Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334-90/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 SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

TRIAL

C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

TSF

E-filed: 5/7/2008 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

 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

SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING

PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND

RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22,

2008 TRIAL

[Re Docket No. 1681]

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02298 RMW

[Re Docket No. 758]

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1712 Filed 05/07/08 Page 1 of 6
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 SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

TRIAL

C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

TSF 2

The court issued a scheduling order on April 11, 2008. Rambus and Samsung responded

with some minor changes and concerns. The court has considered the parties' proposals. Instead of

issuing an order amending the scheduling order, the court has made various changes and republishes

the entire scheduling order to minimize later confusion in the event that a dispute over this order

arises. 

1. Scheduling. Pursuant to the stipulation filed with the court on February 1, 2008, the court

orders as follows:

a. The September 22 Trial. In case nos. C-05-00334 and 05-02298, Samsung and

Rambus will have a bench trial commencing on September 22, 2008 (the "September

22 Trial"). The September 22 Trial will include, to the extent they have not been

resolved by motion prior to trial, Samsung's claims in counts I through VII and X

(except prosecution laches) and affirmative defenses Fifth through Eighth as set forth

in Samsung's January 4, 2008 Answer and Counterclaims and Rambus's affirmative

defenses associated with those claims and defenses, as well as Samsung's discovery

rule and equitable tolling defenses to limitations affirmative defenses for those

claims.

b. Pretrial schedule. The following pretrial schedule shall apply for the September 22

Trial:

June 30, 2008: Expert witness disclosures and reports (party with burden of proof)

July 18, 2008: Discovery cut-off (excluding expert discovery)

July 28, 2008: Last day to file summary judgment motions

August 4, 2008: Expert witness rebuttal disclosures and reports

August 18, 2008: Expert discovery cut-off

August 19, 2008: Lead counsel meet and confer regarding pretrial conference issues

identified in Court's Standing Order Re: Pretrial Preparation

September 11, 2008: Pretrial conference.

September 22, 2008: Trial begins.

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1712 Filed 05/07/08 Page 2 of 6
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

1 If both Ms. Luedtke and Mr. Powers are available at 2:00 p.m. on July 7 or 8, the court

will move the hearing to that date if Ms. Luedtke so requests and informs the court by May 14.

SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

TRIAL

C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

TSF 3

c. Summary judgment briefing on Samsung counts IV-VII. Purusant to the Court's

November 2 Order, the converted motion for partial summary judgment regarding

Rambus's claim that Counts IV-VII of Samsung's Counterclaim are barred by the

statute of limitations shall be briefed and heard on the following schedule:

May 21, 2008: Rambus's motion for partial summary judgment is due.

June 13, 2008: Samsung's opposition is due.

June 23, 2008: Rambus's reply is due.

July 1, 2008: Hearing, at 2:00.1

2. Overlapping claims in San Francisco Superior Court. Rambus seeks to have Samsung

request in the action pending between the parties in San Francisco Superior Court (Rambus

Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., SF Superior Court Case No. 04-431105) that (1)

Samsung's cross-complaint (including all causes of action asserted therein) against Rambus

be stayed pending the September 22 Trial, and (2) upon commencement of the September 22

Trial, Samsung dismiss its cross-complaint in Case No. 04-431105 in its entirety. The court

declines to grant Rambus's request, but solely on the basis that the court believes that

management of the state case should be left to the discretion of the presiding state court

judge. To be clear, nothing in this order should be considered as suggesting that the state

court judge should not stay the state court proceedings pending the outcome of the

September 22 Trial.

3. Memorialization of the case management conference of December 14, 2007. The court

granted Samsung's request to severed from the consolidated conduct trial on a variety of

conditions. See Tr. 6:6-7:2, 9:16-19 (Dec. 14, 2007). For ease of reference and

understanding, those conditions were: 

a. Samsung agreed to be bound by the result on the prosecution laches aspect of the

consolidated trial;

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1712 Filed 05/07/08 Page 3 of 6
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 SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

TRIAL

C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

TSF 4

b. Samsung agreed that it will not claim collateral estoppel with respect to any factual

finding from the consolidated trial,

c. The remaining issues would be tried within six months of the result of the

consolidated conduct trial, and

d. Samsung agreed to the admissibility of any relevant evidence from the consolidated

conduct trial. 

4. Modification of this scheduling order. The dates set forth in this scheduling order may

only be changed by written stipulation of the parties and order of the court.

5. Incorporation of applicable portions of April 24, 2007 Joint Case Management Order. 

The applicable portions of the April 24, 2007 Joint Case Management Order (Docket No.

174 in C-05-00334 and Docket No. 112 in C-05-02298) remain in full force and effect,

including §§ 2, 3, 5a, 5b(1)-(4), 5c(1)-(8), 5e(1)-(3), 5f(1), 5g, 5h, 6a, 6b and 7.

6. Samsung's additional experts. In addition to the Manufacturers' shared experts, Samsung

seeks to offer an expert on its damages and an expert on certain technical issues. To the

extent necessary under section 6b of the April 24, 2007 Joint Case Management Order, the

court grants Samsung leave to proffer these two additional experts.

DATED: 5/7/2008

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1712 Filed 05/07/08 Page 4 of 6
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 SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

TRIAL

C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

TSF 5

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.com

William Hans

Baumgartner, Jr

wbaumgartner@sidley.com Rachael Lynn Ballard

McCracken

rachaelmccracken@quinnemanuel.c

om

Robert Jason Becher robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com

Yonaton M

Rosenzweig 

yonirosenzweig@quinnemanuel.co

m

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1712 Filed 05/07/08 Page 5 of 6
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 SUPERSEDING ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE AND RELATED MATTERS FOR SEPTEMBER 22, 2008

TRIAL

C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

TSF 6

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: 5/7/2008 TSF 

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1712 Filed 05/07/08 Page 6 of 6