Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334-4/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

CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW

WILLIAM L. ANTHONY, JR. (STATE BAR NO. 106908)

KAI TSENG (STATE BAR NO. 193756)

VICKIE L. FEEMAN (STATE BAR NO. 177487)

CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (STATE BAR NO. 159458)

JASON S. ANGELL (STATE BAR NO. 221607)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

1000 Marsh Road

Menlo Park, CA 94025

Telephone: 650-614-7400

Facsimile: 650-614-7401

DAVIN M. STOCKWELL (STATE BAR NO. 212957)

MARK J. SHEAN (STATE BAR NO. 217671)

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

4 Park Plaza, Suite 1600

Irvine, CA 92514-2558

Telephone: 949-567-6700

Facsimile: 949-567-6710

Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and

NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff and 

Counterdefendant,

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 and 

Counterclaimants.

Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW

ORDER REGARDING 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

SUBJECT TO PRIVILEGE 

PIERCING ORDERS IN RELATED 

CASE

*E-FILED - 12/6/05*

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 98 Filed 12/06/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2 ORDER

CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW

At the hearing before the Court on November 18, 2005, Nanya Technology

Corporation and Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A. (collectively, “Nanya”) advised that 

they intend to seek in discovery in this matter certain documents that Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) 

contends are privileged but were subject to several orders of the Court in Hynix Semiconductor 

Inc. et al. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. CV-00-20905 RMW (“Hynix”) overruling Rambus’s 

privilege claims – specifically documents subject to Orders in Hynix dated February 26, 2004, 

January 31, 2005, and August 26, 2005 (as clarified by the Order issued on October 4, 2005) 

(collectively, “the Privileged Documents”). Rambus continues to assert that the Privileged 

Documents are privileged and protected from discovery, including in this litigation.

Notwithstanding Rambus’s continued objection to the production of the Privileged 

Documents, for the reasons set forth in the prior Orders in Hynix identified above,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Rambus’s attorney-client privilege and work 

product objections to the production of the Privileged Documents are overruled. The Privileged 

Documents shall not be withheld from Nanya by Rambus on grounds of privilege during the 

normal course of discovery ordered by the Court and shall be produced to Nanya within 10 days 

of entry of this Order without the need for further requests by Nanya for such production.

Rambus’s obligation under this Order to produce such Privileged Documents is not contingent 

upon the entry of a Protective Order in this action. Rambus may, however, produce such 

Privileged documents to Nanya on an outside counsel only basis, subject to the protections 

available under Patent Local Rule 2-2, until a Protective Order is entered in this action. Nanya 

will be thereafter required to accord the Privileged Documents the highest protection available 

under the Protective Order to be entered in this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: _____________________ _____________________________________

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

United States District Court Judge

12/1/05 /S/ RONALD M. WHYTE

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 98 Filed 12/06/05 Page 2 of 2