Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/8426727/2624
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 01:04:05+00:00

Document:
Sarif Biomedical LLC v. Brainlab, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 13-846-LPS (D. Del. Aug. 26, 2015).
Earthcomber v. National Association of Realtors et. al.
INVISTA North America S.a.r.l. et al. v. M&G USA Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 11-1007-SLR-CJB (D. Del. June 25, 2013).
Invensys Systems v. Emerson Electric et. al.
13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
6 in which patent exhaustion was applied “upstream” in the manner the Manufacturers advocate.
8 derive from the Quanta decision. Such arguments fail as a matter of law and fact.
19 exhaustion would not even come into play.
4 a matter of fact as well as law.
9 locate a case that specifically addresses the factual scenario before this Court.” Opp’n at 12.
13 represent a significant departure from patent exhaustion precedent.
19 “sweeping change” in the law is without merit, see Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No.
24 are not a model of clarity, they appear to be based on a misreading of Quanta.
argument that exhaustion is inapplicable in this case” is obviously incorrect. Opp’n at 12.
only on a postsale, downstream basis, once an “authorized sale” has occurred. See Mot. at 5, 9.
22 use of licensed products. 2 Such facts are indisputably not present here.
ST, and the accused infringer Cyrix had purchased the accused products from TI and ST).
9 infringement, and must pay compensatory damages for that infringement.
19 (see Opp’n at 13-14). It is black letter law that the patent claims define Rambus’s inventions.
20 See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (Fed.
27 the fact that the two products might work together in combination inside an electronics device.
28 See, e.g., Excelstor Tech., Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, 542 F.3d 1373, 1377 (Fed.
20 Claims. See Quanta, 128 S. Ct. at 2119-21.
had already taken a license.
20 controllers is simply irrelevant to whether patent exhaustion adheres in this case.
2 controllers “substantially embody” the Asserted Claims.
12 arguments is citations to the Expert Report of Graham Allan (see Detre Decl. Ex. 12). But Mr.
26 Asserted Claims under Quanta.
6 recited in a claim?
8 THE WITNESS: I don’t believe so.
elements of asserted claims; is that right?
19 of any of the claims.
21 controllers embody any limitations to the asserted claims?
and I don’t believe they’re in my report.
5 A. I don’t believe I did.
controllers embody any of the limitations of asserted claims?
11 completely practice” – the Asserted Claims, and the Manufacturers cannot rely on his testimony.
21 establish that the DRAMs are somehow “incidental” to the claimed inventions.
establishing noninfringement, patent exhaustion as an affirmative defense becomes inapplicable.
4 entered in Rambus’s favor on this issue.
11 Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
Howlink Global v. Global Tel*Link et. al.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.