Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298-3/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

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE—C-05-00335 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

E-FILED on 10/3/05

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 SAMSUNG'S MOTION

TO CONSOLIDATE THE UNCLEAN HANDS

ISSUE

[Re Docket No. 62]

RAMBUS, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,

SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-2298 RMW

[Re Docket No. 27]

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 32 Filed 10/03/05 Page 1 of 6
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 Litigation by Rambus against DRAM manufacturers is also ongoing in the District of

Delaware in Rambus v. Micron, C.A. No. 00-792-KAJ. Rambus is also engaged in litigation against

DRAM manufacturers in the California and Delaware state courts.

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE—C-05-00335 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

2

Samsung has asked to consolidate the unclean hands defense in the above-captioned cases with that

issue pending in one related action, Hynix v. Rambus, 00-20905, and asks that the evidentiary hearing

currently scheduled to commence onOctober 17, 2005 be continued. The court heard argument on the matter

on September 30, 2005. After considering the papers and the oral argument of counsel, the court denies

Samsung's motion to consolidate. The evidentiary hearing involving Rambus and Hynix will proceed as

scheduled.

I. BACKGROUND

This court has before it three related actions inwhichRambus asserts patent infringement claims against

DRAM manufacturers: Hynix v. Rambus, 00-20905 RMW; Rambus v. Hynix et al., 05-00334 RMW; and

Rambus v. Samsung, 05-02298 RMW. The Honorable Judge Payne inthe EasternDistrict of Virginia had

before him Rambus v. Infineon, No. Civ. A. 3:00CV524, whichinvolved another DRAM manufacturer and

which settled, and currently has pending Samsung v. Rambus, No. Civ. A. 3:05CV406, a declaratory

judgment action, filed immediately after Rambus filed the Rambus v. Samsung action in this court.1 

As is well known to the parties, in March 2005, Rambus's patent claims against Infineon were orally

dismissed by Judge Payne prior to the commencement of trial after he found that Rambus had engaged in

extensive spoliationof evidence. However, before Judge Payne issued a written ruling setting forth his findings,

Rambus and Infineonsettled their case. Despite the dismissal, the litigation in this court must take into account

the events which have taken place before Judge Payne and what remains pending before him.

Rambus filed its complaint for patent infringement against Samsung before this court on June 6, 2005.

The next day, Samsung filed its complaint for declaratoryreliefin the Eastern District of Virginia seeking, inter

alia, declaratoryreliefthatfour of Rambus's patents are unenforceable. Samsung filed a motion forsummary

judgment before Judge Payne asking him to rule that Rambus is collaterally estopped from denying it has

unclean hands based on Judge Payne’ Infineon ruling. Rambus moved to transfer that action here. On

September 14, 2005, Judge Payne denied the motion to transfer and announced his intention to rule on the

summary judgment motion. On September 22, 2005, Rambus filed with the Eastern District of Virginia a

Notice of Filing of Covenant Not to Sue on any patents at issue in the Virginia action. It then filed a motion

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 32 Filed 10/03/05 Page 2 of 6
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

2 Rambus also offered for the first time at the hearing on the motion, to pay Samsung's

attorneys' fees to resolve any possible dispute under 35 U.S.C. § 285. The thrust of Rambus's offer is, of

course, to have all unclean hands issues litigated before this court rather than in Judge Payne's court.

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE—C-05-00335 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

3

to dismiss the Virginia action for lack of jurisdiction, asserting that no controversy remained upon which

declaratory relief could be granted. Judge Payne very recently heard oral argument on Rambus's motion to

dismiss and Samsung's motion for summary judgment. Both motions are under submission. 

This court isscheduled to commence anevidentiaryhearing inHynix v. Rambus onOctober 17, 2005

to address allegations by Hynix thatRambus has engaged inwidespread spoliation of evidence warranting the

dismissalofRambus's patent infringement claims against it. The first of the pretrial filings required by this court's

Standing Order were due on the date of the hearing on Samsung's consolidation motion. Samsung asks to

consolidate the unclean hands issues in the above-captioned cases with the unclean hands issue in Hynix v.

Rambus to permit it (along with the other defendants in those cases) to participate in the evidentiary hearing.

To that end, Samsung and co-defendant Nanya TechnologiesCorporation("Nanya") ask the court to continue

the trial for three to four months to permit them to obtain relevant discovery and to prepare their cases.

II. ANALYSIS

Consolidation of the unclean hands issues in the three cases before this court has some appeal and

could prevent this courtfromhaving to revisit the issue in three different cases. It potentially obviates collateral

estoppel and judicial notice issues that may arise among the three cases and, ifthe hearing is continued, would

allow the court to consider the effect of Judge Payne's rulings in the Samsung case pending before him.

Rambus, however, asks for this court to go further and (1) require that the consolidated evidentiary hearing

proceed solely on the Hynix v. Rambus discovery permitted as of the day of the hearing, leaving Samsungor Nanya-specific issues for another hearing; and (2) order the unclean hands issue in the Virginia case

consolidated with the evidentiary hearing in Hynix v. Rambus so that the unclean hands issue can be

determined once and for all by a single tribunal.2 But Rambus has already litigated this issue: Judge Payne

made a determination and Rambus lost. It is Judge Payne's perogative to determine the appropriateness of

considering the issue as raised by Samsung. This court will not interfere in the Virginia action.

Although the court recognizes that Rambus is partiallymotivated byreluctance to have Judge Payne's

spoliation findings memorialized in a formal order, Rambus has legitimate concerns with delaying the unclean

hands hearing. Awaiting Judge Payne's decision has the potential of injecting significant delay into the

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 32 Filed 10/03/05 Page 3 of 6
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 SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE—C-05-00335 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

4

proceedings in this case. If Judge Payne issues an order including his factual findings regarding Rambus's

alleged spoliation in a finaljudgment, his order would be subject to appealto the Federal Circuit. Further, the

findings might or might not have the collateral estoppel effect in the Hynix case, which would present the

question of whether the Hynix case should be stayed while the Samsung findings in the Virginia action are

challenged on appeal. 

Maintaining the current schedule appears to be the best approach, although not without drawbacks.

Any voluntaryresolutionofthe issues betweenthe parties, for which the cases cryout, isseems unlikely absent

some sortofresolutionto the uncleanhandsissue before this court. The uncertainty regarding the enforceability

of Rambus's patents impedes meaningful progress. Further, the longer these issues are drawn out, the more

complicated the cases become. Hynix and Rambus have been preparing for the hearing for some time and are

ready to go. Samsung has just recently become involved in the litigation with Rambus. Therefore, the court

declines to continue the Hynix/Rambus unclean hands hearing scheduled to commence October 17, 2005.

Samsung and Nanya cannot reasonably expected to participate in the hearing commencing October

17, 2005. Both stated that they would prefer not consolidating the case if participation by October 17, 2005

were required. Since the pre-trialstatement and other pre-trialfilingsforthe evidentiaryhearing currently due,

Samsung and Nanya would be unable to meaningfully participate. Thus, in light of the need to move forward

with the evidentiary hearing as scheduled, the court will not consolidate the unclean hands issues in the three

cases.

The court recognizes its decision may result in some duplicationofwork. It is also acutely aware that

it may be making its unclean hands decision concurrently with Judge Payne's determination of his jurisdiction

over the Virginia case and the summary judgment motion before him. The court acknowledges that Judge

Payne has already heard much of the unclean hands evidence and may potentially issue a rulingthat has some

collateralestoppel applicationto the matters pending here. Ifthat occurs, this court mayend up havingwasted

some judicial time and resources. However, alternative approaches present greater potential concerns. By

thisorder,the court neither expresses norimplieswhat it thinksJudge Payne should do withthematterspending

before him.

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 32 Filed 10/03/05 Page 4 of 6
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 SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE—C-05-00335 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

5

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Samsung'smotionto consolidate the unclean hands issues

in this case with those in the Hynix v. Rambus action. The evidentiary hearing shall commence as scheduled

on October 17, 2005. The parties shall file the pretrialdocuments previously due onSeptember 30, 2005 on

Tuesday, October 4, 2005. The remaining trial and pretrial dates shall remain as scheduled.

DATED: 10/3/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 32 Filed 10/03/05 Page 5 of 6
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 SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE—C-05-00335 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW

6

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff(s):

Jeannine Y. Sano jsano@dbllp.com 

Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke luedtkech@mto.com 

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@deweyballantine.com 

Gregory P. Stone gregory.stone@mto.com 

James J. Elacqua jelacqua@deweyballantine.com 

Kevin S. Kudlac kkudlac@dbllp.com 

Peter A. Detre detrepa@mto.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@dbllp.com 

Burton Alexander Gross grossba@mto.com 

Counsel for Defendant(s):

Matthew D. Powers matthew.powers@weil.com 

David J. Healey david.healey@weil.com 

Jason Sheffield Angell jangell@orrick.com

Theodore G. Brown tgbrown@townsend.com

Vickie L. Feeman vfeeman@orrick.com

Daniel J. Furniss nghafari@townsend.com

Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@townsend.com

Patrick Lynch plynch@omm.com 

Kenneth L. Nissly kennissly@thelenreid.com

Mark Shean mshean@orrick.com 

Geoffrey H. Yost gyost@thelenreid.com 

Susan G. 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: 10/3/05 /s/ MAG

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 32 Filed 10/03/05 Page 6 of 6