Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-00244-11/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 DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO DISMISS MICRON'S TWENTY-FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

No. C-05-02298 RMW

SPT

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 6/19/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.,

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

ORDER DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO

DISMISS MICRON'S TWENTY-FIRST

COUNTERCLAIM

[Re Docket No. 60]

Plaintiff Rambus Inc. ("Rambus") moves to dismiss defendant Micron Technology, Inc. and

Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.'s (collectively "Micron") twenty-first counterclaim for

violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 as time-barred. Micron opposes the motion. The court

has read the moving and opposing papers and considered the arguments of counsel. For the reasons

set forth below, the court DENIES Rambus's motion to dismiss Micron's twenty-first counterclaim. 

In its counterclaims, Micron alleges improper conduct on Rambus's part with respect to

patent claims and patent enforcement. In the 1990's, both Micron and Rambus participated in

JEDEC, an open-industry standard-setting organization consisting of DRAM customers, suppliers,

and other firms. Ans. & Countercl. ¶ 82. JEDEC was in the process of developing industry-wide

technical standards for high-performance DRAMs, such as the SDRAM and DDR SDRAM. Id. ¶

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 92 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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 DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO DISMISS MICRON'S TWENTY-FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

No. C-05-02298 RMW

SPT 2

96. Through its participation, Rambus received detailed and timely information about the standards

under development. Id. ¶ 105. Micron alleges that Rambus joined JEDEC as part of its plan to

dominate the DRAM and DRAM interface technology markets. Id. Without disclosing its

amendment activity to JEDEC, Rambus amended its patent applications in order to target features of

the standards under development or being discussed at JEDEC. Id. ¶¶ 106, 108, 112. It also later

filed related applications to attempt to make its patent portfolio cover all products manufactured in

accordance with JEDEC standards. Id. ¶ 115. According to Micron, Rambus deceived the U.S.

Patent and Trademark Office by withholding information material to the patentability of its patents,

including the patents-in-suit (which issued between January 30, 2001 and October 19, 2004). Id. ¶

160. Micron further alleges that Rambus strategically waited until the standards had been adopted

and the industry had invested billions of dollars in it before asserting its patent rights against DRAM

manufacturers. Id. ¶ 118. 

In alleging a continuing antitrust violation, "an overt act by the defendant is required to

restart the statute of limitations." Pace Indus. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234, 237 (9th Cir.

1987). An overt act has two elements: "1) [i]t must be a new and independent act that is not merely

a reaffirmation of a previous act; and 2) it must inflict new and accumulating injury on the plaintiff." 

Id. at 238. If an initial act or decision occurs outside the limitations period, "separate violations . . .

not controlled by the previous act or decision" restart the statute of limitations, but mere continuing

injury does not. Id.

Here, Micron argues that Rambus's perpetration of fraud on the patent office and the issuance

of, inter alia, the patents-in-suit between January 30, 2001 and October 19, 2004, constitute overt

acts within the statute of limitations. Specifically, Micron submits, ten of the fourteen patents-insuit did not issue until after June 2, 2002. Such fraud, Micron alleges, was a part of Rambus's longrunning antitrust scheme. Rambus's antitrust efforts are alleged to include the use of patent

prosecution to achieve an improper monopoly. See Ans. & Countercl. ¶¶ 106, 108, 112, 115

(alleging Rambus later filed related applications to attempt to make its patent portfolio cover all

products manufactured in accordance with JEDEC standards). Because the statute of limitations is

measured from the last occurrence of an overt act in furtherance of the alleged antitrust scheme

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 92 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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

 Citing Abbott Laboratories v. Brennan, 952 F.2d 1346, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1991), Rambus

further argues that Micron may not rely on a fraud on the patent office theory to support a state

claim. In Abbott, the plaintiff sought to attack the patent office's unfavorable decision in an

interference proceeding by filing a state suit claiming abuse of process. Id. at 1348. The Federal

Circuit held that PTO proceedings are not subject to collateral attack under state law and therefore

the plaintiff's state law abuse of process claim could not be sustained. Id. at 1355. However, Abbott

is inapplicable because Micron does not seek by its allegations to attack any decision by the patent

office. The Abbott court made clear that it only addressed "the narrow question of whether the state

tort action for abuse of process can be invoked as a remedy for inequitable or other unsavory

conduct of parties to proceedings in the Patent and Trademark Office." Id.

ORDER DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO DISMISS MICRON'S TWENTY-FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

No. C-05-02298 RMW

SPT 3

underlying its § 17200 claim, Micron argues that these allegations places its § 17200 claim within

the statute of limitations. The court agrees. The asserted prosecution of the patents-in-suit in

furtherance of the alleged antitrust scheme (which is alleged to stem from, inter alia, the conduct at

JEDEC and attempts to amend patents to cover JEDEC-complaint products), if accepted as true,

brings the alleged course of conduct in violation of § 17200 within the four year statute of

limitations. See Hennegan v. Pacifico Creative Serv., Inc., 787 F.2d 1299, 1300-02 (9th Cir. 1986)

(Affirmative acts inflicting new injury will restart the statute of limitations, even when taken

pursuant to an agreement or decision made prior to the limitations period.); Suh v. Yang, 987 F.

Supp. 783, 795-96 (N.D. Cal. 1997). 

Rambus argues that no dates are specified as to the allegations regarding prosecution of

patents. However, the lack of dates does not render Micron's pleadings deficient. Where, as here,

the allegations involve a continuous course of wrongful conduct in violation of § 17200, factspecific pleading is not required. See Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 19 Cal. 4th 26,

46-47 (1998) (rejecting the requirement that a plaintiff make "specific factual allegations in addition

to pleading the elements of the alleged unlawful act"); People v. Superior Court (Jayhill Corp.), 9

Cal. 3d 283, 287-88 (1973). It is sufficient that Micron's pleadings indicate that ten of the patentsin-suit, alleged to constitute part of the wrongful course of conduct, issued between January 30,

2001 and October 19, 2004.1 See Jayhill, 9 Cal. 3d at 288 (pleadings sufficient where the violations

had been "alleged in sufficient detail to apprise defendants of the basis of the cause of action," and

further details were properly the subject of discovery).

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 92 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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 DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO DISMISS MICRON'S TWENTY-FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

No. C-05-02298 RMW

SPT 4

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Rambus's motion to dismiss.

DATED: 6/18/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 92 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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 DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO DISMISS MICRON'S TWENTY-FIRST COUNTERCLAIM

No. C-05-02298 RMW

SPT 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.com

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke carolyn.luedtke@mto.com

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com 

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com 

Jeannine Y. Sano sanoj@howrey.com 

David C. Vondle dvondle@akingump.com 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

John D Beynon john.beynon@weil.com

Jared Bobrow jared.bobrow@weil.com

Leeron Kalay leeron.kalay@weil.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: 6/19/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-00244-RMW Document 92 Filed 06/19/07 Page 5 of 5