Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244-60/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF

E-filed: 2/26/2008 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR

DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RAMBUS INC.,

Defendant.

No. CV-00-20905 RMW

ORDER REGARDING TWO PENDING

TRIAL MOTIONS

[Re Docket Nos. 3278, 3306]

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 2

 RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR

MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P., 

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

U.S.A.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-00334 RMW

[Re Docket Nos. 1321, 1345]

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

[Re Docket Nos. 928, 949]

This order addresses two outstanding trial motions requiring prompt resolution. The court

has read the briefs filed by the parties and considered the arguments at both sidebar and in separate

additional hearings.

I. FEBRUARY 2000 JEDEC BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES

Rambus seeks to admit into evidence Trial Exhibit 6531, which Rambus argues is a set of

JEDEC board of directors minutes from February 2000. The Manufacturers oppose the request,

arguing first that Rambus has not authenticated the minutes and second that the minutes are hearsay

without an applicable exception. The court disagrees as described below, and admits the document

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 3

into evidence.

A. Authenticity

Federal Rule of Evidence ("FRE") 901 requires the proponent of a document to make a

showing sufficient to support a finding that the document is what the proponent claims it is before

the document may be admitted. This is merely a prima facie showing, and the showing does not

need to be made by admissible evidence. See FRE 104(a). Indeed, it can be made by as little as a

showing that the documents were found in a party's possession. E.g., Burgess v. Premier Corp., 727

F.2d 826, 835 (9th Cir. 1984). To be clear, if there is a dispute between which version of a

document is authentic, that dispute is for the jury to decide with its verdict, not the court with its

evidentiary rulings. See United States v. Tank, 200 F.3d 627, 630 (9th Cir. 2000).

Rambus has easily exceeded this threshold. The document in question was produced from

JEDEC's files. Under Burgess, that alone suffices. The minutes appear similar in format to other

copies of JEDEC minutes, of which the court has now seen a number. See FRE 901(b)(4). Rambus

has also provided pages of deposition testimony about the document from JEDEC's secretary and

EIA's general counsel which suggest that JEDEC only made changes to the minutes (thus creating

doubts about this set of minutes' authenticity) when the substance of the minutes came to light in

related litigation. Rambus has also provided evidence in the form of a copy of the minutes with the

secretary's proofreading corrections, where the corrections indicate typographical, but nonsubstantive, changes to the portion of the minutes at issue. Finally, Rambus has presented a

selection of contemporaneous documents that vouch for the correctness of the disputed statement. 

This body of evidence, taken in its entirety, is more than sufficient to support a finding that the

document in question is, in fact, a copy of the JEDEC board of directors minutes from February

2000. It also suggests that alterations to the minutes may have occurred only after the minutes came

up in litigation. See Perry Decl., Ex. C at 43:2-44:23 (deposition testimony of John Kelly describing

Desi Rhoden's reaction to being confronted with the minutes).

B. Records of Regularly Conducted Activities

 The Manufacturers next argue that the minutes are offered for the truth of the matter

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 4

asserted, namely, their discussion of JEDEC's policy toward patent disclosure. The Manufacturers

argue that an insufficient foundation exists to support the application of the business records

exception. See FRE 803(6). Rule 803(6) requires testimony from a "qualified witness" that a

document be (1) made at or near the time of the events described in the minutes; (2) by a person with

knowledge; (3) kept in the course of regular business; (4) and made in the course of regular

business. See id. The court has discretion to exclude a business record if circumstances indicate a

"lack of trustworthiness." Id. A "qualified witness" can be any person familiar with an

organization's record keeping. United States v. Ray, 930 F.2d 1368, 1370 (9th Cir. 1990).

Rambus examined Ilan Krashinsky about this particular document at trial. Mr. Krashinsky, a

JEDEC representative (though not a board member) testified that he recognized them as JEDEC

board of director minutes. Tr. 2242:25-2245:2. He recognized the minutes as corresponding to a

meeting that took place in February 2000. Id. at 2245:3-5. While Mr. Krashinsky had not received

this particular set of minutes, id. at 2246:4-7, he said he did regularly receive JEDEC minutes in

similar form and appearance. Id. at 2246:13-2247:8. Further, other witnesses previously have

testified as to the way JEDEC minutes were prepared showing that JEDEC minutes meet the

requirements of Rule 803(6).

"Because of the general trustworthiness of regularly kept records and the need for such

evidence in many cases, the business records exception has been construed generously in favor of

admissibility." Conoco Inc. v. Department of Energy, 99 F.3d 387, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (Bryson,

J.). In light of the policy values underlying the business records exception, the court finds that a

sufficient foundation exists in the trial record as it has developed to find that Exhibit 6531 is a record

of regularly conducted activities within the meaning of Rule 803(6).

Accordingly, Exhibit 6531 is admitted into evidence.

II. THE INFINEON LICENSE AND AMENDED LICENSES

Rambus seeks to introduce evidence of royalty rates contained in licenses it negotiated in

2000 to suggest that it did not breach JEDEC's policies because it offered reasonable and

nondiscriminatory licensing terms. The Manufacturers seek to introduce into evidence three further

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 5

licenses: two amended agreements with Elpida and Samsung that changed the royalty rate following

developments in the Infineon litigation and the license with Infineon that arose from the settlement

of the Infineon litigation. Rambus seeks to exclude these further license agreements.

First, these additional licenses have little, if any, relevance to what a reasonable and

non-discriminatory royalty rate would have been assuming Rambus's patents are valid, infringed and

enforceable. The Infineon license was negotiated following a district judge's announcement that he

intended to dismiss Rambus's patent claims on the basis of spoliation of evidence. The resulting

royalty rate has no probative value on what a reasonable and non-discriminatory license rate was for

Rambus's technology. Similarly, the amended agreements with Elpida and Samsung were caused by

the district judge's now-reversed claim construction and the jury's now-reversed fraud verdict in the

Infineon litigation.

Second, even if these licenses had some probative value, FRE 403 concerns far outweigh it. 

The evidence of what happened in Infineon would be unduly prejudicial to Rambus because this

court found that Rambus did not spoliate evidence, while the Federal Circuit reversed the claim

construction and jury verdict that gave rise to the license amendments. These conflicting outcomes

would also be confusing to the jury, and both sides would have to spend an inordinate amount of

time placing the Infineon litigation in context to attempt to dispel such confusion.

The Manufacturers argue that the evidence of the Infineon royalty rate is relevant in part to

rebut Rambus's argument that the Manufacturers have not paid anything to Rambus because they

want to use Rambus's technology for free. The Manufacturers submit that in light of Rambus's

comments about their failure to pay, they ought to be able to explain that given the rates in the

Infineon license, they would still be at a substantial competitive disadvantage if they accepted what

Rambus claims were reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty rates. This argument would have

some appeal if the Infineon license had been negotiated earlier. However, it was not negotiated until

March of 2005. Therefore, it seems doubtful that concern about being placed at a competitive

disadvantage vis-a-vis Infineon explains why the Manufacturers have failed to negotiate a license,

given that they knew of Rambus's patent claims for years prior to the Infineon settlement. More

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 6

fundamentally, rebutting Rambus's argument regarding the Manufacturers' purported desire to use

Rambus's technology for free is minimally relevant (it may go to causation). In light of the

substantial Rule 403 concerns discussed above, the licenses cannot come in.

Accordingly, the court grants Rambus's motion to exclude evidence of Rambus's settlement

agreement with Infineon and evidence of renegotiation of Rambus's other license agreements in light

of the Infineon litigation.

DATED: 2/26/08 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 7

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Rambus Inc., all actions Counsel for Hynix entities, C-00-20905 and C-05-00334

Burton Alexander

Gross

Burton.Gross@mto.com Allen Ruby ruby@allenrubylaw.com

Carolyn Hoecker

Luedtke

carolyn.luedtke@mto.com Belinda Martinez Vega bvega@omm.com

Catherine Rajwani crajwani@sidley.com Daniel J. Furniss djfurniss@townsend.com

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com Geoffrey Hurndall Yost gyost@thelenreid.com

David C. Yang david.yang@mto.com Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@townsend.com

Douglas A. Cawley dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Joseph A. Greco jagreco@townsend.com

Erin C. Dougherty erin.dougherty@mto.com Kenneth Lee Nissly kennissly@thelenreid.com

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke korourke@omm.com

Jennifer Lynn Polse jen.polse@mto.com Patrick Lynch plynch@omm.com

Keith Rhoderic Dhu

Hamilton, II

keith.hamilton@mto.com Susan Gregory

VanKeulen 

svankeulen@thelenreid.com

Kelly Max Klaus kelly.klaus@mto.com Theodore G. Brown, III tgbrown@townsend.com

Miriam Kim Miriam.Kim@mto.com Tomomi Katherine

Harkey 

tharkey@thelen.com

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com Counsel for Micron entities, C-06-00244

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com Aaron Bennett Craig aaroncraig@quinnemanuel.com

Rosemarie Theresa

Ring

rose.ring@mto.com David J. Ruderman davidruderman@quinnemanuel.

com

Scott L Cole scole@mckoolsmith.com Harold Avrum Barza halbarza@quinnemanuel.com

Scott W. Hejny shejny@sidley.com Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com

Sean Eskovitz sean.eskovitz@mto.com John D Beynon john.beynon@weil.com

Steven McCall

Perry 

steven.perry@mto.com Leeron Kalay leeron.kalay@weil.com

Thomas N Tarnay ttarnay@sidley.com Linda Jane Brewer lindabrewer@quinnemanuel.co

m

William Hans

Baumgartner, Jr

wbaumgartner@sidley.com Rachael Lynn Ballard

McCracken

rachaelmccracken@quinnemanu

el.com

Robert Jason Becher robertbecher@quinnemanuel.co

m

Yonaton M Rosenzweig yonirosenzweig@quinnemanuel.

com

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 REGARDING TWO PENDING TRIAL MOTIONS

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 8

Counsel for Nanya entities, C-05-00334 Counsel for Samsung entities, C-05-00334 and C-05-

02298

Chester Wren-Ming Day cday@orrick.com Ana Elena Kadala anita.kadala@weil.com

Craig R. Kaufman ckaufman@orrick.co

m

Claire Elise Goldstein claire.goldstein@weil.com

Glenn Michael Levy glevy@orrick.com David J. Healey david.healey@weil.com

Jan Ellen Ellard jellard@orrick.com Edward Robert Reines Edward.Reines@weil.com

Jason Sheffield Angell jangell@orrick.com Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com

Kaiwen Tseng ktseng@orrick.com 

Mark Shean mshean@orrick.com

Robert E. Freitas rfreitas@orrick.com

Vickie L. Feeman vfeeman@orrick.com

Counsel for intervenor, Texas Instruments, Inc., C-05-00334

Kelli A. Crouch kcrouch@jonesday.com

Counsel for intervenor, United States Department of Justice, C-00-20905

Eugene S. Litvinoff eugene.litvinoff@usdoj.gov

May Lee Heye may.heye@usdoj.gov

Nathanael M. Cousins nat.cousins@usdoj.gov

Niall Edmund Lynch Niall.Lynch@USDOJ.GOV

Counsel for intervenor, Elpida Memory, Inc., C-00-20905 and C-05-00334

Eric R. Lamison elamison@kirkland.com

John J. Feldhaus jfeldhaus@foley.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 in each action.

Dated: 2/26/08 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 967 Filed 02/26/08 Page 8 of 8