Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

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

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 6, 2006

C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

E-FILED on 11/16/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 05-00334 RMW

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FOLLOWING CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON

OCTOBER 6, 2006

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02298 RMW

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. 

No. C-06-00244 RMW

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 80 Filed 11/16/06 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

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 6, 2006

C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

2

A case management conference was held on October 6, 2006 to consider whether the stay

previously issued in the above captioned cases ("'05-'06 Rambus cases") should be lifted and, if so,

what scheduling order should be issued. The parties, as requested, submitted a Joint Supplemental

Case Management Statement ("JSCMS") that sets forth their respective positions and the

fundamental threshold issue of whether the cases should remain stayed or proceed on a schedule that

would allow the cases to be litigated as soon as practical. The defendants all argue that the cases

should be stayed pending a final decision in In the Matter of Rambus, Inc., FTC Docket No. 9302

("Rambus FTC case"), and until after resolution of the bifurcated antitrust conduct phase of related

case C-00-20905 involving Rambus and Hynix (Hynix I Conduct Trial). They argue that the FTC's

decision "has changed the entire Rambus litigation landscape." JSCMS at 4:12. They submit that

whatever the FTC imposes as a remedy in the Rambus FTC case and the result in the Hynix I

Conduct Trial will have a major impact on the scope and issues in the '05-'06 Rambus cases.

Rambus vigorously disagrees and argues that the remedy in the Rambus FTC case will have

little impact on the '05-'06 Rambus cases because, among other reasons, those cases "address

infringement by post-DDR products which are unaffected by the FTC's recent opinion." JSCMS at

2:17-18. Rambus also submits that a continued stay will allow defendants "to continue their unfair

advantage over the companies who are licensed to manufacture Rambus's latest product, XDR, and

who are paying royalties in return for that right." JSCMS at 12:10-12.

Hynix and Rambus both blame each other for the failure to reach a resolution of their long

and no holds barred litigation. They disagree on whether the remedy issued by the FTC will have a

major impact on a resolution. As the court has observed, this case cries out for a business resolution

because the parties could clearly benefit from working together. However, despite the efforts of

talented mediators and judicial officers, no progress toward settlement has apparently been made.

The court believes that the remedy imposed by the FTC should have a major impact on the

parties but prior history unfortunately suggests it may not. The court is also mindful that the parties'

positions on whether a stay is appropriate are undoubtedly based upon the leverage they believe a

stay or lack of a stay will give to them. The litigation among the parties will have to cease at some

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 80 Filed 11/16/06 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

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 6, 2006

C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

3

point or they will continue to be litigating, appealing and perhaps re-litigating for years at

tremendous expense and detriment to themselves and the industry. 

After taking into account the legitimate concerns of the parties, as well as trying to keep the

costs of the parties and the efficient and non-duplicatory use of the judiciary under control, the court

finds that the '05-06 Rambus cases should continue to be stayed until February 2, 2007 or the

issuance of a Final Order of the Commission, whichever occurs first with certain exceptions set forth

below. This is the same length of stay that currently is in place in the Hynix I Conduct Trial. The

parties can re-evaluate their positions by February 2, 2007 or before the FTC has issued its remedy

and, if necessary, the court can put the Hynix I Conduct Trial and the '05-'06 Rambus cases on

schedules. If the FTC has not issued its remedy by February 2, 2007, the court will lift the stay,

unless there is some indication that a decision is imminent. 

In order to balance Rambus's concern about delay and the defendants' concern about

inefficient use of their and the court's resources, the '05-'06 Rambus cases are not stayed to the

extent that the parties are to make a good faith effort to accomplish the following before the next

case management conference:

1. agreement to a single, common protective order that will govern new discovery in the 05-

'06 Rambus cases;

2. getting all pleadings at issue (the court recognizes it owes Samsung and Rambus a ruling

on Rambus's Motion to Dismiss Samsung's Amended Counterclaims);

3. the filing of any motion by Samsung that Judge Payne's ruling has res judicata or

collateral effect on any issues involving Samsung;

4. disclosure by Rambus of its asserted claims and preliminary infringement contentions;

and

5. a proposal to reduce the number of claims to be asserted (this will have a significant

impact on scheduling and discovery). The court does not suggest that Rambus be forced to dismiss

with prejudice legitimate infringement claims but it does suggest that it is totally impractical to

prepare to litigate the number of claims (and perhaps more importantly the number of terms or

amount of language needing construction) apparently asserted by Rambus. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 80 Filed 11/16/06 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

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 6, 2006

C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

4

The court indicated at the conference on October 6, 2006 that it would allow the parties to

respond to this [TENTATIVE] order. Any party wishing to respond is to submit its response by

November 22, 2006. This order will automatically become the final order, unless modified by the

court by November 30, 2006.

DATED: 11/16/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 80 Filed 11/16/06 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

[TENTATIVE] ORDER FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ON OCTOBER 6, 2006

C-05-00334 RMW, C-05-02298 RMW, and C-06-00244 RMW

5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com 

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com 

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke luedtkech@mto.com 

Burton Alexander Gross grossba@mto.com

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.com

Jeannine Y. Sano jsano@dbllp.com 

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@deweyballantine.com 

James J. Elacqua jelacqua@deweyballantine.com 

Kevin S. Kudlac kkudlac@dbllp.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@dbllp.com 

Brian K. Erickson berickson@dbllp.com, 

Saxon S. Noh snoh@dbllp.com

David C. Vondle dvondle@deweyballantine.com 

James E. Lyons jlyons@skadden.com

Raoul D. Kennedy rkennedy@skadden.com

Jeffrey G. Randall Jrandall@skadden.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: 11/16/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 80 Filed 11/16/06 Page 5 of 5