Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02298-13/pdf.json

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

---

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

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S JUNE 19, 2007 ORDER

Nos. C-05-02298 RMW; C-05-00334 RMW

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7/2/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,

INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,

L.P.,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02298 RMW

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S JUNE

19, 2007 ORDER

[Re Docket No. 152]

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. 244-245]

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 155 Filed 07/02/07 Page 1 of 3
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE: CLARIFICATION

C 05-00334; C 05-02298

2

On June 19, 2007, this Court issued an order deferring ruling on Samsung’s motion

for summary judgment based on collateral estoppel (hereinafter the “June 2007 Order”). On June

29, 2007, Rambus submitted a motion seeking clarification of a phrase within this Court’s

description of the Samsung Virginia Case’s background that Rambus contends is factually incorrect. 

Specifically, the June 2007 Order states that “[a]fter a three and one-half day bench trial, the court

concluded that Rambus willfully and intentionally engaged in spoliation of evidence.” Order at

4:12-14. This Court hereby clarifies its June 19, 2007 order to make clear that there was not a three

and one-half day bench trial in the Samsung Virginia Case, but rather the Court was referring to the

three and one-half day bench trial in the Rambus v. Infineon case, also in the Eastern District of

Virginia. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the phrase “After a three and one-half day bench

trial” that appears on page 4, lines 12-13, of the June 19, 2007 Order shall be stricken. 

DATED: 7 2 , 2007 By:

Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 155 Filed 07/02/07 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S JUNE 19, 2007 ORDER

Nos. C-05-02298 RMW; C-05-00334 RMW

SPT 3

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com 

Pierre J. Hubert phubert@mckoolsmith.com 

Brian K. Erickson berickson@dbllp.com, 

David C. Vondle dvondle@akingump.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

Jeannine Y. Sano sanoj@howrey.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

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: 7/2/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02298-RMW Document 155 Filed 07/02/07 Page 3 of 3