Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244-53/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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF

E-filed: 2/3/2008

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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS'

MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

[Re Docket Nos. 2870, 2871, 2872, 2873,

2886, 2887, 2888, 2889, 2890, 2891, 2892,

2894, 2896, 2983]

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 1 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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. 846, 847, 849, 851, 862, 864,

865, 866, 869, 894, 895, 896, 897, 898, 899,

900, 903, 904, 918, 1014]

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

[Re Docket Nos. 476, 481, 482, 483, 485, 493,

501, 504, 510, 513, 520, 522, 524, 555]

The court hereby issues its rulings on the in limine motions submitted by Hynix, Micron and

Nanya ("the Manufacturers").

1. Motion in Limine No.1 to exclude evidence of DRAM price-fixing

Rambus may not introduce into evidence the Samsung or Hynix guilty pleas for the purpose

of impeaching character for truthfulness. If Rambus wishes to raise the issue of a price-fixing

conspiracy to (1) inquire about specific instances of conduct on cross-examination to impeach

character for truthfulness, or (2) rebut evidence regarding various lines of argument about proCase 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 2 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 3

competitive behavior in the DRAM industry, Rambus must first obtain permission from the court

outside the presence of the jury.

2. Motion in Limine No. 2 to exclude evidence of Manufacturers' document

retention programs or destruction of documents

Granted by stipulation. The parties will not argue that any missing document was hidden or

destroyed for the purpose of making the party look better or to hide relevant information. 

3. Motion in Limine No. 3 to exclude evidence regarding Manufacturers' positions

on Rambus's infringement claims and certain aspects of the results of the Hynix

I patent phase

Tentatively granted but final ruling is deferred so that court can consider how evidence

develops. Rambus must seek permission from the court outside the presence of the jury before

mentioning anything about the patent phase of Hynix I. In light of the instruction by the court with

respect to the validity and infringement of certain Rambus patent claims by certain of the

Manufacturers' products, it would appear unnecessary to discuss the Manufacturers' legal

contentions on validity and infringement. However, this order does not preclude evidence of the

ongoing production of infringing products by the Manufacturers.

The amount of the damages awarded in the Hynix I patent trial appears to have marginal

relevance and the prejudicial effect of the evidence appears to substantially outweigh that relevance. 

See FRE 403. The award by the jury in Hynix I was not supported by the evidence and that is the

amount the jury would have considered without bifurcation. The jury at the current trial will have

before it all relevant evidence as to the value of Rambus's patents that was before the jury in Hynix I.

As to the evidence showing bias and interest of certain witnesses, other evidence is available to

show Hynix's bias and interest. This order does not prevent Rambus from showing a financial

interest by cross-examination and argument that the Manufacturers including Hynix face the

prospect of having to pay a significant amount for their past use of the Rambus technology. 

4. Motion in Limine No. 4 to exclude reference to the Federal Circuit's opinion in

Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 3 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 4

the proceedings in FTC Rambus, other than the Commission's liability opinion.

Tentatively granted but final ruling is deferred so that court can consider how evidence

develops. Rambus must seek permission from the court outside the presence of the jury before

mentioning anything about the Infineon decision or the ALJ's opinion in FTC Rambus or the appeal

of the Commission's opinion. However, the Manufacturers' presentation may open the door to

questions of the Manufacturers' experts on aspects of the Infineon decision. For example, if

McAlexander testifies as to the scope of the term "bus" based upon the disclosure in Rambus's

specification disclosed at JEDEC, he may be subject to cross-examination on whether he considered

the Infineon decision (which held that one skilled in the art would not read the specification's

example as limiting the invention to a narrow, multiplexed bus). Nevertheless, Rambus must

request outside the presence of the jury permission to cross-examine regarding any expert's

consideration of the Infineon decision before doing so. See also Docket No. 3088, C-00-20905

(N.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2008).

5. Motion in Limine No. 5 to exclude evidence of, or reference to, alleged boycott or

price manipulation

Ruling is deferred so that court can consider how evidence develops. Rambus must seek

permission from the court outside the presence of the jury before mentioning anything about alleged

boycott or price manipulation. If the Manufacturers present evidence that RDRAM failed or

experienced lack of market success because it was too expensive or had technical flaws or

performance problems, Rambus should be able to explain other reasons that caused or contributed to

its RDRAM's market performance. However, if the Manufacturers do not get into the reasons for

RDRAM's lack of market success, evidence concerning an alleged boycott or price manipulation

seems irrelevant.

6. Motion in Limine No. 6 to exclude evidence of a conspiracy to not take a license

Motion is deferred except as to privileged documents. The scope of the motion is unclear. 

To the extent the motion requests only an order barring the use of privileged documents, Rambus

agrees the motion should be granted and the court hereby grants it.

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 4 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 5

To the extent the motion wants more, i.e., to exclude all evidence of a conspiracy to not take

a license, Rambus argues that evidence is relevant to causation. Specifically, Rambus argues that

the Manufacturers' meetings and coordinated litigation efforts tend to disprove that Rambus's

anticompetitive conduct caused them to defend patent litigation, but that they collectively chose to

engage in litigation. Therefore, tot he extent the motion to seeks to preclude more than the allegedly

privileged documents, the motion is tentatively denied.

7. Motion in Limine No. 7 to exclude communications from Rambus to third

parties regarding Rambus's pending patents

The motion is denied. The Manufacturers seek to exclude Rambus's communications with

other companies. To the extent those companies were members of JEDEC (this is a required

foundation for relevance), these communications are relevant because if Rambus discloses relevant

patents to JEDEC member –> JEDEC member does not disclose knowledge to JEDEC –> tends to

disprove a broad disclosure duty. Further, Nanya's claim requires showing that JEDEC, the entity,

was defrauded. Evidence showing JEDEC members knew about Rambus's intellectual property

tends to negate that JEDEC was defrauded.

A number of other relevance chains seem possible. Rambus's discussions with Hans

Wiggers at HP started because Wiggers was suspicious of Rambus's patent position. This series of

conversations demonstrates what Wiggers, a person of ordinary skill, was able to deduce from

Rambus's behavior. This undercuts the Manufacturers' evidence presented by McAlexander.

The Manufacturers' FRE 403 arguments are rejected. 

8. Motion in Limine No. 8 to exclude in camera FTC testimony Rambus has failed

to produce

Resolved by stipulation.

9. Motion in Limine No. 9 to exclude the 1991 company photograph and evidence

or testimony regarding awards received by Rambus or its founders

The motion is denied as to the photograph. It is appropriate background material which will

assist Rambus in introducing itself and showing that it is a real company with real employees and

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 5 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 6

that it is not just a company that licenses patents.

The motion with respect to exclusion of awards raises a more difficult issue. The only award

discussed in the motion is an IEEE award given to Horowitz. The receipt of the award by Horowitz

is relevant to the industry's recognition of his accomplishments and, therefore, has relevance to how

his inventions were viewed in the industry. The article about the award, however, contains

laudatory hearsay statements about Horowitz. The Manufacturers' concern that these statements, if

admitted, would be considered for their truth regardless of any attempt to limit has merit. A limiting

instruction would be difficult to frame and probably be overlooked by a jury. Therefore, the court

will defer judgment on whether Rambus can satisfactorily redact the article so that it can be admitted

for a legitimate non-hearsay purpose. 

10. Motion in Limine No.10 to preclude Rambus from making any disparaging

statements regarding JEDEC's patent disclosure policies and practices

The motion does not appear to be aimed at any evidence, but rather at Rambus's arguments.

The motion appears exceedingly broad and is not clear on exactly what arguments the

Manufacturers want to prevent. Rambus hopes to prove at trial that JEDEC's rules were "hopelessly

vague and indefinite," that the Manufacturers' characterization of the alleged JEDEC disclosure

policy is inconsistent with their own practices, and that Rambus's behavior was not anticompetitive. 

Rambus should not be precluded from arguing these positions. Motion in Limine No.10 is denied. 

11. Motion in Limine No.11 to exclude the testimony of Carl Everett

The motion for a blanket exclusion of Everett's testimony is denied without prejudice to the

Manufacturers making objection to individual questions asked to Everett on the basis that he lacks

personal knowledge, the evidence is cumulative, or that the testimony is not admissible for some

other reason.

12. Motion in Limine No.12 to exclude expert testimony regarding alleged

infringement

The court believes that the parties do not substantively disagree with respect to this motion. 

In view of the court's instruction on the assumed infringement and validity of the Rambus patents,

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 6 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 7

infringement testimony would seem unnecessary. However, this does not preclude Rambus from

offering testimony from Robert Murphy that: (1) the Manufacturers continue to use Rambus's

inventions in their newest products developed after Rambus's patent claims were admittedly known;

(2) the Manufacturers have added previously unused Rambus features to their products after

Rambus's patent claims were widely known; (3) the Manufacturers use Rambus's inventions that

they concede are not JEDEC-standard: (4) that the Manufacturers have developed products that do

not use certain of Rambus's iniventions; and (5) where the Manufacturers continue to use the subject

Rambus features, they sometimes change the implementation of those features.

13. Motion in Limine No.13 to exclude evidence that proposed alternative

technologies are covered by patents

The motion is denied. The majority of the Manufacturers' motion no. 13 is an untimely

Daubert motion and was struck at the December hearing as untimely. The remaining portion seeks

to exclude Murphy's testimony regarding non-Rambus patents reading on the proposed alternatives

because there is no evidence that those patents could or would have been enforced against a JEDEC

standard. The Manufacturers claim there is no evidence they could be enforced because four of the

five patents on Murphy's list were owned by JEDEC members, but not disclosed to JEDEC and

hence not enforceable.

There are two flaws with the Manufacturers' argument. First, even if a failure to disclose

waived enforcement, only four of the five non-Rambus patents belong to JEDEC members. The

fifth belongs to SLDRAM, Inc. Second, the scope and implications of duties at JEDEC are being

hotly litigated. Whether a failure to disclose works a waiver, license or estoppel is still being

litigated. It is therefore not a basis for excluding evidence that various alternatives were covered by

patents that could have been enforced against an alternative standard. Obviously, Murphy's opinion

is subject to cross-examination and he will not be allowed to explain his infringement analysis

beyond what is in his report.

14. Motion in Limine No.14 to exclude testimony of Bronwyn Hall

The motion is denied without prejudice, of course, to objection to individual questions she

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 7 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 8

may be asked.

A portion of this motion was struck as an untimely Daubert motion. The remainder of the

motion addresses Rambus's failure to disclose Bronwyn Hall as an expert witness. The dispute

centers around the Joint Case Management Order, paragraph 6(c):

On or before June 22, 2007, the party or parties with the burden of proof on an issue

shall provide expert disclosures with respect to each issue as to which such party or

parties bear the burden of proof. On or before July 20, 2007, the party or parties with

the burden of proof on an issue shall provide an expert report addressing that issue.

On or before August 17, 2007, the parties shall provide rebuttal expert disclosures

and reports. Depositions of experts identified may commence at a mutually

convenient time immediately after service of all reports.

Contrary to the Manufacturers' argument, a witness does not have to "rebut" another side's specific

expert witness to be considered a "rebuttal witness." Instead, the Order defined the rounds of expert

disclosure based on which side had the burden of proof on an issue. The Manufacturers' argument

does not address the "burden of proof" language and cannot be reconciled with the order's text. 

The Manufacturers' argument regarding the scope of "rebuttal" testimony citing FRCP

26(a)(2)(C) is inapposite because the rule specifically empowers courts to create their own expert

disclosure schedules; Rule 26(a)(2)(C) only governs in the absence of a scheduling order. While the

definition of "rebuttal" testimony in the court's order differs from that in the rules, the parties chose

the definition.

 The court does agree that much of Hall's testimony seems only marginally relevant. 

However, the court cannot say that its probative value is substantially outweighed by any FRE 403

concern.

15. Motion in Limine No.15 to exclude testimony of Peter Grindley and Richard

Holleman regarding rules and guidelines of standards setting bodies other than

JEDEC

Ruling on this motion is deferred. Although the court finds persuasive the logic of the

Manufacturers' argument that the testimony of the two witnesses regarding the patent policies of

other standard setting organizations is irrelevant, the testimony may be relevant to rebut the

Manufacturers' evidence about the breadth of the disclosure duty that was allegedly created by the

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 8 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 9

members of JEDEC.

16. Motion in Limine No.16 to exclude testimony of Laurence Pretty regarding

theoretical justifications for maintaining the confidentiality of patent

applications

Ruling on this motion is deferred. Although the court finds aspects of the Manufacturers'

argument for exclusion persuasive, particularly since Laurence Pretty's testimony is not tailored to

the circumstances of this case. Nevertheless, it may have relevance depending upon the evidence

presented in the Manufacturers' case. For example, some explanation of why the standard practice

of patent practitioners was to keep their pending applications confidential may be relevant to the

disputed issue of what JEDEC members understood to be the scope of their disclosure obligation.

17. Motion in Limine No.17 to exclude testimony from Allen Samuels

Ruling on this motion is deferred. However, it would appear that the Manufacturers are

going to offer evidence of a very broad understanding among JEDEC members as to their obligation

to disclose. If, for example, Rhoden testifies that JEDEC members recognized and practiced a duty

to disclose anything in the patent process that might be relevant to any discussion as to standards,

Samuels' testimony concerning patents that met this "might be relevant" standard and were not

disclosed would be proper rebuttal. The court may need to evaluate FRE 403 concerns because

cross-examining and disproving Samuels' assertions could take significant time and divert the jury's

focus on the relevant issues.

18. Motion in Limine to exclude evidence or reference to changes to JEDEC's patent

policies after January 2000 (not numbered)

Prior to the consolidation of these actions for trial, Hynix and Rambus were preparing for

trial on Hynix's antitrust claims. During the pretrial preparations, the court ruled from the bench in

case no. 00-20905 on a motion in limine regarding JEDEC's patent policies after January 2000 that:

I'm not going to preclude that evidence at this point, but I will require an offer of

proof regarding the specific change or particular change that Rambus wants to talk

about before I'll allow testimony on that issue.

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 9 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 10

Tr. 119:2-8 (Aug. 3, 2006).

The court extends the order to these consolidated proceeding with the modification that any

party that seeks to offer evidence of post-January 2000 JEDEC patent policies must make an offer of

proof outside the presence of the jury as to the relevance and admissibility of the evidence.

DATED: 2/3/2008 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 10 of 11
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

RULINGS ON MANUFACTURERS' MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

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

TSF 11

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com 

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke luedtkech@mto.com 

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com 

Burton Alexander Gross burton.gross@mto.com, 

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.com

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com 

David J. Healey david.healey@weil.com 

Edward R. Reines Edward.Reines@weil.com

John D Beynon john.beynon@weil.com

Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com

Leeron Kalay leeron.kalay@weil.com

Theodore G. Brown, III tgbrown@townsend.com

Daniel J. Furniss djfurniss@townsend.com

Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@townsend.com

Kenneth L. Nissly kennissly@thelenreid.com 

Geoffrey H. Yost gyost@thelenreid.com 

Susan Gregory van Keulen svankeulen@thelenreid.com

Patrick Lynch plynch@omm.com 

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: 2/3/2008 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 787 Filed 02/03/08 Page 11 of 11