Declaration Of Wu
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 Declaration Of Wu as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,552
- Pages: 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
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, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
12
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, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
13
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
8 9 10 11
Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (2130 896-6600 E mail: [email protected] Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice) Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice) MCKOOL SMITH PC 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
16 17
RAMBUS INC.,
18
Plaintiff,
19 20
CASE NO. C 05-00334 RMW
vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
21
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY Y. WU IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUS INC.’S CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF MANUFACTURERS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Defendants. Date: January 30, 2009 Courtroom: 6 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
22 23
Trial Date: February 17, 2009 24 25 26 27 28 6984235.2
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
RAMBUS INC.,
2
Plaintiff,
3 4
CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW
vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
5 Defendants. 6 RAMBUS INC.,
CASE NO. C 06-00244 RMW
7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al.,
13
CASE NO.: CV 00-20905 RMW
Plaintiffs,
14
vs.
15
RAMBUS INC.,
16
Defendant.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6984235.2
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY Y. WU
2
I, Jeffrey Y. Wu, do hereby declare and say:
3
1.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP,
4
counsel of record for Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) in this case, and am admitted to practice before
5
this Court. I submit this declaration in support of Rambus Inc.’s Consolidated Opposition to
6
Motions of the Manufacturers for Summary Judgment Based Upon Collateral Estoppel. I submit
7
this declaration based on personal knowledge, and based on information and belief following a
8
reasonable investigation, which includes a review of relevant records. I could and would testify
9
competently to each of the matters set forth herein. 2.
10
In Rambus Inc. v. Infineon AG Technologies AG, Case No. 3:00CV524
11
(E.D. Va.), a trial on spoliation was held from February 21, 2005, to March 1, 2005 [“Infineon
12
Trial”]. I have reviewed records related to the Infineon Trial in connection with this declaration. 3.
13
In Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., C.A. No. 00-792 (SLR), Dkt.
14
No. 1084 (D. Del.), a trial on spoliation was held from November 8, 2007, to November 15, 2007,
15
with further closing arguments held on May 20 and September 19, 2008. On January 9, 2009, the
16
Delaware issued its Opinion regarding Micron’s spoliation contentions [“Delaware Ruling”]. I
17
have reviewed records related to that proceeding in connection with this declaration. 4.
18
In Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. CV-0020905-
19
RMW (N.D. Cal.), a trial on spoliation was held from October 17, 2005, to November 1, 2005. I
20
have reviewed records related to that proceeding in connection with this declaration. 5.
21
I am informed and believe that MTX 295, which is cited in the Delaware
22
Ruling at 9, is identical to DTX 3680. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
23
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3680 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
24
February 21, 2005. 6.
25
I am informed and believe that MTX 379, which is cited in the Delaware
26
Ruling at 33, is identical to DTX 3712. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
27
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3712 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
28
February 21, 2005. 6984235.2
- 1-
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
7.
I am informed and believe that MTX 290, which is cited in the Delaware
2
Ruling at 7, is identical to DTX 3681. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
3
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3712 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
4
February 21, 2005.
5
8.
I am informed and believe that MTX 276, which is cited in the Delaware
6
Ruling at 9, is identical to DTX 3694. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
7
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3794 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
8
February 21, 2005.
9
9.
I am informed and believe that MTX 436, which is cited in the Delaware
10
Ruling at 18, is identical to DTX 3716. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
11
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3716 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
12
February 22, 2005.
13
10.
I am informed and believe that MTX 802, which is cited in the Delaware
14
Ruling at 17, is identical to DTX 3692. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
15
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3716 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
16
February 21, 2005.
17
11.
I am informed and believe that MTX 434, which is cited in the Delaware
18
Ruling at 18, is identical to DTX 4067. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
19
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 4067 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
20
February 22, 2005.
21
12.
Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Micron’s Post-Trial
22
Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct and the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s
23
Spoliation, filed June 30, 2008, Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., C.A. No. 00-792
24
(SLR), Dkt. No. 1084 (D. Del.) [“Micron Delaware Spoliation Brief”].
25
13.
Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of “2-Hour Designations,
26
Robert Kramer, 170:3-171:6,” which is cited in the Micron Delaware Spoliation Brief, at 34 n.
27
130.
28
14. 6984235.2
Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Exhibit MTX 683, -2-
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
which is cited in the Micron Delaware Spoliation Brief, at 37 n.144.
2
15.
Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Rambus’s Verified
3
Statement Re: Discovery of Backup Tapes, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-
4
20905 RMW, filed Apr. 27, 2005 (N.D. Cal.).
5
16.
Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
6
testimony in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 RMW (N.D. Cal), RT
7
2730:9-12, 2752:16-19, dated February 26, 2008.
8 9
17.
Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of MTX 434, which is
cited in the Delaware Ruling at 18.
10
18.
Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the June 15, 2006
11
Memorandum Order in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., C.A. No. 00-792 (KAJ) (D.
12
Del.).
13
19.
Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
14
testimony in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 (RMW) (N.D. Cal.), at
15
756:8-757:14; 1213:15-1215:10, dated October 24, 2005 and October 27, 2005.
16
20.
Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
17
testimony in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., C.A. No. 00-792 (SLR) (D. Del.), at
18
1426:16-1427:9, dated November 15, 2007. A portion of Richard Crisp’s prior testimony was
19
read or played in open court. Mr. Crisp did not testify live.
20
21.
On October 27, 2005, Richard Crisp testified at trial in Hynix
21
Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 (RMW) (N.D. Cal.). An excerpt of the trial
22
transcript, including the witness list, is attached as Exhibit J.
23
22.
Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
24
testimony in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 (RMW) (N.D. Cal.), at
25
5912:15-17, dated March 25, 2008.
26 27
Executed this 26th day of January, 2009, at San Jose, California. DATED: January 26, 2009
/s/ Jeffrey Y. Wu Jeffrey Y. Wu
28 6984235.2
-3-
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
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, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
12
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, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
13
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
8 9 10 11
Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (2130 896-6600 E mail: [email protected] Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice) Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice) MCKOOL SMITH PC 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
16 17
RAMBUS INC.,
18
Plaintiff,
19 20
CASE NO. C 05-00334 RMW
vs. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
21
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY Y. WU IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUS INC.’S CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF MANUFACTURERS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
Defendants. Date: January 30, 2009 Courtroom: 6 Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
22 23
Trial Date: February 17, 2009 24 25 26 27 28 6984235.2
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
RAMBUS INC.,
2
Plaintiff,
3 4
CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW
vs. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
5 Defendants. 6 RAMBUS INC.,
CASE NO. C 06-00244 RMW
7 Plaintiff, 8 vs. 9 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al.,
13
CASE NO.: CV 00-20905 RMW
Plaintiffs,
14
vs.
15
RAMBUS INC.,
16
Defendant.
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6984235.2
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY Y. WU
2
I, Jeffrey Y. Wu, do hereby declare and say:
3
1.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP,
4
counsel of record for Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) in this case, and am admitted to practice before
5
this Court. I submit this declaration in support of Rambus Inc.’s Consolidated Opposition to
6
Motions of the Manufacturers for Summary Judgment Based Upon Collateral Estoppel. I submit
7
this declaration based on personal knowledge, and based on information and belief following a
8
reasonable investigation, which includes a review of relevant records. I could and would testify
9
competently to each of the matters set forth herein. 2.
10
In Rambus Inc. v. Infineon AG Technologies AG, Case No. 3:00CV524
11
(E.D. Va.), a trial on spoliation was held from February 21, 2005, to March 1, 2005 [“Infineon
12
Trial”]. I have reviewed records related to the Infineon Trial in connection with this declaration. 3.
13
In Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., C.A. No. 00-792 (SLR), Dkt.
14
No. 1084 (D. Del.), a trial on spoliation was held from November 8, 2007, to November 15, 2007,
15
with further closing arguments held on May 20 and September 19, 2008. On January 9, 2009, the
16
Delaware issued its Opinion regarding Micron’s spoliation contentions [“Delaware Ruling”]. I
17
have reviewed records related to that proceeding in connection with this declaration. 4.
18
In Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. CV-0020905-
19
RMW (N.D. Cal.), a trial on spoliation was held from October 17, 2005, to November 1, 2005. I
20
have reviewed records related to that proceeding in connection with this declaration. 5.
21
I am informed and believe that MTX 295, which is cited in the Delaware
22
Ruling at 9, is identical to DTX 3680. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
23
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3680 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
24
February 21, 2005. 6.
25
I am informed and believe that MTX 379, which is cited in the Delaware
26
Ruling at 33, is identical to DTX 3712. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
27
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3712 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
28
February 21, 2005. 6984235.2
- 1-
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
7.
I am informed and believe that MTX 290, which is cited in the Delaware
2
Ruling at 7, is identical to DTX 3681. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
3
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3712 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
4
February 21, 2005.
5
8.
I am informed and believe that MTX 276, which is cited in the Delaware
6
Ruling at 9, is identical to DTX 3694. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
7
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3794 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
8
February 21, 2005.
9
9.
I am informed and believe that MTX 436, which is cited in the Delaware
10
Ruling at 18, is identical to DTX 3716. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
11
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3716 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
12
February 22, 2005.
13
10.
I am informed and believe that MTX 802, which is cited in the Delaware
14
Ruling at 17, is identical to DTX 3692. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
15
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 3716 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
16
February 21, 2005.
17
11.
I am informed and believe that MTX 434, which is cited in the Delaware
18
Ruling at 18, is identical to DTX 4067. I am informed and believe that, based on my review of
19
records related to the Infineon Trial, DTX 4067 was used in open court at the Infineon Trial on
20
February 22, 2005.
21
12.
Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Micron’s Post-Trial
22
Brief Regarding Rambus’s Litigation Misconduct and the Proper Sanction for Rambus’s
23
Spoliation, filed June 30, 2008, Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., C.A. No. 00-792
24
(SLR), Dkt. No. 1084 (D. Del.) [“Micron Delaware Spoliation Brief”].
25
13.
Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of “2-Hour Designations,
26
Robert Kramer, 170:3-171:6,” which is cited in the Micron Delaware Spoliation Brief, at 34 n.
27
130.
28
14. 6984235.2
Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Exhibit MTX 683, -2-
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
1
which is cited in the Micron Delaware Spoliation Brief, at 37 n.144.
2
15.
Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of Rambus’s Verified
3
Statement Re: Discovery of Backup Tapes, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-
4
20905 RMW, filed Apr. 27, 2005 (N.D. Cal.).
5
16.
Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
6
testimony in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 RMW (N.D. Cal), RT
7
2730:9-12, 2752:16-19, dated February 26, 2008.
8 9
17.
Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of MTX 434, which is
cited in the Delaware Ruling at 18.
10
18.
Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the June 15, 2006
11
Memorandum Order in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., C.A. No. 00-792 (KAJ) (D.
12
Del.).
13
19.
Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
14
testimony in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 (RMW) (N.D. Cal.), at
15
756:8-757:14; 1213:15-1215:10, dated October 24, 2005 and October 27, 2005.
16
20.
Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
17
testimony in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., C.A. No. 00-792 (SLR) (D. Del.), at
18
1426:16-1427:9, dated November 15, 2007. A portion of Richard Crisp’s prior testimony was
19
read or played in open court. Mr. Crisp did not testify live.
20
21.
On October 27, 2005, Richard Crisp testified at trial in Hynix
21
Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 (RMW) (N.D. Cal.). An excerpt of the trial
22
transcript, including the witness list, is attached as Exhibit J.
23
22.
Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of excerpts from trial
24
testimony in Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., CV 00-20905 (RMW) (N.D. Cal.), at
25
5912:15-17, dated March 25, 2008.
26 27
Executed this 26th day of January, 2009, at San Jose, California. DATED: January 26, 2009
/s/ Jeffrey Y. Wu Jeffrey Y. Wu
28 6984235.2
-3-
WU DECL. ISO RAMBUS’S CONSOLIDATED OPP’N RE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL CASE NOS. 05-334; 05-2298; 06-244; 00-20905
Related Documents
Declaration Of Wu
December 2019 13
Wu
October 2019 24
List Of Wu
October 2019 17
Tugas Wu
November 2019 13
Declaration
May 2020 26