46
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 46 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,125
- Pages: 4
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 1 of 4
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985) [email protected] DEBORAH E. FISHMAN (STATE BAR NO. 197584) [email protected] ROBERT W. RICKETSON (STATE BAR NO. 148481) [email protected] ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: +1-650-614-7400 Facsimile: +1-650-614-7401 Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA Corporation
8 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12 13
RAMBUS, INC., Plaintiff,
14 15
Case No. C-08-03343 SI MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
v. (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3)
16
NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant.
17
Date: Time: Judge:
N.A. N.A. The Hon. Susan Illston
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343 SI
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 and the Court’s standing order, defendant NVIDIA
2
Corporation hereby respectfully requests an order continuing the date of the initial Case
3
Management Conference in this action for approximately 18 days, from December 5, 2008 to
4
December 23, 2008, or such other day thereafter as may be convenient for the Court. A
5
continuance will serve the interests of justice and promote judicial efficiency for the following
6
two reasons:
7
1. On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint against NVIDIA and many of its
8
customers before the United States International Trade Commission involving nine of the patents-
9
in-suit in this action. The ITC is expected to issue its decision as to whether or not it will institute
10
an investigation of the matters raised by the Rambus complaint on December 8, 2008, thirty days
11
after Rambus’s complaint was filed. Should the ITC institute an investigation, then pursuant to
12
28 U.S.C. §1659(a), NVIDIA would be entitled to stay this action as to the patents overlapping in
13
the two proceedings, and a stay of this entire action would be within the discretion of this Court.1
14
Accordingly, until at least December 8th, the parties and this Court are faced with substantial
15
uncertainties regarding the scope and nature of this case that make case management options both
16
hypothetical and difficult to evaluate.
17
2. In addition, as the Court is aware, another action between these parties is now pending
18
in the Middle District of North Carolina, NVIDIA Corporation v. Rambus, Inc., 08-00473 (“the
19
Carolina Action). Rambus has filed a motion to dismiss the Carolina Action and a motion to
20
transfer it to this Court. Those motions are fully briefed and will either be set for hearing by the
21
Carolina court, or decided without hearing, in the Carolina court’s discretion. Although NVIDIA
22
believes those motions should be denied, were the Carolina court to decide that the matter before
23
it should be transferred to this Court, that would necessarily have a significant impact on the
24
scope and nature of the dispute between the parties that will be litigated in this forum, with broad
25 1
26 27 28
See 28 U.S.C. §1659(a) (“the district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission . . . .”); see also Formfactor, Inc. v. Micronics Japan Co., Ltd. 2008 WL 361128 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (staying entire patent infringement action filed in Northern District of California in view of ITC complaint that alleged infringement of two of the five patents that were at issue in the California action).
OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
-2-
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343 SI
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 3 of 4
resulting implications on case management issues.
2
In view of the CMC scheduled here, on October 31, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion with
3
the Carolina court requesting expedited resolution of the motions pending before it. Notably,
4
Rambus joined in NVIDIA’s request to the Carolina court for expedited resolution of the transfer
5
motion, because Rambus agreed that resolving that motion prior to the CMC here was in the best
6
interests of the parties and the courts.2 Notwithstanding its representation to the Carolina court
7
that resolution of the transfer motion prior to the CMC in this action will serve useful purposes,
8
Rambus has declined to join in this request for a continuance.3 As of this date, the Carolina court
9
has not acted on the joint request of the parties for expedited treatment of the transfer motion, but
10
NVIDIA believes that the requested continuance likely will provide sufficient time for the
11
Carolina court to act on the transfer motion.
12
Thus, NVIDIA submits that any concerns Rambus may now offer in opposition to a
13
continuance of the CMC are outweighed by the legitimate concerns for judicial efficiency
14
promoted by awaiting a decision in Carolina before addressing case management issues here.
15
Likewise, given Rambus’s election to pursue its patent claims against NVIDIA in both this Court
16
and the ITC, it would be premature and lead to a waste of the resources of the Court and the
17
parties to attempt to decide case management issues in this action before knowing whether there
18
will be a substantial duplication of issues in the ITC should it go forward with an investigation.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
2
27 28
See Declaration of Deborah E. Fishman, Exhibit A. (“Rambus does agree that all parties would benefit by an expedited consideration of the Motion to Transfer, since there is a Case Management Conference in the first filed California action on December 5, 2008. Accordingly, Rambus joins in that portion of Nvidia’s Motion.”) 3 See Fishman Decl. ¶ 4 and Exhs. B and C. OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
-3-
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 4 of 4
Accordingly good cause exists for a brief continuance of the CMC to permit the parties
2
and the Court to obtain further information as to how the pending ITC proceeding and Rambus’s
3
request to transfer the Carolina action to this forum may impact this case.
4 5
Dated: November 14, 2008
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
6 7
/s/ Deborah E. Fishman /s/ DEBORAH E. FISHMAN Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
-4-
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 1 of 4
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985) [email protected] DEBORAH E. FISHMAN (STATE BAR NO. 197584) [email protected] ROBERT W. RICKETSON (STATE BAR NO. 148481) [email protected] ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: +1-650-614-7400 Facsimile: +1-650-614-7401 Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA Corporation
8 9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
12 13
RAMBUS, INC., Plaintiff,
14 15
Case No. C-08-03343 SI MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
v. (CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3)
16
NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant.
17
Date: Time: Judge:
N.A. N.A. The Hon. Susan Illston
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343 SI
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 2 of 4
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 and the Court’s standing order, defendant NVIDIA
2
Corporation hereby respectfully requests an order continuing the date of the initial Case
3
Management Conference in this action for approximately 18 days, from December 5, 2008 to
4
December 23, 2008, or such other day thereafter as may be convenient for the Court. A
5
continuance will serve the interests of justice and promote judicial efficiency for the following
6
two reasons:
7
1. On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint against NVIDIA and many of its
8
customers before the United States International Trade Commission involving nine of the patents-
9
in-suit in this action. The ITC is expected to issue its decision as to whether or not it will institute
10
an investigation of the matters raised by the Rambus complaint on December 8, 2008, thirty days
11
after Rambus’s complaint was filed. Should the ITC institute an investigation, then pursuant to
12
28 U.S.C. §1659(a), NVIDIA would be entitled to stay this action as to the patents overlapping in
13
the two proceedings, and a stay of this entire action would be within the discretion of this Court.1
14
Accordingly, until at least December 8th, the parties and this Court are faced with substantial
15
uncertainties regarding the scope and nature of this case that make case management options both
16
hypothetical and difficult to evaluate.
17
2. In addition, as the Court is aware, another action between these parties is now pending
18
in the Middle District of North Carolina, NVIDIA Corporation v. Rambus, Inc., 08-00473 (“the
19
Carolina Action). Rambus has filed a motion to dismiss the Carolina Action and a motion to
20
transfer it to this Court. Those motions are fully briefed and will either be set for hearing by the
21
Carolina court, or decided without hearing, in the Carolina court’s discretion. Although NVIDIA
22
believes those motions should be denied, were the Carolina court to decide that the matter before
23
it should be transferred to this Court, that would necessarily have a significant impact on the
24
scope and nature of the dispute between the parties that will be litigated in this forum, with broad
25 1
26 27 28
See 28 U.S.C. §1659(a) (“the district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission . . . .”); see also Formfactor, Inc. v. Micronics Japan Co., Ltd. 2008 WL 361128 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (staying entire patent infringement action filed in Northern District of California in view of ITC complaint that alleged infringement of two of the five patents that were at issue in the California action).
OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
-2-
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343 SI
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 3 of 4
resulting implications on case management issues.
2
In view of the CMC scheduled here, on October 31, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion with
3
the Carolina court requesting expedited resolution of the motions pending before it. Notably,
4
Rambus joined in NVIDIA’s request to the Carolina court for expedited resolution of the transfer
5
motion, because Rambus agreed that resolving that motion prior to the CMC here was in the best
6
interests of the parties and the courts.2 Notwithstanding its representation to the Carolina court
7
that resolution of the transfer motion prior to the CMC in this action will serve useful purposes,
8
Rambus has declined to join in this request for a continuance.3 As of this date, the Carolina court
9
has not acted on the joint request of the parties for expedited treatment of the transfer motion, but
10
NVIDIA believes that the requested continuance likely will provide sufficient time for the
11
Carolina court to act on the transfer motion.
12
Thus, NVIDIA submits that any concerns Rambus may now offer in opposition to a
13
continuance of the CMC are outweighed by the legitimate concerns for judicial efficiency
14
promoted by awaiting a decision in Carolina before addressing case management issues here.
15
Likewise, given Rambus’s election to pursue its patent claims against NVIDIA in both this Court
16
and the ITC, it would be premature and lead to a waste of the resources of the Court and the
17
parties to attempt to decide case management issues in this action before knowing whether there
18
will be a substantial duplication of issues in the ITC should it go forward with an investigation.
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
2
27 28
See Declaration of Deborah E. Fishman, Exhibit A. (“Rambus does agree that all parties would benefit by an expedited consideration of the Motion to Transfer, since there is a Case Management Conference in the first filed California action on December 5, 2008. Accordingly, Rambus joins in that portion of Nvidia’s Motion.”) 3 See Fishman Decl. ¶ 4 and Exhs. B and C. OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
-3-
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI
1
Document 46
Filed 11/14/2008
Page 4 of 4
Accordingly good cause exists for a brief continuance of the CMC to permit the parties
2
and the Court to obtain further information as to how the pending ITC proceeding and Rambus’s
3
request to transfer the Carolina action to this forum may impact this case.
4 5
Dated: November 14, 2008
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
6 7
/s/ Deborah E. Fishman /s/ DEBORAH E. FISHMAN Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHS West:260550679.1 15075-2017 R23/DZF
-4-
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE C-08-03343
Related Documents
46
May 2020 21
46
November 2019 49
46
November 2019 41
46
July 2020 16
46
November 2019 56
