and opinion from the Delaware Action dated January 9,
2009 (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 29); (2)
3 4
Document 3882
Rambus Inc.’s Supplemental and Second Amended counterclaims
(see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 20); (3)
Rambus’s Answer and Counterclaims (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex.
7
(4)
Micron’s Amended Complaint (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 30);
8
(5)
Trial Transcript excerpts dated November 8-9, 13-15, 2007 and
5 6
9
21);
telephonic hearing transcript dated January 16, 2009 (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 10 and 26);
10 11
(6)
the index of trial exhibits dated December 6, 2007(see Cherensky
(7)
relevant briefs from the Delaware Action (Micron’s Post-Trial Brief
Decl. at Ex. 11); and
12 13
Regarding Rambus’s Duty to Preserve Evidence, dated February 5, 2008; Post-Trial Opposition
14
Brief of Rambus Inc. on the Issue of When the Duty to Preserve Evidence Arose, dated March 27,
15
2008; Micron’s Post-Trial Reply Brief Regarding When Rambus’s Duty to preserve Evidence
16
Arose, dated April 30, 2008; Rambus Inc.’s Post-Trial Brief on Micron’s Unclean Hands Defense,
17
dated June 30, 2008; Micron’s Post-Trial Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct and
18
the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s Spoliation, dated June 30, 2008; Rambus Inc.’s Post-Trial Brief
19
in Response to Micron’s Brief Regarding Rambus’s Alleged Litigation Misconduct and Sanctions,
20
dated August 4, 2008; and Micron’s Reply Post-Trial Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation
21
Misconduct and the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s Spoliation, dated August 4, 2008) (see
22
Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 12-18).
23
b.
The following documents from the Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, Civ.
24
No. 3:00cv524, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia case: excerpts from the
25
trial transcript dated February 21-24 and March 1, 2005, (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex. 1).
26
c.
The following documents from the Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Rambus,
27
Inc., No. 3:05cv406, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia case: the case
28
docket, the index of trial exhibits, Rambus’s Objections to Filing by Samsung, and Samsung’s -4-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW
Document 3882
Filed 01/26/2009
Page 6 of 6
1
submission of the Infineon record, and the exceptional case hearing transcript from (E.D. Va.)
2
litigation (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 5-9); d.
3
Rambus's Opening Brief For Defendant-Appellant Rambus Inc., Samsung
4
Elecs. Co. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2006-1579 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2006) (see Cherensky Decl. at Ex.
5
28)); charts prepared by Samsung showing the Farmwald-Horowitz patent family tree and the
6
accused products involved in both the Delaware Action and this patent trial (see Cherensky Decl.
7
at Exs. 22, 23); and the expert reports of William Huber (dated August 16, 2001) and Robert
8
Murphy (dated September 5, 2008) (see Cherensky Decl. at Exs. 4, 19).
9
Dated: January 26, 2009
10
By: /s/ Kenneth L. Nissly Kenneth L. Nissly KENNETH L. NISSLY SUSAN van KEULEN SUSAN ROEDER O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
11 12 13
KENNETH R. O’ROURKE WALLACE A. ALLAN BELINDA M. VEGA
14 15
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 16 THEODORE G. BROWN III JULIE J. HAN TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
17 18
Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
19 20 21 22 23 24 MP1:1171674.1
25 26 27 28 -5-
HYNIX’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE AND NOTICE OF JOINDER IN SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE; Case No. C00-20905; Case No. C05-00334
