Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298-10/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 

2786638.1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

 E-FILED: 4/24/07 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

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, 

vs. 

RAMBUS INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 00-20905 RMW 

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT 

ORDER 

Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 

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. 

CASE NO. C 05-00334 RMW 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 1 of 31
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 

2786638.1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

RAMBUS INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG 

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN 

SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW 

RAMBUS INC., 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and MICRON 

SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C 06-00244 RMW 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 2 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

Having considered the comments and proposals presented by the parties in advance of the 

April 4, 2007 case management conference and during that conference, and in recognition of the 

need for a detailed Case Management Order to adopt special procedures for managing the 

complex issues and multiple parties in future proceedings for Case Nos. 00-20905, 05-00334, 05-

02298, and 06-00244 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c)(12) and the court’s 

inherent powers, the court ORDERS: 

1. Trial Phasing

a. January 22 Trial in Rambus NDCal Cases. 

(1) Case Nos. 00-20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, and 06-00244 (the “Rambus 

NDCal Cases”) shall have a consolidated trial of the common claims and 

defenses identified in Attachment A.1

 These claims and defenses for all 

parties in the Rambus NDCal Cases shall be tried together in a trial 

commencing on January 22, 2008 (hereinafter the “January 22 Trial”). 

Attachment A identifies the claims and defenses in the parties’ current 

pleadings that shall be tried in the January 22 Trial.2 Attachment B 

delineates the pretrial schedule for the January 22 Trial that was agreed 

upon at the April 4, 2007 Case Management Conference. 

(2) It is the court’s intention that Case No. 00-20905 will be ready for entry of 

final judgment shortly after the conclusion of the January 22 Trial, subject 

to post-trial motions. 

 

1

 Rambus, Micron, and Samsung have objected to this trial format. The submission of the 

proposed case management order by these parties does not constitute a waiver of such parties’ 

objections to a consolidated trial. However, in light of the court’s decision to conduct a 

consolidated trial on common issues, the parties have agreed as to the claims and defenses to be 

tried in the trial commencing January 22, 2008 and the claims and defenses that will be part of 

subsequent proceedings, as well as certain corresponding pretrial schedules. 

2

 Certain issues, such as spoliation, will not be included in the January 22 Trial even if they 

are referred to in the pleadings. To the extent a claim or defense includes multiple bases, only 

some of which are included in the January 22 Trial, resolution of a portion of the claim or defense 

in the January 22 Trial will not operate as a bar under res judicata or similar principles to 

resolution of the balance of such claim or defense in a later trial in the 05-06 Cases. Any issue 

resolved during the January 22 Trial will, of course, be resolved for purposes of such later trial. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 3 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 2 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

b. Patent and Other Remaining Claims In 05-06 Cases. Claims and defenses in Case 

Nos. 05-00334, 05-02298, and 06-00244 (the “05-06 Cases”) that are not part of 

the January 22 Trial are not stayed and shall proceed with pretrial preparation (i.e., 

discovery, claim construction, dispositive motions) on all claims and defenses. To 

that end, a joint schedule for the 05-06 Cases through claim construction that was 

agreed upon at the April 4, 2007 Case Management Conference is attached hereto 

as Attachment C. 

(1) Patent Infringement and Related Defenses. Attachment D(1) delineates the 

claims and defenses related to Rambus’s allegations of patent infringement 

that shall be considered part of the subsequent patent trial or trials 

(hereinafter the “05-06 Patent Trial(s)”). 

(2) Samsung-Unique Claims in Case Nos. 05-00334 and 05-02298 (hereinafter 

the “Samsung-Unique Claims”). The Samsung-Unique Claims are 

delineated in Attachment D(2). 

(3) Spoliation Issues. Any claim or defense, or part thereof, in the 05-06 Cases 

that is based on allegations of Rambus’s destruction of documents, 

litigation misconduct, or spoliation of evidence (hereinafter the “Spoliation 

Issues”) shall be adjudicated separately from the January 22 Trial and the 

05-06 Patent Trial(s). The Spoliation Issues still pending are delineated in 

Attachment D(3). Although they are not presently aware of any, the 

Manufacturers reserve the right to seek to identify issues, in addition to 

Spoliation Issues, that they contend are encompassed by the pleadings but 

that do not fit in the January 22 Trial, the 05-06 Patent Trial(s), or the 

Samsung-specific claims, for inclusion in Attachment D(3), and Rambus 

reserves the right to oppose any such effort. 

c. To the extent a claim or defense includes multiple bases, only some of which are 

included in the January 22 Trial, nothing in this order shall preclude the court from 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 4 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 3 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

considering evidence admitted during the January 22 Trial to the extent it is 

relevant to consideration of the claim during a later trial in the 05-06 Cases. 

d. Ten (10) court days after Rambus files its replies to the current counterclaims, 

Rambus and the Manufacturers shall file with the court, as to each defense asserted 

therein, a statement identifying the phase of the proceedings in which that defense 

shall be tried. 

e. Discovery in the 05-06 Cases shall be stayed between December 15, 2007 and the 

end of the January 22 Trial. 

2. Appointment of Special Master

a. In light of the special circumstances of the Rambus NDCal Cases and the 

stipulation of the parties at the April 4, 2007 case management conference, the 

court hereby appoints the Hon. Read Ambler (Ret.) as Special Master pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 53(b).

b. The duties of the Special Master shall include: 

(1) Hearing and resolving all discovery disputes, either informally or by formal 

motion; and 

(2) Hearing and resolving any dispute concerning the terms of an appropriate 

protective order for the case and any subsequent challenges to the 

designation of materials pursuant to that protective order. 

c. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure dealing with review of magistrate 

judges’ orders, decisions of the Special Master shall be reviewable by the court 

only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law or upon a request by the Special Master 

for review of a particular issue or ruling. 

d. The Special Master may communicate ex parte with the court but ex parte 

communications with parties shall be in writing (such as by e-mail) and shall be 

limited to non-substantive, logistical matters such as the delivery (or failure of 

delivery) of documents or the temporary inability to call in to a previously 

scheduled conference call. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties are not 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 5 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 4 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

prohibited from communicating ex parte with the Special Master’s staff regarding 

the scheduling of hearings, the service or filing of papers, and any other logistical 

matters related to the Special Master’s appointment. 

e. The following process shall govern the parties’ discovery disputes before the 

Special Master: 

(1) Any party desiring to have a hearing before the Special Master to have a 

discovery matter resolved by motion shall prior to filing any such motion: 

(a) meet and confer with counsel for the opposing party regarding an 

appropriate hearing date for the subject discovery motion; 

(b) arrange with the Special Master to set the hearing no sooner than 

twelve court days after the filing and service of the moving papers; and 

(c ) promptly give notice to the opposing party of the date and time of 

the hearing arranged with the Special Master. 

Any opposition to such a motion shall be served and filed at least five court 

days before the hearing arranged under subparagraph (b) above, and any 

reply shall be filed and served at least two court days before that hearing. 

(2) Should a party seek to have resolved by motion to the Special Master any 

discovery matter without a hearing, that party may file and serve its 

moving papers without first complying with the provisions of Paragraph 1 

above. The party opposing the motion shall file and serve its response to 

the motion within seven court days after filing and service of the moving 

papers. Any reply in support of the motion shall be filed and served within 

three court days after the filing and service of the opposition. Should the 

opposing party desire a hearing on the subject motion, that party shall first 

comply with the provisions of subparagraphs (a) through (c) to Paragraph 1 

above. Otherwise, the parties agree that the Special Master may decide the 

matter without a hearing. The setting of a hearing at the request of the 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 6 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 5 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

party opposing the motion shall not affect the briefing schedule required by 

this paragraph. 

(3) For purposes of proceedings pursuant to this stipulation, service shall be by 

facsimile, personal delivery, and/or email. If there are voluminous 

exhibits, these shall be served by overnight delivery. 

(4) Nothing in this stipulation and order shall prevent the parties from 

stipulating to or applying to the Special Master for a different hearing 

and/or briefing schedule than those set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above. 

(5) Nothing in this stipulation and order shall prevent either party from 

contacting the Special Master by telephone during a deposition and seeking 

immediate rulings on any dispute relating to the deposition. 

f. For a dispute involving all parties to the Rambus NDCal Cases, the Special 

Master’s fees and costs shall be shared equally by the parties. For a dispute 

involving less than all of the parties, the Special Master’s fees and costs shall be 

shared equally by the parties involved in that dispute. The Special Master may 

decide in his discretion who is “involved” in a discovery dispute for purposes of 

allocating his fees and costs. The Special Master’s rate shall be his standard rate 

as set by JAMS. 

3. Collateral Estoppel Issues

This order itself shall not be used by any party to argue that any verdict, finding, 

judgment, or order of the court entered with respect to non-consolidated claims in Hynix I, 

or any verdict, finding, judgment, or order of the court previously entered with respect to 

consolidated claims in Hynix I, binds any other party. However, this order does not 

preclude any argument that a particular claim or issue is barred by the doctrine of res 

judicata, collateral estoppel, law of the case or similar principles. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 7 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 6 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

4. Appointment of Lead Counsel

a. By or before May 1, 2007 the Manufacturers shall appoint a single firm to act as 

“lead counsel” with the court and Rambus solely for scheduling and coordination 

of discovery and motions and related administrative matters.3 

b. Lead counsel shall: 

(1) coordinate the initiation and conduct of discovery on behalf of 

Manufacturers consistent with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P 26(b)(1), 

26(2), and 26(g), including the preparation of joint discovery where 

required by this order and the scheduling of witnesses for depositions; and 

(2) coordinate the briefing on common issues in all motions so that those 

issues are all briefed in a single motion or opposition. 

c. No communication among Manufacturers’ counsel or on their behalf for purposes 

of carrying out the responsibilities of lead counsel shall be taken as a waiver of any 

privilege or protection to which they would otherwise be entitled. 

5. Discovery

a. Discovery for purposes of Case No. 00-20905 is closed. Discovery for purposes of 

the 05-06 Cases shall be conducted to avoid unnecessary duplication of efforts and 

burden on the parties, witnesses, and third parties. This Case Management Order 

and the discovery procedures and limits set forth herein shall apply to all claims 

and defenses in the 05-06 Cases. 

b. Cross-Use of Discovery 

(1) All documents, responses to interrogatories, and responses to requests for 

admission produced or served in the Rambus Related Actions (set forth in 

Attachment E) shall be produced in the Rambus NDCal Cases, with the 

exception of documents over which a party continues to maintain a claim 

of privilege that has not been pierced or overruled in Case No. 00-20905, 

 

3

 Samsung and Nanya object to the appointment of liaison counsel, and their objections are 

overruled. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 8 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 7 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

05-00334, 05-02298, or 06-00244. For documents produced in the 

Rambus Related Actions by entities or individuals not a party to the 

Rambus NDCal Cases (“third party”), those documents are ordered 

produced and the parties in the Rambus NDCal Cases shall jointly give 

notice to the third party and provide a copy of this Case Management Order 

and the Protective Order entered in this case. If the third party objects to 

the court’s ordered production of documents previously produced in one or 

more Rambus Related Actions, disputes over that production shall be 

brought promptly to the attention of the Special Master. 

(2) All depositions or other sworn testimony in the Rambus Related Actions 

may be used by any party in the Rambus NDCal Cases as if taken in each 

of the Rambus NDCal Cases. A party shall be allowed to take a further 

deposition with respect to new issues with which it is concerned. A party 

shall not repeat prior lines of questioning of a deponent. 

(3) To facilitate the provisions of Paragraph (b)(2), each Party is ordered to 

produce by May 8, 2007 transcripts and deposition exhibits for all nonprivileged prior depositions or other sworn testimony of its current or 

former officers or employees as well as all depositions of its experts in the 

Rambus Related Cases. For testimony from witnesses not affiliated with 

any party to the Rambus NDCal Cases (i.e., third parties), the parties shall 

meet and confer to promptly agree upon a process for disseminating 

transcripts of such third-party testimony to parties not in possession of 

those transcripts. 

(4) Upon written notice from the party producing any deposition pursuant to 

Paragraphs b.2. and b.3. above, the party requesting the deposition shall 

treat the deposition and its exhibits according to any confidentiality 

designation previously given under the applicable protective order from the 

action in which the deposition was taken. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 9 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 8 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

c. Depositions 

(1) This court recognizes the significant volume of testimony previously 

elicited from current and former Rambus officers, directors, and employees 

in the various Rambus Related Actions. In light of this extensive record, 

the court is setting limits on further deposition discovery. 

(2) The Manufacturers collectively shall be limited to 125 additional hours of 

depositions that the Manufacturers may take in the Rambus NDCal Cases. 

These 125 hours may be allocated at the Manufacturers’ discretion between 

the claims and defenses in listed in Attachment A (the January 22 Trial), 

Attachment D(1) (the 05-06 Patent Trial(s)), and Attachment D(3). In 

addition, Samsung individually shall be allocated an additional 50 hours of 

depositions for purposes of the party-unique issues in the Samsung-Unique 

Claims delineated in Attachment D(2). 

(3) Rambus shall be limited to 300 additional hours of depositions that 

Rambus may take in the Rambus NDCal Cases, with no more than 90 

hours being taken of current or former Samsung officers, directors, 

employees, or agents, no more than 90 hours being taken of current or 

former Nanya officers, directors, employees, or agents, no more than 75 

hours being taken of current or former Micron officers, directors, 

employees, or agents, and no more than 45 hours of current or former 

Hynix officers directors, employees, or agents. In addition, Rambus shall 

be allocated an additional 50 hours of depositions for purposes of the partyunique issues in the Samsung-Unique Claims delineated in Attachment 

D(2). 

(4) The deposition limits outlined in Paragraphs (c)(2) & (3) do not include 

expert deposition time. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 10 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 9 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

(5) All deposition time spent by a party in the Other Rambus Actions,4 after 

entry of this order, shall not count against the time limits set forth above. 

However, any party can apply to the Special Master for an appropriate time 

deduction if time is spent in those depositions on issues that are common to 

those in the Rambus NDCal Cases before this court. 

(6) For all depositions conducted with an English-language translator, two 

hours of deposition time will only count as one hour towards the deposition 

time limits to account for the slower pace of a translated deposition. 

(7) These time limits apply to depositions involving issues related to all claims 

and defenses in the 05-06 Cases, and are not limited to the issues to be tried 

in the January 22 Trial. 

(8) The parties may notice a witness for only one individual deposition in the 

05-06 Cases, and, if that person has previously been deposed in one or 

more of the Rambus Related Actions, shall not repeat prior lines of 

questioning of such person. A prior individual deposition of a witness 

includes the deposition of a Rule 30(b)(6) designee on the designated 

subject. During that deposition, the noticing side (i.e., the Manufacturers 

or Rambus) shall cover all questions related to all claims and defenses that 

it wishes to ask the deponent, regardless of the “phase” of the trial in which 

those claims and defenses are being tried. A party shall not conduct a 

second deposition of a person in the 05-06 Cases without leave of the court 

upon a showing of good cause. The Special Master shall hear and decide 

any disputes concerning the scope of this paragraph and the scope of 

proper questioning. 

 

4 Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-431105 (San Francisco 

Superior Court); Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. 00-792-JJF (D. Del.); and 

Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al v. Rambus Inc., Case No. 1454-N (Delaware Chancery Court) 

shall be referred to collectively as “the Other Rambus Actions.” 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 11 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 10 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

d. Supplemental Rule 26 Disclosures 

(1) In light of the January 22 Trial of the common claims and defenses in 

Attachment A and the discovery limits set forth below, each party to the 

Rambus NDCal Cases shall supplement its Rule 26(a)(1)(A) witness 

disclosures by July 9, 2007. In addition, by August 17, 2007, each party 

shall identify those persons in its supplemental witness disclosures whom it 

is reasonably likely to call to provide trial testimony in the January 22 

Trial. 

(2) If any Manufacturer identifies a total of more than fifteen witnesses as 

reasonably likely to provide trial testimony and who have not previously 

testified in any Rambus Related Action on the subject matter for which the 

witness is identified, then Rambus has a presumptive right to additional 

deposition time from that Manufacturer beyond the limits outlined below. 

If Rambus identifies a total of more than fifteen witnesses as reasonably 

likely to provide trial testimony and who have not previously testified on 

the subject matter for which the witness is identified, then the 

Manufacturers have a presumptive right to additional deposition time 

beyond the limits outlined below.5

 A party may seek additional deposition 

time pursuant to this paragraph by stipulation of the parties, or by noticed 

motion to the Special Master. 

e. Interrogatories and Requests for Admission 

(1) The court recognizes the significant volume of written discovery and 

document productions that have been previously exchanged in the various 

 

5

 These totals shall be for all trials and proceedings combined. For example, if Rambus 

discloses eight witnesses (who have not previously given testimony on the subjects disclosed) as 

reasonably likely to provide trial testimony in the January 22, 2008 trial, and then later discloses 

an additional eight witnesses (who have not previously given testimony on the subjects disclosed) 

as reasonably likely to provide trial testimony in the 05-06 Patent Trial(s), then the Manufacturers 

shall have a presumptive right to additional deposition time through stipulation or noticed motion 

since the total number of potential trial witnesses exceeded fifteen. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 12 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 11 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

Rambus Related Actions. In light of this extensive paper record from the 

Rambus Related Actions, the court is setting limits on further 

interrogatories and requests for admission. 

(2) The Manufacturers collectively may propound up to 10 additional 

interrogatories and 10 requests for admission in the 05-06 Cases beyond 

those already propounded in the 05-06 Cases. The Manufacturers may, in 

addition, each propound up to 5 additional individualized interrogatories. 

These limits apply to all claims and defenses, and are not limited to the 

issues to be tried in the January 22 Trial. 

(3) Rambus may propound up to 10 additional interrogatories and 5 requests 

for admission on each of the Manufacturers in the 05-06 Cases beyond 

those already propounded in the 05-06 Cases, for a total of 40 additional 

interrogatories and 20 additional requests for admission in the 05-06 Cases. 

These limits apply to all claims and defenses, and are not limited to the 

issues to be tried in the January 22 Trial. 

f. Confidentiality Order 

(1) The parties shall provide to the court a single, common Protective Order 

governing the 05-06 Cases. If the parties are unable to agree upon a form 

of protective order, they shall bring their dispute regarding the form of 

protective order to the attention of the Special Master no later than May 1, 

2007 for prompt resolution. 

g. Documents 

(1) Limits on Requests. Document requests, although unlimited in number, 

must be narrowly tailored. 

(2) Rolling Production. The parties must produce documents to which they 

have not raised an objection on a rolling basis rather than waiting until all 

documents responsive to a request have been gathered. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 13 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 12 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

(3) Avoidance of Multiple Requests and Coordination of Document Requests. 

The Manufacturers shall coordinate their future requests for production to 

eliminate requests that are duplicative of one another, and all parties shall 

coordinate future requests for production to eliminate requests that are 

duplicative of the requests for production already served in the Rambus 

Related Cases. 

(4) Documents Produced in Rambus NDCal Cases. By May 8, each party shall 

produce all of the documents they have produced to date in any of the 

Rambus NDCal Cases to all other parties to the Rambus NDCal Cases, 

except where the other parties are already in possession of such documents. 

(5) Third Party Documents in Rambus NDCal Cases. By May 21, each party 

shall (a) complete any notice period required to be given to third parties 

under any applicable protective order regarding the production of third 

party documents and (b) produce all third party documents obtained by 

subpoena in the Rambus NDCal Cases to all other parties to the Rambus 

NDCal Cases, except where the other parties are already in possession of 

such documents. 

(6) Privilege. A party who, relying on any privilege or on the work product 

doctrine, does not produce all relevant or requested documents in response 

to a request for production of documents or a subpoena must identify and 

describe the documents withheld in sufficient detail to enable the 

requesting party to assess the applicability of the privilege or doctrine. A 

privilege log should be in form suggested by Form 11:A in Schwarzer, 

Tashima & Wagstaffe, CAL. PRACTICE GUIDE: FED. CIV. PRO. BEFORE 

TRIAL (The Rutter Group 2007), p. 11-309. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 14 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 13 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

h. Amendments to Discovery Rules 

The discovery limits set forth in this order may be amended only upon good cause 

shown and brought by a written, noticed motion to the Special Master for 

determination. 

6. Experts

a. To facilitate prompt and efficient preparation for the January 22 Trial, Hynix shall 

share with Manufacturers the materials related to Hynix’s experts who were to 

testify in the August 2006 “Phase III” trial in the 00-20905 Case and who Hynix 

may still call as witnesses and Micron shall share with Manufacturers the materials 

related to Micron’s experts who were to testify in the May 2001 trial in the 00-

792-JJF case in the District of Delaware and who Micron may still call as 

witnesses. 

b. Rambus shall disclose only one testifying expert on any particular issue. The 

Manufacturers shall agree on, disclose, and offer only one testifying expert on any 

particular issue common to one or more of the Manufacturers that is to be the 

subject of expert testimony, so as to avoid cumulative testimony. If the 

Manufacturers are unable to agree on a single expert for a particular issue, they 

may seek leave of court to offer more than one expert upon a showing of prejudice 

to one or more party’s interests. Rambus may similarly seek leave to offer more 

than one expert on a subject matter upon a showing of prejudice if it were not 

allowed to do so. 

c. On or before June 22, 2007, the party or parties with the burden of proof on an 

issue shall provide expert disclosures with respect to each issue as to which such 

party or parties bear the burden of proof. On or before July 20, 2007, the party or 

parties with the burden of proof on an issue shall provide an expert report 

addressing that issue. On or before August 17, 2007, the parties shall provide 

rebuttal expert disclosures and reports. Depositions of experts identified may 

commence at a mutually convenient time immediately after service of all reports. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 15 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 14 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

The schedule for disclosure of expert and rebuttal expert reports is contained in 

Attachment B. 

7. Amendments of Pleadings and This Order

No further amendments to the pleadings or this order shall be allowed in any of the 

Rambus NDCal Cases, except where a pleading or amendment to an existing pleading 

may be filed as of right or unless a party obtains permission to modify this order upon a 

showing of good cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). To the extent new claims or defenses 

are asserted in a pleading permitted by this section, the parties shall promptly file with the 

court, as to each such claim or defense, a statement identifying the phase of the 

proceedings in which such claim or defense shall be tried. 

8. Further Status Conferences

a. Regularly Scheduled Conferences. The court will convene a status conference in 

this litigation on May 24, 2007 at 2 p.m., July 20, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. and October 

26, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. The parties shall submit a Joint Status Conference 

Statement no later than three business days prior to each status conference. The 

parties shall set all motions, to the extent reasonably possible, on dates on which 

there is a regularly scheduled status conference. Parties should make every effort 

not to notice depositions for days on which status conferences are scheduled, and 

no deposition shall go forward on such days without prior leave of court. 

b. Identification of Claims. Before the status conference on May 24, 2007, the parties 

shall meet and confer regarding the identification of the claims to be included in 

the 05-06 Patent Trial. If they cannot agree on the claims that will be at issue, 

each party should be prepared to propose how to select a reasonable number of 

representative claims to be tried. The court intends to significantly limit the 

number of claims at issue as it is unreasonable to have near the number that 

Rambus currently asserts in one case. 

c. Hynix I Orders and Pending Motions. Before the status conference on May 24, 

2007 Rambus is to identify for any applicable Manufacturer any order in the Hynix 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 16 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 15 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

00-20905 litigation that it intends to move to broaden so it applies to that 

Manufacturer in the January 22 Trial. The Manufacturers are to identify for 

Rambus any submitted but not yet ruled upon motion affecting the January 22 

Trial on which any Manufacturer wants to submit argument. The parties are to be 

prepared to propose a briefing schedule for any such motions. 

d. Order and Scheduling of Remaining Issues. The parties should be prepared at the 

May 24, 2007 status conference to propose the order in which the issues remaining 

after the January 22 Trial should be tried and tentative dates for those trials. The 

court does not intend to set a date for any subsequent trials but the parties will be 

expected to reserve potential dates. 

Dated: ______4/24/07_________________ _____/s/ Ronald M. Whyte_____________

 RONALD M. WHYTE 

United States District Judge 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 17 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT A 

Joint Submission of Claims and Defenses For January 22, 2008 Trial 

 The following are the claims and defenses in the parties’ current pleadings that will be 

tried in the January 22 Trial. This list of claims and defenses is without prejudice to pending or 

future motions.6 

Claim Or Defense: Reference in Pleadings: 

SAMSUNG: 

Prosecution Laches 4th Affirmative Defense 

Equitable Estoppel 6th Affirmative Defense 

Estoppel ** 7th Affirmative Defense 

Implied License ** 8th Affirmative Defense 

Declaratory Judgment of 

Unenforceability ** 

Claim X 

Section 17200 ** Claim VII 

NANYA:

Prosecution Laches 8th Affirmative Defense 

Estoppel 9th Affirmative Defense 

Laches 11th Affirmative Defense 

Equitable estoppel 12th Affirmative Defense 

Waiver 13th Affirmative Defense 

Patent misuse 16th Affirmative Defense 

Monopolization Counterclaim 1 

Attempted Monopolization Counterclaim 3 

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations arising from or related to Rambus’s conduct 

that will not be tried in the January 22 Trial. 

 

6

 Samsung and Micron propose that this list of claims and defenses should be without prejudice to 

pending or future motions or to any other relief that the parties may seek pursuant to the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 18 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 2 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT A 

PAGE 2 

Claim Or Defense: Reference in Pleadings: 

NANYA (CONT.):

Abuse of Standards Setting 

Process7 

Counterclaim 3 

Section 17200 Counterclaim 4 

Fraud and Deceit Counterclaim 5 

Declaratory Judgment of 

Unenforceability ** 

Counterclaim 8 

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations arising from or related to Rambus’s conduct 

that will not be tried in the January 22 Trial.

 

7

 In 2005, Rambus moved to dismiss Nanya's Counterclaim 3. The Court heard oral 

argument on this motion on October 28, 2005, and indicated that it was inclined to grant the 

motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. A Minute Order dated October 28, 2005 stated that the 

Court's tentative ruling was to grant the motion to dismiss with leave to amend within 20 days 

and that the Court would issue a final ruling to the parties. The Court has yet to issue such a 

ruling. Nanya did not file an amended version of Counterclaim 3. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 19 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 3 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT A 

PAGE 3 

MICRON:8

Unenforceability ** 

 patent misuse 

 equitable estoppel 

 waiver 

 laches ** 

 laches in the PTO 

violations of the antitrust 

laws ** 

 violation of the unfair 

 competition laws ** 

Sixth Defense (portions) 

Implied License Ninth Defense 

Declaratory Judgment of 

Unenforceability as to each 

identified patent ** 

Counterclaim Counts I-XIV (portions – see 

“Unenforceability” def. above) 

Monopolization and Attempted 

Monopolization ** 

Counterclaim Count XV 

Breach of Contract Counterclaim Count XVII 

Fraud Counterclaim Count XVIII 

Equitable Estoppel Counterclaim Count XIX 

Negligent Misrepresentation Counterclaim Count XX 

Unfair Competition ** Counterclaim Count XXI 

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations arising from or related to Rambus’s conduct 

that will not be tried in the January 22 Trial.

 

8

 Micron believes that the basis (excluding Patent and Spoliation Issues) for its Sixth 

Defense shares a substantial overlap in evidence with the other issues the Court has identified for 

inclusion in the January 22 Trial. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 20 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 4 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT A 

PAGE 4 

Claim Or Defense: Reference in Pleadings: 

HYNIX:

Monopolization Count 1 (’905) 

Counterclaim 1 (’334) 

Attempted Monopolization Counterclaim 2 (’334) 

§ 17200 Count 3 (’905) 

Counterclaim 3 (’334) 

Fraud Count 8 (’905) 

Counterclaim 4 (’334) 

Prosecution Laches 9th Affirmative Defense (’905) 

8th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Equitable Estoppel 6th Affirmative Defense (’905) 

10th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Estoppel re JEDEC 9th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Estoppel – Other DRAM 6th Affirmative Defense (’905) 

10th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Laches ** 13th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Waiver9 7th Affirmative Defense (’905) 

11th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Unclean Hands ** 11th Affirmative Defense (’905) 

12th Affirmative Defense (’334)

Declaratory Judgment of 

Unenforceability ** 

Counterclaim 7 (’334)

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations arising from or related to Rambus’s conduct 

that will not be tried in the January 22 Trial. 

 

9

 Hynix currently believes that its waiver defense (excluding any Spoliation Issues) shares a 

substantial overlap in evidence with the other Manufacturers’ claims that are identified 

for inclusion in the January 22 Trial. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 21 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT B 

Pretrial Schedule for January 22, 2008 Trial 

May 24, 2007 Hearing on Rambus motions to dismiss 17200 and SamsungSteinberg claims and Samsung motion for summary judgment 

(collateral estoppel) 

June 22, 2007 Expert disclosures (party with burden of proof) 

July 20, 2007 Expert reports (party with burden of proof) 

August 17, 2007 Rebuttal reports and disclosures 

September 17, 

2007 

Last day for expert discovery 

October 1, 2007 Last day to file summary judgment and Daubert motions 

December 13-14, 

2007 

Pretrial conference 

January 22, 2008 Trial 

 

 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 22 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT C 

Pretrial Schedule Up To Claim Construction For 05-06 Patent Trial(s) 

EVENT DATE 

Manufacturers’ Preliminary Invalidity Contentions May 11, 2007 

Exchange Proposed Terms and Claim Elements for 

Construction 

May 25, 2007 

Exchange Preliminary Claim Constructions, Including 

Preliminary Identification of Extrinsic Evidence 

June 22, 2007 

Joint Claim Construction and Prehearing Statement July 11, 2007 

Opening Claim Construction Briefs August 24, 2007 

Responsive Claim Construction Briefs September 14, 2007 

Claim Construction Reply Briefs September 28, 2007 

Summary Judgment Motions that Depend on Claim 

Construction Issues 

October 5, 2007 

Oppositions to Summary Judgment Motions that 

Depend on Claim Construction Issues 

November 2, 2007 

Replies in Support of Summary Judgment Motions that 

Depend on Claim Construction Issues 

November 16, 2007 

Patent Expert Discovery Cut-Off December 15, 2007 

Claim Construction Hearing TBD 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 23 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT D(1)

Joint Submission of Claims and Defenses For 05-06 Patent Trial(s) 

 The following are the claims and defenses in the parties’ current pleadings that will be 

tried in the 05-06 Patent Trial(s) after the January 22 Trial. This list of claims and defenses is 

without prejudice to pending or future motions.10

Claim Or Defense: Reference in Pleadings: 

SAMSUNG: 

Failure To State A Claim First Affirmative Defense 

Noninfringement Second Affirmative Defense 

Patent Invalidity Third Affirmative Defense 

Equitable Estoppel Sixth Affirmative Defense 

Marking and Limitations Ninth Affirmative Defense 

Declaratory Judgment of 

Noninfringement 

Count VIII 

Decl. Judg’t of Invalidity Count IX 

Declaratory Judgment of 

Unenforceability ** 

Count X 

NANYA: 

Failure to state a claim 1st Affirmative Defense 

Non-infringement 2nd Affirmative Defense 

Invalidity 3rd Affirmative Defense 

Failure to mark 4th Affirmative Defense 

Prosecution history estoppel 5th Affirmative Defense 

Limitation on damages and costs 6th Affirmative Defense 

Inequitable conduct 7th Affirmative Defense 

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations that will also be tried in the January 22 Trial 

or in any subsequent proceedings related to the Spoliation Issues. 

 

10 Samsung and Micron propose that this list of claims and defenses should be without 

prejudice to pending or future motions or to any other relief that the parties may seek pursuant to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 24 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 2 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT D(1) 

PAGE 2

NANYA (CONT.):

Implied license (based on 

Intel license) 

14th Affirmative Defense 

Patent exhaustion (based on 

Intel license) 

15th Affirmative Defense 

Declaratory judgment of 

non-infringement 

Counterclaim 6 

Declaratory judgment of 

invalidity 

Counterclaim 7 

Counterclaim 8 – 

Declaratory judgment of 

unenforceability ** 

Counterclaim 8 

MICRON:

Lack of Standing First Defense 

Non-infringement Second Defense 

Invalidity under 102 and 

103 

Third Defense 

Invalidity under 112 Fourth Defense 

Invalidity under 116 Fifth Defense 

Inequitable Conduct Seventh Defense 

License Eighth Defense 

Failure to Mark Tenth Defense 

Exceptional Case Eleventh Defense 

Declaratory Judgment of 

Invalidity and 

Noninfringement as to each 

identified patent ** 

Counterclaim Counts I-XIV (portions) 

Monopolization and 

Attempted Monopolization -

- Walker Process 

Counterclaim Count XVI 

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations that will also be tried in the January 22 Trial 

or in any subsequent proceedings related to the Spoliation Issues. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 25 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 3 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT D(1) 

PAGE 3 

HYNIX: 

Failure to state a claim 1st Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Non-infringement 2nd Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Invalidity 3rd Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Failure to mark 4th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Prosecution history estoppel 5th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Limitation on damages and 

costs 

6th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Inequitable conduct 7th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Implied license (based on 

Intel and AMD licenses) 

15th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Patent exhaustion (based on 

Intel and AMD licenses) 

16th Affirmative Defense (’334) 

Declaratory judgment of 

non-infringement 

Counterclaim 5 (’334) 

Declaratory judgment of 

invalidity 

Counterclaim 6 (’334) 

Declaratory judgment of 

unenforceability ** 

Counterclaim 7 (’334) 

** Indicates that a claim or defense has allegations that will also be tried in the January 22 Trial 

or in any subsequent proceedings related to the Spoliation Issues.

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 26 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT D(2) 

Joint List of Samsung-Unique Claims 

 The following are Samsung’s unique Counterclaims and Defenses in its current pleadings 

that do not fit within the January 22 Trial or the 05-06 Patent Trial(s) outlined in Attachments A 

and D(1). This list of claims is without prejudice to pending or future motions. To the extent 

these Samsung-Unique Claims proceed to trial in this court, they will be adjudicated following 

the January 22 Trial and the 05-06 Patent Trial(s).11

Claims: Reference in Pleadings: 

SAMSUNG:

Breach of Section 3.8 of the SDR/DDR 

License 

Count I 

Breach of Section 8.5 of the SDR/DDR 

License 

Count II 

Breach of the Duty of Good Faith and Fair 

Dealing of Section 3.8 and 8.5 of the 

SDR/DDR License 

Count III 

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary 

Duty to a Current Client 

Count IV 

Aiding and Abetting Breach of Fiduciary 

Duty to a Former Client 

Count V 

Intentional Interference with Contract Count VI 

Violation of Bus. & Prof. Code Section 

17200 ** 

Count VII 

Estoppel ** 7th Affirmative Defense 

Implied License ** 8th Affirmative Defense 

** Indicates that a claim has Samsung-specific allegations that will not be part of the January 22 

Trial combined with other allegations that will be part of the January 22 Trial. 

 

11 Samsung and Micron propose that this list of claims and defenses should be without 

prejudice to pending or future motions or to any other relief that the parties may seek pursuant to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 27 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT D(3) 

Joint Submission of Claims and Defenses Not Otherwise Accounted For 

 The following are claims and defenses that the Manufacturers have advised include 

Spoliation Issues; to that limited extent, these claims and defenses do not fit within the January 22 

Trial or the 05-06 Patent Trial(s) outlined in Attachments A and D(1), nor are they Samsungspecific claims that would properly fall within the claims in Attachment D(2). This list of claims 

and defenses is without prejudice to pending or future motions. Although they are not presently 

aware of any, the Manufacturers reserve the right to seek to identify issues, in addition to 

Spoliation Issues, that they contend are encompassed by the pleadings but that do not fit in the 

January 22 Trial, the 05-06 Patent Trial(s), or the Samsung-specific claims, for inclusion on this 

list, and Rambus reserves the right to oppose any such effort.12 

Claim Or Defense (Spoliation Issues only): Reference in Pleadings: 

SAMSUNG:

Section 17200 Count VII 

Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability Count X 

Unclean Hands 5th Affirmative Defense 

NANYA:

Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability Counterclaim 8 

Unclean Hands 10th Affirmative Defense 

 

12 Samsung and Micron propose that this list of claims and defenses should be without 

prejudice to pending or future motions or to any other relief that the parties may seek pursuant to 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or other applicable law. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 28 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 2 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT D(3) 

PAGE 2 

MICRON:

Unenforceability 

 unclean hands 

violation of the unfair competition laws 

violations of the antitrust laws 

laches 

Sixth Defense (portions) 

Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability as to 

each identified patent 

Counterclaim Counts IXIV (portions – see 

“Unenforceability” defense 

above) 

Monopolization Counterclaim Count XV 

Section 17200 Counterclaim Count XXI 

HYNIX:

Unclean Hands 12th Affirmative Defense 

(’334) 

Laches 13th Affirmative Defense 

(’334) 

Collateral Estoppel 14th Affirmative Defense 

(’334) 

Declaratory Judgment of Unenforceability Counterclaim 7 (’334) 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 29 of 31
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 

2786638.1 - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

ATTACHMENT E 

List of “Rambus Related Actions”

 1. Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al.; Samsung Electronics Co., et al.; 

and Nanya Technology Corporation, et al., Case No. C 05-00334 RMW in the District Court for 

the Northern District of California; 

2. Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., Case No. C 05-02298 RMW in the 

District Court for the Northern District of California; 

3. Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 05-00244 RMW in the 

District Court for the Northern District of California; 

4. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. C 00-20905 RMW in 

the District Court for the Northern District of California; 

5. Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Technologies AG, et al., Case No. 3:00CV524 in the 

District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; 

6. Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. 00-792-JJF in the District Court 

for the District of Delaware; 

7. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al v. Rambus Inc., Court of Chancery of the State 

of Delaware, Case No. 1454-N; 

8. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al v. Rambus Inc. Case No. 3:05-cv-00406-REP 

in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia; 

9. Alberta Telecommunications Research Centre v. Rambus Inc., U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of California, Case No. C-06-02595; 

10. Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-431105 in the 

Superior Court of the State of California; and 

11. In the Matter of Rambus Inc., Docket No. 9302 before the Federal Trade 

Commission. 

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 30 of 31
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 

2786638.1 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, CASE NOS. 00-

20905, 05-00334, 05-02298, AND 06-00244

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: 4/24/07 SPT 

 Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 112 Filed 04/24/07 Page 31 of 31