Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER CLARIFYING AUGUST 30, 2007 CMC ORDER—C-00-20905; C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

SPT

E-FILED on 9/10/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAMBUS INC.,

Defendant.

No. C 00-20905 RMW

ORDER CLARIFYING AUGUST 30, 2007

CMC ORDER

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 05-00334 RMW

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02298 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 239 Filed 09/10/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 It appears that Samsung selected only 2 unique witnesses. 

ORDER CLARIFYING AUGUST 30, 2007 CMC ORDER—C-00-20905; C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

SPT 2

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C-06-00244 RMW

On August 30, 2007 this court issued an order setting limits on the number of live witnesses

that each party may call in their cases-in-chief at the consolidated antitrust trial set for January 22,

2008 ("August 30, 2007 Order"). The parties disagree on certain of the limits set forth in that order

and seek clarification from the court. The court hereby clarifies:

1. The six witnesses that each side (Rambus on one side and Hynix, Samsung, Micron

and Nanya (collectively the "manufacturers") on the other) may call in their cases-inchief are: Paul Anderson, Joel Karp, Neil Steinberg, Geoff Tate, Lester Vincent and

Farhad Tabrizi. In addition, the manufacturers may call Richard Crisp. The court

recognizes that its August 30, 2007 order listed Anthony Diepenbrock rather than

Paul Anderson as a witness that may be called by each side. However, Rambus has

since clarified, and the manufacturers do not dispute, that while Anthony

Diepenbrock was listed as a common witness in an initial exchange of witness lists,

he was not listed as a common witness in the revised witness lists exchanged more

recently on August 28, 2007. 

2. In the August 30, 2007 Order, the court ordered that the manufacturers as a group

may select 11 common witnesses out of the 12 proposed common witnesses. In

addition, each manufacturer may have up to 3 unique witnesses selected from their

proposed lists.1

 These limits were intended to cover all live witnesses, whether or not

for the jury phase of the trial. However, on September 5, 2007, the manufacturers

submitted a witness list in which they included two witnesses—Paul Anderson and

Robert Kramer—beyond the limits set by the court. Although the court's August 30,

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 239 Filed 09/10/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER CLARIFYING AUGUST 30, 2007 CMC ORDER—C-00-20905; C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

SPT 3

2007 Order is without prejudice to an application for substitution or addition of

witnesses upon good cause shown on application to the court, no such application

was made by the manufacturers. Therefore, the manufacturers are to revise their

witness list in accordance with the clarifications set forth in this order and resubmit a

witness list no later than Monday, September 10, 2007. 

DATED: 9/7/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 239 Filed 09/10/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER CLARIFYING AUGUST 30, 2007 CMC ORDER—C-00-20905; C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

SPT 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Rambus:

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com 

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com 

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke luedtkech@mto.com 

Burton Alexander Gross grossba@mto.com

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.com

Miriam Kim miriam.kim@mto.com 

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com

Brian K. Erickson berickson@dbllp.com

Counsel for Hynix:

Kenneth L. Nissly kennissly@thelenreid.com 

Geoffrey H. Yost gyost@thelenreid.com 

Susan Gregory van Keulen svankeulen@thelenreid.com

Theodore G. Brown, III tgbrown@townsend.com

Daniel J. Furniss djfurniss@townsend.com

Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@townsend.com

Patrick Lynch plynch@omm.com 

Allen Ruby aruby@rubyschofield.com

Counsel for Samsung:

Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com 

David J. Healey david.healey@weil.com 

Edward R. Reines edward.reines@weil.com

Counsel for Micron:

Harold Avrum Barza halbarza@quinnemanuel.com

Robert Jason Becher robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com

John D Beynon john.beynon@weil.com

Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com

Leeron Kalay leeron.kalay@weil.com

Counsel for Nanya:

Jason Sheffield Angell jangell@orrick.com

Vickie L. Feeman vfeeman@orrick.com

Mark Shean mshean@orrick.com 

Kai Tseng hlee@orrick.com

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 9/10/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 239 Filed 09/10/07 Page 4 of 4