Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00334-16/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 COUNTERCLAIM 3 OF HYNIX'S FIRST AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIMS—No. C-05-00334 RMW

LJP

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.

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

ORDER DENYING RAMBUS'S MOTION TO

DISMISS COUNTERCLAIM 3 OF HYNIX'S

FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

[Re Docket No. 151]

Plaintiff Rambus Inc. ("Rambus") moves to dismiss "Counterclaim 3" of the First Amended

Answer to First Amended Complaint and First Amended Counterclaims ("FAA") filed by

defendants Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., and Hynix

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 218 Filed 06/19/07 Page 1 of 4
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 COUNTERCLAIM 3 OF HYNIX'S FIRST AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIMS—No. C-05-00334 RMW

LJP 2

Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc. (collectively "Hynix"). Rambus argues that

Counterclaim 3, which alleges violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code section 17200, is time-barred. 

Hynix 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.

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

claims and patent enforcement. In the 1990's, Rambus joined the Joint Electronic Devices

Engineering Council ("JEDEC"), a non-profit standard-setting organization for, inter alia, the

DRAM chip industry. FAA ¶¶ 199.10, 199.14. According to Hynix, Rambus participated in JEDEC

with the goal of acquiring information about the developing standards for SDRAM. Id. ¶ 199.25. 

Rambus used this information to plan a "patent 'ambush'" whereby it would have the power to

exclude competitors from implementing the pending JEDEC SDRAM standard and subsequent

improvements. Id. ¶¶ 199.26-27, 199.31. Without disclosing its amendment activity to JEDEC

members, Rambus amended its patent applications to cover the JEDEC standard. Id. ¶¶ 199.31,

214.3. Hynix alleges that Rambus then deliberately chose not to assert its claimed patent rights until

Hynix and other industry participants had significantly invested in products compatible with the

JEDEC standard. Id. ¶¶ 199.87, 214.4. Therefore, Hynix asserts, Rambus acquired the market

power, or a dangerous probability of obtaining market power, over the market for DRAM memory. 

Id. ¶ 202.

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, Hynix argues that the issuance of, inter alia, Rambus's patents-in-suit between January

30, 2001 and October 19, 2004, constitute overt acts within the statute of limitations. Rambus's

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 218 Filed 06/19/07 Page 2 of 4
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 COUNTERCLAIM 3 OF HYNIX'S FIRST AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIMS—No. C-05-00334 RMW

LJP 3

antitrust efforts are alleged to include the amendment of patents to cover the JEDEC standard and its

foreseeable extensions and improvements, which include the SDRAM interfaces currently in use. 

See FAA ¶¶ 199.26-27, 214.3. Because the statute of limitations is measured from the last

occurrence of an overt act in furtherance of the alleged antitrust scheme underlying its section 17200

claim, Hynix argues that these allegations place its section 17200 claim within the statute of

limitations. The court agrees. The asserted amendment 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-compliant products), if accepted as true, brings the

alleged course of conduct in violation of section 17200 within the four year statute of limitations. 

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

affirmative acts inflicting new injury restarted the statute of limitations, even when taken pursuant to

an agreement 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 Hynix's pleadings deficient. Where, as here, the

allegations involve a continuous course of wrongful conduct in violation of section 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) (holding that specific pleadings of time and place were unnecessary

where plaintiffs alleged a scheme to mislead customers and that such details were properly the

subject of discovery). It is sufficient that Hynix's pleadings indicate that the patents-in-suit, issued

within the limitations period, are part of the alleged wrongful course of conduct.

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 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 218 Filed 06/19/07 Page 3 of 4
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 COUNTERCLAIM 3 OF HYNIX'S FIRST AMENDED

COUNTERCLAIMS—No. C-05-00334 RMW

LJP 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Jeannine Y. Sano sanoj@howrey.com

Brian K. Erickson berickson@dbllp.com

Burton Alexander Gross, Esq Burton.Gross@mto.com

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke carolyn.luedtke@mto.com

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com

David C. Vondle dvondle@akingump.com

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.com

Counsel for Defendants:

Jason Sheffield Angell jangell@orrick.com

Theodore G. Brown, III tgbrown@townsend.com

Vickie L. Feeman vfeeman@orrick.com

Daniel J. Furniss djfurniss@townsend.com 

David J. Healey david.healey@weil.com 

Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@townsend.com

Ana Elena Kadala anita.kadala@weil.com

Patrick Lynch plynch@omm.com

Kenneth L. Nissly kennissly@thelenreid.com 

Kenneth R. O'Rourke korourke@omm.com

Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com

Edward R. Reines Edward.Reines@weil.com

Mark Shean mshean@orrick.com

Kaiwen Tseng ktseng@orrick.com

Geoffrey H. Yost gyost@thelenreid.com

Susan Gregory van Keulen svankeulen@thelenreid.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: 6/1807 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 218 Filed 06/19/07 Page 4 of 4