Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905/USCOURTS-cand-5_00-cv-20905-66/pdf.json

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

---

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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

E-filed: 2/3/2008

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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN

LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

[Re Docket Nos. 2822, 2823, 2827, 2828,

2829, 2830, 2834, 2836, 2839, 2851, 2853,

2854, 2865, 2867, 3055]

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 1 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

2

 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

[Re Docket Nos. 802, 803, 804, 805, 809, 810,

814, 818, 823, 833, 835, 841, 854, 858, 1083]

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,

INC.

Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW

[Re Docket Nos. 434, 435, 436, 437, 441, 443,

446, 449, 453, 463, 467, 471, 495, 498, 707]

The court hereby issues its rulings on the in limine motions submitted by Rambus.

1. Motion in limine no. 1 to exclude evidence or argument regarding patent validity

The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks to preclude the Manufacturers from arguing

the subject Rambus patents are invalid. However, this ruling does not prevent the testimony of

McAlexander or Allan that Rambus's disclosures to JEDEC would not have put a reasonable

memory technology engineer on notice that Rambus would seek patent rights covering features then

under discussion at JEDEC. As pointed out by the FTC in FTC Rambus at 62: "The ability, after the

fact, to determine from a written description that at the time of filing an applicant 'was in possession'

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 2 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

3

of a particular invention 'now claimed' is not the same thing as the ability to predict, prior to

publication, the potential scope of future claims." Nor does this ruling preclude Allan from

testifying that at the time of JEDEC's adoption of the standards in question "programmable latency,"

programmable bust length," "dual edge clocking" and "programmable write latency" were well

known techniques. However, he cannot challenge or suggest that Rambus's claimed inventions

covering SDRAM and DDR SDRAM were not new and novel at the time of Rambus's original April

18, 1990 application and an instruction making clear that Rambus's claimed inventions were not

anticipated may be necessary.

2. Motion in limine no. 2 to exclude evidence regarding drafting of claims to cover

competitors' products

The motion is denied. Kingsdown Medical Consultants Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867

(Fed. Cir. 1988) makes clear that there is nothing improper in filing claims to cover a competitor's

product.

It should be made clear at the outset of the present discussion that there is nothing

improper, illegal or inequitable in filing a patent application for the purpose of

obtaining a right to exclude a known competitor's product from the market; nor is it in

any manner improper to amend or insert claims intended to cover a competitor's

product the applicant's attorney has learned about during the prosecution of a patent

application. Any such amendment or insertion must comply with all statutes and

regulations, of course, but, if it does, its genesis in the marketplace is simply

irrelevant and cannot of itself evidence deceitful intent.

Id. at 874. However, that principle does not make the fact that Rambus prosecuted claims to cover

competitors' products inadmissible. The evidence is necessary to explain a step in the

Manufacturers' antitrust theory — Rambus's prosecution efforts were merely a step in a scheme "to

hold-up the DRAM industry in a patent trap." Kingsdown does not consider how the applicant

obtained information concerning the competitor's product, nor did it consider the effect of using

information in ways allegedly inconsistent with the understandings of other participants in a

cooperative standard-setting environment. Rambus may well be entitled to an instruction that there

is nothing in itself improper in filing a patent application for the purpose of obtaining a right to

exclude a known competitor's product from the market so long as that information is not obtained in

violation of a legal duty. However, the evidence Rambus wants to exclude is necessary to explain

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 3 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

4

the factual context from which the Manufacturers' antitrust claim arises. 

3. Motion in limine no. 3 to exclude evidence that Rambus's patent litigation was

objectively baseless

The motion is moot. The Manufacturers' opposition states that they do not intend to present

a "sham litigation" case in the conduct trial.

4. Motion in limine no. 4 to exclude evidence and argument of attorney's fees or

litigation costs incurred by Nanya and Micron for work related to affirmative

claims

Ruling on the motion is deferred until the attorneys's fees phase, if any. The court wants to

hear argument on the motion.

5. Motion in limine no. 5 to exclude evidence of document retention and

destruction of evidence

Resolved by stipulation. The agreed-upon resolution was:

[N]o party shall raise any allegations about the document retention policies or the

destruction of documents by any party or about any party’s alleged or adjudicated

spoliation of evidence. If, however, a witness testifies about a document that has not

been produced, a party may seek leave of the Court to pursue questioning of the

witness about what happened to the document or documents. In addition, if a witness

testifies that a party has not engaged in the destruction of documents or spoliation

of evidence, then a party may seek leave of the Court to pursue questioning of the

witness about that assertion. However, before pursuing any line of questioning

related to the destruction of documents or spoliation, a party must make an offer of

proof explaining the specific line of questioning the party intends to pursue.

6. Motion in limine no. 6 preclude evidence of Neil Steinberg's "dual employment"

The motion is moot to the extent that the Manufacturers do not intend to make Steinberg's

simultaneous representation of Rambus and Samsung or other allegations of misconduct by

Steinberg an affirmative part of the conduct trial. The court, however, defers any issue as to the

scope of cross-examination if Steinberg testifies.

7. Motion in limine no. 7 exclude evidence that Joel Karp stole documents from

Samsung

The Manufacturers state that they will not introduce evidence or arguments that Joel Karp

kept any documents improperly. Accordingly, the motion is granted. No party shall make any

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 4 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

5

argument or offer any evidence that Joel Karp wrongfully retained documents. This order does not

preclude the Manufacturers from cross-examining Karp regarding the contents of relevant Samsung

documents.

8. Motion in limine no. 8 to exclude evidence and questioning regarding improper

issuance of stock options

No party shall ask any questions related to alleged stock option backdating or stock option

granting. Examination regarding bias stemming from stock option holdings is proper, however. The

parties may ask about a witness' aggregate holdings of stock options, i.e., the value and number of

options. 

9. Motion in limine no. 9 to exclude prior district court comments.

The motion is granted. The prior district court comments are inadmissible hearsay. The

comments are also substantially more prejudicial than they are probative as to any expert's

foundation.

10. Motion in limine no. 10 to exclude derogatory characterizations of patents and

patent holders

Resolved by stipulation. The agreed-upon resolution was:

[N]o party will use the term “patent troll” during the January ‘08 Trial. It is further

ordered that the term “submarine patent” may only be used (1) to the extent it was

discussed in connection with any JEDEC meeting or policy; (2) during closing

argument, unless, after the presentation of evidence at trial, the Court grants a

request by Rambus seeking preclusion of the use of the term; and (3) during the

prosecution laches part of the trial before the Court.

11. Motion in limine no. 11 to exclude expert opinions not previously disclosed in an

expert report

The court agrees with the basic premise of this motion. However, whether criticism of a

rebuttal report is properly within the scope of an expert's original report must be determined on a

case by case basis. Therefore, the court defers making any specific ruling.

12. Motion in limine no. 12 to exclude deposition testimony from opening statements

The court grants Rambus's motion with respect to segments of videotaped deposition

testimony. Neither side shall use any videotaped deposition testimony in its opening statement. The

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 5 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

6

remainder of the motion is denied. See also Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2008 WL

190990 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2008).

13. Motion in limine no. 13 to exclude evidence of Rambus's patent prosecution

prior to September 1994

The court denies the motion. Evidence regarding Rambus's patent prosecution prior to

September 1994 is relevant to the prosecution laches defenses. The scope of the JEDEC disclosure

duty arising from the members' understandings is being hotly contested in this case. If the duty were

to extend to "beliefs, hopes, and intentions," Rambus's prosecution activity prior to September 1994

could also be relevant. 

14. Motion in limine no. 14 to exclude evidence that disclosure would have led to a

boycott

The motion appears moot since it does not appear that any witness will testify that had

Rambus disclosed its intellectual property, JEDEC members would have "boycotted" the Rambus

technologies.

15. Motion in limine no. 15 to exclude the testimony of Farhad Tabrizi regarding the

"Other DRAM" clause

The motion for a blanket exclusion of Tabrizi's testimony regarding the "Other DRAM"

clause of the license agreement is denied without prejudice to Rambus making objection to

individual questions asked to Tabrizi on the basis that he lacks personal knowledge, the evidence is

cumulative, or that the testimony is not admissible for some other reason.

16. Motion in limine to preclude questions concerning jury consultants

(unnumbered)

The law appears to permit cross-examination regarding how a witness prepared for his or her 

testimony. See In re Cendant Corp. Securities Litigation, 343 F.3d 658, 668 (3d Cir. 2003)

("Nonetheless, we believe Wood may be asked whether his anticipated testimony was practiced or

rehearsed. But this inquiry should be circumscribed. As with all discovery matters, we leave much to

the sound discretion of the District Court."); see also Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 89-90

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 6 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

7

(1976) ("A prosecutor may cross-examine a defendant as to the extent of any 'coaching' during a

recess, subject, of course, to the control of the court."). The cases also suggest that this examination

should be closely monitored by the trial court to prevent unfair prejudice, delay, confusion, and

inquiry into privileged communications. Given the context-specific nature of such an inquiry, the

court cannot necessarily grant Rambus's motion seeking to exclude all questioning regarding jury

consultants at this time. However, the court requires that any party desiring to ask about jury

consultants to raise the issue with the court before inquiry on the subject so the questioning can be

closely monitored.

DATED: 2/3/2008 

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 7 of 8
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

RULINGS ON RAMBUS'S MOTIONS IN LIMINE [CONDUCT PHASE]

C-00-20905; C-05-00334; C-06-00244 RMW

8

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com 

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke luedtkech@mto.com 

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com 

Burton Alexander Gross burton.gross@mto.com, 

Steven McCall Perry steven.perry@mto.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: 2/3/2008 TSF

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document 3138 Filed 02/03/08 Page 8 of 8