Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334-63/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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF

E-filed: 1/26/2008 

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.

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY

INSTRUCTIONS

No. CV-00-20905 RMW

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., 

 No. C-05-00334 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 1 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 2

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

Please see the attached proposed preliminary jury instructions. The court will discuss them

at the pretrial conference on Tuesday morning. If you wish to file any written comments regarding

the instructions, please do so by noon on Monday.

Please notice jury instruction no. 12 regarding the juror notebooks. The court asks counsel

to meet and confer regarding items (2) and (3) and to submit a joint proposal for those items. The

court envisions the glossary containing reminders of common acronyms (e.g., JEDEC, DRAM, EIA)

and dictionary definitions of common technical terms (e.g., controller, CAS latency) to help increase

juror comprehension.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 2 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 3

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 1

Duty of Judge and Jury

Ladies and gentlemen: You are now the jury in this case. I want to take a few minutes to tell

you something about your duties as jurors and my duties as judge. I also want to give you some

instructions. At the end of the trial, I will give you more detailed instructions. Those instructions

will control your deliberations.

It is my duty to instruct you on the law. You must not infer from these instructions or from

anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your

verdict should be.

It is your duty to find the facts from all the evidence in the case. To those facts you will

apply the law as I give it to you. You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with

it or not. And you must not be influenced by any personal likes or dislikes, opinions, prejudices, or

sympathy. That means that you must decide the case solely on the evidence before you. You will

recall that you took an oath to do so.

In following my instructions, you must follow all of them and not single out some and ignore

others; they are all important.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 3 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 4

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 2

Patents — What a Patent Is and How One Is Obtained

As I will explain in more detail, this case involves patents and conduct relating to those

patent. I will now explain what a patent is and how one is obtained. Patents create property rights in

inventions that are new, useful and nonobvious.

Patents are granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (sometimes called the

"PTO"). The process of obtaining a patent is called patent prosecution. A valid United States patent

gives the patent owner the right to prevent others from making, using, offering to sell, or selling the

patented invention within the United States or from importing it into the United States without the

patent holder's permission. A violation of the patent owner's rights is called infringement. A patent

exists for a limited time only; they expire 20 years after they were applied for or 17 years from the

date they issued. 

To obtain a patent, one must file an application with the PTO. The PTO is an agency of the

federal government and employs trained examiners who review applications for patents. The

application includes what is called a specification, which must contain a written description of the

claimed invention telling what the invention is, how it works, how to make it and how to use it so

others skilled in the field will know how to make or use it. The specification concludes with one or

more numbered sentences. These are called the patent claims. When the patent is eventually

granted by the PTO, the claims define the boundaries of its protection and give notice to the public

of those boundaries. 

After the applicant files the application, a PTO patent examiner reviews the patent

application to determine whether the claims are patentable and whether the specification adequately

describes the invention claimed. In examining a patent application, the patent examiner reviews

records available to the PTO for what is referred to as prior art. The examiner also will review prior

art if it is submitted to the PTO by the applicant. In general, prior art includes things that existed

before the claimed invention, that were publicly known, or used in a publicly accessible way in this

country, or that were patented or described in a publication in any country. The examiner considers,

among other things, whether each claim defines an invention that is new, useful, and not obvious in

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 4 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 5

view of the prior art. 

After the prior art search and examination of the application, the patent examiner then

informs the applicant in writing what the examiner has found and whether any claim is patentable,

and thus will be allowed. If the examiner rejects the claims, the applicant then responds and

sometimes changes the claims or submits new claims. During this process, the patent applicant may

amend its claims prior to issuance of the patent. This process, which takes place only between the

examiner and the patent applicant, may go back and forth for some time until the examiner is

satisfied that the application and claims meet the requirements for a patent. Until a patent is allowed

by the PTO, a patent applicant cannot know with certainty what scope of coverage the patent will

have. All of the material pertaining to the application becomes available to the public after the date

when the patent issues. 

 

 

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 5 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 6

 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 3

Summary of Contentions

To help you follow the evidence, I will now give you a summary of the positions of the

parties:

Parties

The parties bringing the claims in this case are Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix

Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland

GmbH (collectively "Hynix"), Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.

(collectively Micron") and Nanya Technology Corp. and Nanya Technology Corp. USA

(collectively "Nanya"). Hynix, Micron and Nanya may be referred to in the course of this trial as

"the Manufacturers." The party against whom the claims are brought is Rambus Inc. ("Rambus"). 

Hynix, Micron and Nanya are companies that manufacture a type of computer memory called

dynamic random access memory or DRAM. Rambus is a company that develops technology for

computer memory products and owns patents to those technologies.

The Manufacturers' Contentions

The Manufacturers claim that Rambus has obtained, or attempted to obtain, an unlawful

monopoly in certain memory interface technologies and has made fraudulent misrepresentations to

the Manufacturers. From January 1992 until June 1996 Rambus was a member of an organization

called the Joint Electron Device Engineering Council ("JEDEC"). JEDEC is an organization which

develops and publishes standards concerning the design and manufacture of electrical components

that are used in computers and related products. Such standards enhance interoperability between

different electrical components. Hynix and Micron were members of JEDEC during the same

period that Rambus was and are still members today. Nanya was not a member of JEDEC during

the period of time in which Rambus was a member. 

The Manufacturers claim that members of JEDEC had a duty to disclose any patents, any

pending patent applications and any intent they had to apply for patents that relate to standards being

considered by JEDEC. The Manufacturers claim that this disclosure obligation existed so that

standards could be developed that avoided infringing patents, if possible. The Manufacturers further

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 6 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 7

claim that Rambus attended JEDEC meetings and learned what standards were being considered by

JEDEC and then, without disclosing its intentions to JEDEC members, amended its patent

applications to cover certain features that JEDEC was discussing for inclusion in the JEDEC DRAM

standards. The Manufacturers also claim that JEDEC would have incorporated other technologies in

the standards had they known of Rambus's intentions and that Rambus deliberately failed to tell the

Manufacturers of its intentions until after the Manufacturers had invested substantial sums of money

developing and manufacturing products that complied with the JEDEC standards. The

Manufacturers claim they were at that point "locked in" to manufacturing products that infringe

patents belonging to Rambus. 

Rambus's Contentions

Rambus denies that it violated any JEDEC rules, denies that it had any duty to disclose

information about its patents or patent applications to JEDEC, denies that it obtained or attempted to

obtain any unlawful monopoly, and denies that it made any misrepresentations to the Manufacturers. 

Rambus claims that it had proper and legitimate reasons for not disclosing information to JEDEC

about its patent applications while the PTO was still reviewing those applications. Rambus further

asserts that JEDEC members knew that Rambus was trying to get patents that would cover all of the

inventions it believed had been made by Dr. Mike Farmwald and Dr. Mark Horowitz. Rambus also

asserts that JEDEC members knew about and had access to a written description of all of those

inventions. Rambus also claims that JEDEC members took certain of Rambus's inventions and put

them in their products and that the Manufacturers now refuse to pay for using those inventions.

Relief Sought If Manufacturers Win on Any of Their Claims

The Manufacturers are seeking two types of relief. The only monetary award that the

Manufacturers are seeking is the attorneys' fees they claim they necessarily incurred as a result of

the claimed antitrust violation by Rambus. If you decide that a Manufacturer has proven its antitrust

claim, you then must determine whether that Manufacturer is entitled to attorneys' fees and, if so, the

amount of such fees. 

None of the Manufacturers is seeking any compensatory damages on its fraud claim but each

does claim it is entitled to nominal damages (such as $1.00) and punitive damages to punish Rambus

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 7 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 8

for its alleged fraudulent conduct. If you decide that a Manufacturer has proven its fraud claim, you

will be asked to determine whether that Manufacturer is entitled to nominal damages and punitive

damages and, if entitled to punitive damages, how much. If a Manufacturer wins on its antitrust or

fraud claims, that Manufacturer will also ask the court to bar the enforcement of Rambus's patents. 

It will then be up to me as the judge to determine whether Rambus should be barred from enforcing

its patents or whether some other form of relief should be imposed.

I will now give you a brief overview of what each Manufacturer must prove to win on its

claims. These instructions are merely to give you an overview of what must be proved in order for a

Manufacturer to win; you will be given more detailed instructions after the evidence has been

presented and those instructions will control your deliberations. The claims made by the

Manufacturers are monopolization, attempted monopolization, and fraud. Micron also asserts an

additional claim for negligent misrepresentation on which I will defer giving preliminary

instructions on since the claim is a separate claim by Micron. 

Elements of a Claim of Monopolization

Each Manufacturer must prove that each of the following is more likely true than not true to

win on its monopolization claim:

First, that the market alleged by the Manufacturer is a valid antitrust market;

Second, that Rambus possessed monopoly power in that market;

Third, that Rambus "willfully" acquired or maintained monopoly power in that market by

engaging in anticompetitive conduct;

Fourth, that the defendant's conduct occurred in or affected interstate or foreign commerce;

and

Fifth, that the Manufacturer was injured in its business because of Rambus's

anticompetitive conduct.

Elements of a Claim of Attempted Monopolization

Each Manufacturer must prove that each of the following is more likely true than not true to

win on its claim of attempted monopolization:

First, that Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct;

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 8 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 9

Second, that Rambus had a specific intent to achieve monopoly power in a relevant market;

Third, that there was a dangerous probability that Rambus would achieve its goal of

monopoly power in the relevant market;

Fourth, that Rambus's conduct occurred in or affected interstate commerce; and

Fifth, that the Manufacturer was injured in its business by Rambus's anticompetitive conduct.

Elements of a Claim of Fraud

To win on its claim of fraud, each Manufacturer must prove that each of the following is

more likely true than not true:

First, that Rambus made a representation as to a past or existing material fact;

Second, that the representation was false;

Third, Rambus knew that the representation was false when made or made the representation

recklessly without knowing whether it was true or false;

Fourth, that Rambus made the representation with an intent to defraud the Manufacturer, that

is, it must have made the representation for the purpose of inducing the Manufacturer to rely upon it

and to act or to refrain from acting in reliance thereon;

Fifth, that the Manufacturer reasonably relied upon the representation;

Sixth, the Manufacturer was harmed; and

Seventh, that the Manufacturer's reliance on Rambus's representation was a substantial factor

in causing harm to the Manufacturer.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 9 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 10

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 4

Validity and Infringement of Rambus's Patents

There is no issue in this case as to the validity of Rambus's patents. You are to assume that

they are valid, in other words, that they cover inventions that are new, useful and nonobvious. You

are also to assume that certain claims of Rambus's patents have been infringed by products produced

by the Manufacturers that contain one or more of the following technologies: (1) programmable

burst length, (2) programmable CAS latency, (3) programmable

write latency, (4) on-chip DLL or PLL, (5) dual-edged clocking, and (6) auto-precharge. These

technologies will be explained during the trial.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 10 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 11

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 5

What Is Evidence

The evidence you are to consider in deciding what the facts are consists of:

1. the sworn testimony of any witness;

2. the exhibits which are received into evidence; and

3. any facts to which the lawyers have agreed.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 11 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 12

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 6

What Is Not Evidence

In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits received into

evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts

are. I will list them for you:

1. Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses.

What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended

to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence. If the facts as you remember them

differ from the way the lawyers have stated them, your memory of them controls.

2. Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their

clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence. You

should not be influenced by the objection or by the court’s ruling on it.

3. Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that you have been instructed to

disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered. In addition, sometimes testimony and

exhibits are received only for a limited purpose; when I give a limiting instruction, you must

follow it.

4. Anything you may see or hear when the court is not in session is not evidence. You are to

decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 12 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 13

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 7

Direct and Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence may be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence is direct proof of a fact, such as

testimony by a witness about what that witness personally saw or heard or did. Circumstantial

evidence is proof of one or more facts from which you could find another fact. You should consider

both kinds of evidence. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct

or circumstantial evidence. It is for you to decide how much weight to give to any evidence.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 13 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 14

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 8

Ruling on Objections

There are rules of evidence that control what can be received into evidence. When a lawyer

asks a question or offers an exhibit into evidence and a lawyer on the other side thinks that it is not

permitted by the rules of evidence, that lawyer may object. If I overrule the objection, the question

may be answered or the exhibit received. If I sustain the objection, the question cannot be answered,

and the exhibit cannot be received. Whenever I sustain an objection to a question, you must ignore

the question and must not guess what the answer might have been.

Sometimes I may order that evidence be stricken from the record and that you disregard or

ignore the evidence. That means that when you are deciding the case, you must not consider the

evidence that I told you to disregard.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 14 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 15

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 9

Credibility of Witnesses

In deciding the facts in this case, you may have to decide which testimony to believe and

which testimony not to believe. You may believe everything a witness says, or part of it, or none of

it. Proof of a fact does not necessarily depend on the number of witnesses who testify about it.

In considering the testimony of any witness, you may take into account:

1. The opportunity and ability of the witness to see or hear or know the things testified to;

2. The witness's memory;

3. The witness's manner while testifying;

4. The witness's interest in the outcome of the case and any bias or prejudice;

5. Whether other evidence contradicted the witness's testimony;

6. The reasonableness of the witness's testimony in light of all the evidence; and

7. Any other factors that bear on believability.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 15 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 16

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 10 

Jury To Be Guided By Official English Translation/Interpretation

The Korean and Mandarin languages may be used during this trial. The evidence you are to

consider is only that provided through the official court interpreters or translators. Although some

of you may know Korean and Mandarin, it is important that all jurors consider the same evidence. 

Therefore, you must accept the English interpretation or translation. You must disregard any

different meaning.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 16 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 17

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 11

Conduct of the Jury

I will now say a few words about your conduct as jurors.

First, you are not to discuss this case with anyone, including members of your family, people

involved in the trial, or anyone else; this includes discussing the case in internet chat rooms or

through internet “blogs,” internet bulletin boards or e-mails. Nor are you allowed to permit others to

discuss the case with you. If anyone approaches you and tries to talk to you about the case, please let

me know about it immediately;

Second, do not read or listen to any news stories, articles, radio, television, or online reports

about the case or about anyone who has anything to do with it;

Third, do not do any research, such as consulting dictionaries, searching the Internet or using

other reference materials, and do not make any investigation about the case on your own. If you do

not understand a piece of testimony, you should submit a question. I will describe how to submit a

question shortly.

Fourth, if you need to communicate with me simply give a signed note to the clerk to give to

me; and

Fifth, do not make up your mind about what the verdict should be until after you have gone

to the jury room to decide the case and you and your fellow jurors have discussed the evidence.

Keep an open mind until then.

Finally, until this case is given to you for your deliberation and verdict, you are not to

discuss the case with your fellow jurors.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 17 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 18

PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 12

Juror Notebooks and Taking Notes

You have been given juror notebooks. Your notebooks contain: (1) a copy of these

preliminary instructions; (2) a list of the claim or claims of each of the Rambus patents that the

Manufacturers assert, and Rambus denies, are being enforced in violation of the antitrust laws

including: (a) the date of issuance of each of the patents, (b) each of the Manufacturer's products that

infringes a particular claim and (c) the technological feature of each product that infringes; (3) a

glossary of some technical terms that will be used during the trial; and (4) note paper if you wish to

take notes to help you remember the evidence. 

If you do take notes, please keep them to yourself until you and your fellow jurors go to the

jury room to decide the case. Do not let note-taking distract you. When you leave, your notes should

be left in the courtroom or jury room. No one will read your notes, and they will be destroyed when

the trial is over.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 18 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 19

PRELIMINARY INSTRUCTION NO. 13

Questions By Jurors

You will be allowed to propose written questions to witnesses after the lawyers have

completed their questioning of each witness. You may propose questions in order to clarify the

testimony, but you are not to express any opinion about the testimony or argue with a witness. If you

propose any questions, remember that your role is that of a neutral fact finder, not an advocate.

Before I excuse each witness, I will offer you the opportunity to write out a question on a

form provided by the court. Do not sign the question. I will review the question with the attorneys to

determine if it is legally proper.

There are some proposed questions that I will not permit, or will not ask in the wording

submitted by the juror. This might happen either due to the rules of evidence or other legal reasons,

or because the question is expected to be answered later in the case. If I do not ask a proposed

question, or if I rephrase it, do not speculate as to the reasons. Do not give undue weight to questions

you or other jurors propose. You should evaluate the answers to those questions in the same manner

you evaluate all of the other evidence.

By giving you the opportunity to propose questions, I am not requesting or suggesting that

you do so. It will often be the case that a lawyer has not asked a question because it is legally

objectionable or because a later witness may be addressing that subject. Your ability to ask

questions is to help you understand the case.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 19 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 20

 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 14

Bench Conferences and Recesses

From time to time during the trial, it may become necessary for me to talk with the attorneys

out of the hearing of the jury, either by having a conference at the bench when the jury is present in

the courtroom, or by calling a recess. Please understand that while you are waiting, we are working.

The purpose of these conferences is not to keep relevant information from you, but to decide how

certain evidence is to be treated under the rules of evidence and to avoid confusion and error.

Of course, we will do what we can to keep the number and length of these conferences to a

minimum. I may not always grant an attorney’s request for a conference. Do not consider my

granting or denying a request for a conference as any indication of my opinion of the case or of what

your verdict should be.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 20 of 21
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

PROPOSED PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTIONS — C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-05-02298; C-06-00244 RMW

TSF 21

 PRELIMINARY JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 15

Outline of Trial

The trial proceed in the following way: First, each side may make an opening statement. An

opening statement is not evidence. It is simply an outline to help you understand what that party

expects the evidence will show. A party is not required to make an opening statement.

The Manufacturers will then present evidence, and counsel for Rambus may cross-examine.

Then Rambus may present evidence, and counsel for the Manufacturers may cross-examine. The

Manufacturers, since they have the burden of proof, are given the opportunity to offer rebuttal

evidence to Rambus's evidence and, if they do so, Rambus's counsel may cross-examine.

During the presentation of evidence, the attorneys will be allowed brief opportunities to

explain what they believe the evidence has shown or what they believe upcoming evidence will

show. Such comments are not evidence and are being allowed solely for the purpose of helping you

understand the evidence.

After the evidence has been presented, I will instruct you on the law that applies to the case

and the attorneys will make closing arguments.

After that, you will go to the jury room to deliberate on your verdict.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1111 Filed 01/26/08 Page 21 of 21