Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

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 Hynix was formerly known as Hyundai Electronics Industries, Ltd. References to

Hynix in this order refers also to Hyundai Electronics Industries, Ltd.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF HYNIX'S ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

BASED ON "RDRAM DOMINANCE" AND "DDR SUPPRESSION" 

C-00-20905 RMW

SPT

 

E-Filed on: 7/6/06

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

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION OF HYNIX'S ANTITRUST

AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

BASED ON "RDRAM DOMINANCE" AND

"DDR SUPPRESSION"

[Re Docket Nos. 1724, 1803, 1827, 1853]

Defendant Rambus Inc. ("Rambus") moves for summary judgment on the first and third

claims for relief in the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") filed by plaintiffs Hynix

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

Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH ("Hynix")1

 to the extent such claims are premised upon

Rambus's purported efforts to make RDRAM the dominant memory device and to suppress DDR

SDRAM. In the alternative, Rambus seeks summary adjudication of these issues. Hynix opposes

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2188 Filed 07/06/06 Page 1 of 5
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 GRANTING SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF HYNIX'S ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

BASED ON "RDRAM DOMINANCE" AND "DDR SUPPRESSION" 

C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 2

the motion. The court has reviewed the papers and arguments of counsel. For the reasons discussed

below, the court treats Rambus's motion as one for summary adjudication and summarily adjudicates

that the RDRAM never achieved sufficient market power in the alleged DRAM interface market to

hold Rambus liable for monopolization or attempted monopolization because it allegedly sought

dominance for the RDRAM technology and suppressed the DDR technology. However, nothing in

this order is intended to imply that evidence concerning Rambus's efforts to make RDRAM

dominant is inadmissible on Hynix's claim that Rambus's intent was to acquire monopoly power in

the alleged DRAM interface market by assertion of patent rights covering RDRAMs and DRAMs

incorporating JEDEC standards.

I. BACKGROUND

The court will not set forth the factual background as the parties are familiar with it, and it is

contained in other orders of the court.

Rambus states, and Hynix does not dispute, that the market share of the RDRAM never

exceeded 10% of the DRAM market. Rambus's Mot. Summ. J. at 5-6 (citing documents purportedly

produced by Hynix).

II. ANALYSIS

 Rambus seeks summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication of Hynix's

first cause of action for monopolization and attempted monopolization under section 2 of the

Sherman Act and its third cause of action for unfair competition under section 17200 of the

California Business & Professions Code, "if and to the extent that Hynix intends to pursue

monopolization or attempted monopolization claims based upon Rambus's purported efforts to make

RDRAM the 'dominant' memory device and to 'suppress' DDR SDRAM." Rambus's Mot. Summ. J.

at 1. Since Rambus only seeks to summarily resolve certain aspects of Hynix's claims, the court will

treat the motion as one for partial summary judgment (summary adjudication) rather than summary

judgment.

Rambus argues RDRAM never achieved market power in the alleged DRAM interface

technology market sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to Rambus's liability for either

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2188 Filed 07/06/06 Page 2 of 5
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 GRANTING SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF HYNIX'S ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

BASED ON "RDRAM DOMINANCE" AND "DDR SUPPRESSION" 

C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 3

monopolization or attempted monopolization. In opposition, Hynix argues that the relevant

determination of market power it asserts includes all of Rambus's patents (including those asserted

for SDRAM and DDR SDRAM) and Rambus's course of conduct associated with obtaining that

patent power. Hynix appears to essentially argue the admissibility of Rambus's attempts to get

market dominance by RDRAM on its claim that Rambus unlawfully acquired market power for its

portfolio of patents (including those asserted against Hynix products incorporating JEDEC standards

for SDRAM and DDR SDRAM). The court, however, reads Rambus's motion as expressly

excluding questions of admissibility of evidence on Hynix's monopolization claim based upon

Rambus's assertion of its portfolio of patents and Rambus's conduct related to that portfolio.

A. Legal Standard

Summary judgment is granted where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). In a motion for summary

judgment the court draws all reasonable inferences that may be taken from the underlying facts in

the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986). Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d) the court may "make an order specifying the

facts that appear without substantial controversy, including to which . . . relief is not in controversy."

B. Minimum Market Share

 Rambus argues that Hynix cannot base a monopolization or attempted monopolization claim

on "Rambus's efforts to achieve 'dominance' for the RDRAM device" because the RDRAM never

achieved market share rising to the level of a monopoly. Rambus's Mot. Summ. J. at 4. Hynix does

not appear to dispute that RDRAM's market share never achieved market power.

Section 2 of the Sherman Act states: "[e]very person who shall monopolize, or attempt to

monopolize, or combine or conspire with any person or persons, to monopolize trade shall be guilty"

of an antitrust violation. 15 U.S.C. § 2 (2004). To establish a section 2 violation for attempted

monopolization, the plaintiff must show "specific intent to control prices or destroy competition,

predatory or anticompetitive conduct directed at accomplishing that purpose, dangerous probability

of achieving monopoly power, and causal antitrust injury." McGlinchy v. Shell Chem. Co., 845 F.2d

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2188 Filed 07/06/06 Page 3 of 5
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 GRANTING SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF HYNIX'S ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

BASED ON "RDRAM DOMINANCE" AND "DDR SUPPRESSION" 

C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 4

802, 811 (9th Cir.1988). 

In Rebel Oil Co., Inc. v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1438 (9th Cir. 1995), the Ninth

Circuit explained that in an allegation of actual monopolization, a market share below 50% is

presumably insufficient to establish market power. For an attempted monopolization claim, a

market share of 30% is presumably insufficient. Id. Another way to demonstrate market power for

a section 2 claim is through direct evidence of the "injurious exercise of market power." Id. at 1434. 

Under this method, the plaintiff offers evidence of "restricted output and supracompetitive prices

that is direct proof of the injury to competition which a competitor with market power may inflict." 

Id. Thus, under both methods, a showing of market power is a threshold requirement.

Hynix offers nothing to rebut the presumption as applied to the market share of the RDRAM

alone. The court agrees that, as a matter of law, the RDRAM in and of itself never achieved market

power sufficient to constitute a monopoly or an attempted monopoly within the meaning of the

Sherman Act.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS summary adjudication with respect to

plaintiffs' first and third claims for relief as follows: 

1. As a matter of law, the RDRAM never achieved sufficient market power to hold

Rambus liable for monopolization or attempted monopolization because it allegedly

sought dominance for the RDRAM technology and suppressed the DDR technology.

2. Nothing in this order is intended to preclude evidence concerning Rambus's attempts

to gain market power in the alleged DRAM technology market.

DATED: 7/6/2006

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2188 Filed 07/06/06 Page 4 of 5
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 GRANTING SUMMARY ADJUDICATION OF HYNIX'S ANTITRUST AND UNFAIR COMPETITION CLAIMS

BASED ON "RDRAM DOMINANCE" AND "DDR SUPPRESSION" 

C-00-20905 RMW

SPT 5

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO:

Counsel for plaintiff:

Daniel J. Furniss

Theodore G. Brown, III

Jordan Trent Jones

Townsend & Townsend & Crew LLP

379 Lytton Ave

Palo Alto, CA 94301

Patrick Lynch

Kenneth R. O'Rourke

O'Melveny & Myers

400 So Hope St Ste 1060

Los Angeles, CA 90071-2899

Kenneth L. Nissly

Susan van Keulen

Geoffrey H. Yost

Thelen Reid & Priest LLP

225 West Santa Clara Street, 12th Floor

San Jose, CA 95113-1723

Counsel for defendant:

Gregory Stone

Kelly M. Klaus

Catherine Augustson

Munger Tolles & Olson

355 So Grand Ave Ste 3500

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Peter A. Detre

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke

Munger Tolles & Olson

560 Mission Street, 27th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94105-2907

Peter I Ostroff

Rollin A. Ransom 

Michelle B. Goodman

V. Bryan Medlock, Jr.

Sidley Austin Brown & Wood

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000

Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010

Jeannine Yoo Sano

Pierre J. Hubert

Dewey Ballantine

1950 University Avenue, Suite 500

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Date: 7/6/2006 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 2188 Filed 07/06/06 Page 5 of 5