Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/58256416/Https-Ecf-cand-Uscourts-gov-Cgi-bin-Show-Temp-pl-File-7574396-0-15559
Timestamp: 2017-04-28 09:33:33
Document Index: 119619403

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1659', '§ 1659', '§ 1659', '§ 1659', '§ 1659', '§ 1337', '§ 1659']

Https Ecf.cand.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=7574396-0--15559 | Discovery (Law) | United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal Circuit
ScribdBrowseInterestsCareer & MoneyPersonal GrowthPolitics & Current AffairsScience & TechHealth & FitnessLifestyleEntertainmentBiographies & HistoryFictionBrowse byBooksAudiobooksNews & MagazinesSheet MusicBrowse allUploadSign inJoinHttps Ecf.cand.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=7574396-0--15559Uploaded by sabatino123Discovery (Law)United States Court Of Appeals For The Federal CircuitPatentEmailComplaint0.0 (0)DownloadEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42Filed06/17/11 Page1 of 47
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 v. RAMBUS INC., Cross-Defendant. v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Cross-Complainant, RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CMC Date: Time: Court: Judge: June 24, 2011 3:00 P.M. Dept. 10, 19th Floor Honorable Susan Illston Case No. 3:10-cv-03343-SI Consolidated with C-08-05500 SI UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVIDSION
OHS WEST:261178151.8
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42
Filed06/17/11 Page2 of 47
Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) and NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) submit their respective supplemental case management statements and proposals. Rambus’ supplemental statement and proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit A. NVIDIA’s supplemental statement and proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
MCKOOL SMITH P.C. CROWELL & MORING LLP /s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC. _______________________
/s/ I. Neel Chatterjee I. NEEL CHATTERJEE Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant NVIDIA CORPORATION
Filed06/17/11 Page3 of 47
Filed06/17/11 Page4 of 47
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201
Mike McKool, Jr. (pro hac vice) Douglas Cawley (pro hac vice) McKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 Crescent Court Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 Email: mmckool@mckoolsmith.com; dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Scott L. Cole (pro hac vice) Pierre J. Hubert (pro hac vice) Craig N. Tolliver (pro hac vice) McKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: scole@mckoolsmith.com; phubert@mckoolsmith.com; ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
J. Daniel Sharp (CSB No. 131042) CROWELL & MORING LLP 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-2800 Facsimile: (415) 986-2827 Email: dsharp@crowell.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RAMBUS INC., Case No. C-08-03343 SI Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. CMC Date: June 24, 2011 Time: 3:00 p.m. Judge: The Hon. Susan Illston Case No. C-08-05500 SI RAMBUS’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
Rambus’s Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI, C-08-05500 SI Austin 65391v5 Austin 68050v4
Filed06/17/11 Page5 of 47
Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) submits this supplemental Case Management Statement and Proposed Order for the June 24, 2011 case management conference, pursuant to the Court’s February 15, 2011 Minute Order (Dkt. No. 1931) and May 24, 2011 Order (Dkt. No. 211), the Local Rules of this District and Rules 26(f) and 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2 Since the last case management conference, the parties have been engaged in discovery on numerous issues pursuant to the orders of the Court and of Discovery Master Infante. The parties, in fact, agreed and stipulated to the discovery plan. Rambus proposes that the Court now set a case and trial schedule, consistent with the local rules, to further guide the parties as they continue discovery with appropriate additional assistance from Discovery Master Infante. NVIDIA instead asks, yet again, for the Court to reconsider whether this case should move forward with full discovery, even though the recent Federal Circuit decisions to which NVIDIA cites only support that the present case should proceed. NVIDIA similarly has no basis to seek to restrict discovery to only the issue of unclean hands—a defense that to date has not even been pled by NVIDIA—or to require Rambus to reduce the number of asserted patent claims at this early stage before NVIDIA has provided invalidity contentions, which it committed to serve on August 12, and before targeted discovery. NVIDIA has not proposed an alternative to Rambus’s proposed schedule, even after Rambus invited NVIDIA to do so with the understanding that NVIDIA’s schedule could be viewed as its alternative position. Therefore, the Court should order that the case move forward under Rambus’s schedule proposed herein without further briefing or delay from NVIDIA.
Unless otherwise noted, docket numbers herein refer to the first-filed case, No. C-08-03343. Rambus diligently tried to meet and confer with NVIDIA regarding the case management statement beginning June 13, but NVIDIA expressed unavailability and declined to meet and confer until the day before the statement was due. (See June 13-17 emails between Rambus and NVIDIA (Attachment 1 hereto).) Rambus was not provided with NVIDIA’s final case management statement prior to the time that Rambus provided this statement to NVIDIA for purposes of the joint filing, and therefore may not have addressed all issues to be raised by NVIDIA. Rambus reserves the right to address any change of position by NVIDIA at the case management conference.
2 Rambus’s Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI, C-08-05500 SI Austin 65391v5 Austin 68050v4
Filed06/17/11 Page6 of 47
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENTS SINCE THE FEBRUARY 4TH CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Per Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), Rambus summarizes developments that have occurred since the last case management statement (Dkt. No. 192), filed February 4, 2011. A. In Accordance With the Court’s Orders and With the Assistance of Discovery Master Infante, Discovery Has Been Moving Forward Under the Federal Rules and Patent Local Rules Following the February 11, 2011 Case Management Conference, the Court ordered the parties to discuss a discovery plan with Discovery Master Infante. (See 2/15/2011 Minute Order (Dkt. No. 193).) Following a hearing with Discovery Master Infante, the parties stipulated to a discovery plan to move forward with discovery in full, including interrogatories, requests for production, requests for admission, and depositions. Discovery Master Infante entered the parties’ stipulation in a March 21 order (“Discovery Plan Order”). (Attachment 2 hereto; Dkt. No. 204.) In accordance with that order, Rambus has provided its infringement contentions per the Patent Local Rules. NVIDIA is to provide its invalidity contentions under the Patent Local Rules on August 12. The parties have served and responded to discovery requests and are continuing discovery with the assistance of Discovery Master Infante. B. The Federal Circuit Has Issued Opinions in the Micron and Hynix Appeals On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9730 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Micron”) and Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9728 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Hynix”). Rambus previously provided those opinions to the Court. (Dkt. No. 208.) In Micron, the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment against Rambus and remanded the case for further proceedings. 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9730, at *54-55. In particular, the Federal Circuit vacated Judge Robinson’s findings that Rambus had destroyed documents in bad faith, that any document destruction had prejudiced Micron, and that dismissal was an appropriate sanction, while affirming Judge Robinson’s finding that Rambus spoliated documents. Id. at *16-43, *46.
Rambus’s Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI, C-08-05500 SI
Filed06/17/11 Page7 of 47
In vacating the judgment in Hynix and remanding for further proceedings, the Federal Circuit addressed spoliation as well as several other issues. The Federal Circuit vacated Judge Whyte’s finding that Rambus did not spoliate evidence but declined to review Judge Whyte’s finding that Rambus did not destroy documents in bad faith or his finding that the document destruction did not prejudice Hynix. Id. at *16-23. The court remanded the case for Judge Whyte to “address the spoliation issue” and recognized that Judge Whyte may, inter alia, “determine[] that Rambus did not spoliate documents.” Id. at *24. The Federal Circuit affirmed all other aspects of the judgment that Hynix had challenged, including: • Judge Whyte’s construction of the claim term “bus,” 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9728, at *30-34; • the determination that the patents-in-suit were not invalid for lack of written description, id. at *34-40; • Judge Whyte’s order denying Hynix’s motion for a new trial following the jury verdict of non-obviousness, id. at *40-42; and • Judge Whyte’s rejection of Hynix’s JEDEC-based waiver and estoppel defenses, id. at *24-30 (citing Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, 318 F.3d 1081, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2003) as controlling authority that Rambus “did not breach its disclosure duty” to JEDEC). C. A 28 U.S.C. § 1659 Stay Remains in Force With Respect to “Barth I” and “Ware” Patents Six “Farmwald/Horowitz” patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,260,097; 6,304,937; 6,564,281;
6,715,020; 6,751,696 and 7,209,997), three “Barth I” patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405; 21 6,591,353 and 7,287,109), four “Barth II” patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,287,119; 7,330,952; 22 7,330,953 and 7,360,050) and two “Ware” patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 7,177,998 and 7,210,016) 23 are asserted in this case. The ITC’s determination with respect to Barth I and Ware patents in 24 Inv. No. 337-TA-661 is currently being appealed at the Federal Circuit, so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 25 26
§ 1659, proceedings on Barth I and Ware patents are currently stayed.3 Rambus also notes developments in separate Rambus patent infringement actions against defendants Broadcom, LSI Corporation, Mediatek and STMicroelectronics involving six Farmwald/Horowitz patents-in-suit. These actions are pending in this District before Judge Seeborg and have been deemed related to each other. Like NVIDIA, the defendants there sought
Filed06/17/11 Page8 of 47
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 A. 8 9 10 11
THE COURT SHOULD SET DATES FOR TRIAL, CLAIM CONSTRUCTION AND OTHER PRETRIAL PROCEEDINGS Discovery has been ongoing. The parties should proceed with discovery and briefing for the six Farmwald/Horowitz and four Barth II patents that are not subject to the § 1659 stay, consistent with the normal schedule of the Patent Local Rules and Federal Rules, including with regard to (i) patent contentions, (ii) claim construction proceedings, and (iii) pretrial and trial proceedings. This Case Should Proceed Without Further Delay, in Accordance With the Patent Local Rules and Federal Rules First, with respect to the pleadings, NVIDIA seeks guidance “as to when and how it should answer Rambus’ Complaint” that was filed in 2008. Rambus below proposes that NVIDIA provide its answer on July 15. NVIDIA, to date, has filed a complaint in the North Carolina action that was transferred to this Court. If NVIDIA does not withdraw its complaint, Rambus could serve a response by the same date, July 15. The parties could thereafter file a response to any counterclaims within 21 days, by August 5. Second, with respect to patent contentions, per stipulated order, Rambus already has provided its infringement contentions in accordance with the Patent Local Rules. In return, NVIDIA has stipulated to providing its invalidity contentions on August 12. (Attachment 2; Dkt. No. 204.) Third, with regard to claim construction, at the time the parties stipulated to providing infringement and invalidity contentions under the Patent Local Rules, claim construction issues regarding patents in the Farmwald/Horowitz family were still on appeal in the Hynix case, so Rambus and NVIDIA did not set claim construction dates. Since then, however, the Federal Circuit has affirmed Judge Whyte’s claim construction ruling, and there is no reason to further delay claim construction. The parties should proceed under the Patent Local Rules governing claim construction as set forth in the proposed schedule below. a stay of litigation on the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. Following the Federal Circuit’s May 13 decisions, seeing no reason to await any further proceedings, Judge Seeborg denied defendants’ request for a stay, (6/13/2011 Order (Attachment 3 hereto), at 3), noting “some harm associated with a stay” of proceedings on the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. (Id. at 4.)
Filed06/17/11 Page9 of 47
Fourth, with regard to pretrial and trial, the parties have conducted significant discovery bearing on certain of the patents-in-suit. Certain discovery on certain accused NVIDIA products has already been taken in the ITC and cross-produced here. Accordingly, the Court should set an appropriate date for trial for the ten non-stayed patents. Rambus proposes the following case schedule for the ten patents that are not stayed, with additional information regarding certain proposed dates set forth below. Proposed date (if any) that NVIDIA provided to Rambus
Rambus’s proposal (or existing deadline)
Asserted Claims & Infringement [Rambus already Contentions; Accompanying served per stipulated Document Production (P.L.R. 3- order] 1 & 3-2) NVIDIA to serve its answer and counterclaims (if any) in response to Rambus’s complaint; and Rambus to serve its response to NVIDIA’s North Carolina-filed complaint, unless NVIDIA withdraws the complaint Each party to serve response to any counterclaims Invalidity Contentions; Accompanying Document Production (P.L.R. 3-3 & 3-4) Exchange of Proposed Terms for Claim Construction (P.L.R. 4) Exchange of Preliminary Claim Construction & Extrinsic Evidence (P.L.R. 4.2) July 15 Aug. 15
+21 days (Aug. 5) Aug. 12 per stipulated order + 14 days (Aug. 26) no counterproposal4
+ 21 days (Sept. 16)
no counterproposal
Rambus asked NVIDIA to meet and confer regarding the schedule or to at least provide Rambus with a proposed schedule, even if NVIDIA’s proposal was deemed to be considered only in the alternative to NVIDIA’s other proposals. NVIDIA refused to provide a schedule proposal. (See Attachment 1 hereto (June 13-17 emails between Rambus and NVIDIA)).
Filed06/17/11 Page10 of 47
1 Event 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Rambus’s proposal (or existing deadline) + 25 days (Oct. 11)
Proposed date (if any) that NVIDIA provided to Rambus no counterproposal
Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement Due (P.L.R. 4.3) Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (P.L.R. 4.4) Claim Construction Briefs Due (P.L.R. 4.5(a) (+ 15 days)) Responsive Claim Construction Briefs Due (P.L.R. 4.5(b)) Reply Claim Construction Briefs Due (P.L.R. 4.5(c))
+ 30 days (Nov. 10)
+ 21 days (Dec. 1) + 14 days (Dec. 15) + 7 days (Dec. 22)
no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal
Markman/Claim Construction + 20 days, subject to Hearing (P.L.R. 4.6 (+ 2 weeks, Court’s convenience subject to Court’s convenience)) (Wed., Jan. 11, 2012)
Dates below are estimated, assuming a claim construction order issues approximately 5 weeks after the claim construction hearing, subject to the Court’s convenience Advice of counsel disclosures (P.L.R. 3-7) Fact discovery cutoff 21 days after claim construction ruling (Mar. 9) 5 weeks after claim construction ruling (Mar. 23) + 2 weeks (April 6) + 2 weeks (April 20) + 3 weeks (May 11) + 2 weeks (May 25) + 2 weeks (June 8) + 2 weeks (June 22) + 1 week (June 29) Monday 2 weeks after pretrial conference (July 16) no counterproposal
Opening expert reports Rebuttal expert reports Expert discovery cutoff Dispositive motion filing deadline Dispositive motion hearings Pretrial conference statement Pretrial conference Trial
no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal no counterproposal
Filed06/17/11 Page11 of 47
Service of Answers
Rambus’s July 10, 2008 complaint has been pending for nearly three years. Instead of answering Rambus’s complaint, on August 29, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement with respect to certain of Rambus’s claims. On November 13, 2008, the Court denied NVIDIA’s motion without oral argument. (Dkt. No. 45.) On November 24, 2008, the Court granted NVIDIA’s request to postpone its answer until January 16, 2009. (Dkt. No. 57.) Instead of providing an answer on January 16, 2009, however, NVIDIA filed a second motion to dismiss as to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. (Dkt. No. 80.) On April 13, 2009, the Court denied NVIDIA’s motion “without prejudice to renewal after resolution of the [Hynix and Micron] Federal Circuit appeals.” (Dkt. No. 120.) Decisions in those appeals issued on May 13, 2011. On July 11, 2008, the day after Rambus filed its complaint, NVIDIA filed a complaint against Rambus in North Carolina. On September 8, 2008, Rambus filed a motion in the North Carolina action to dismiss that action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). The North Carolina action was then transferred to this District, and consolidated with Rambus’s firstfiled action (Case No. C-08-03343). On April 13, 2009, the Court “DENIE[D] all other pending motions without prejudice to renewal after resolution of the Federal Circuit appeals. (Docket Nos. 80, 85, 113).” (Dkt. No. 120.) The docket numbers cited in the Court’s order do not include Rambus’s motion to dismiss. Now that the Federal Circuit has issued decisions in the Hynix and Micron appeals, Rambus proposes a July 15, 2011 deadline for NVIDIA’s answer and Rambus’s response (to the extent NVIDIA does not withdraw its North Carolina complaint), and an August 5, 2011 deadline for the parties’ responses to any counterclaims. 2. Claim Construction Proceedings
The Federal Circuit recently affirmed Judge Whyte’s claim construction ruling regarding patents in the Farmwald/Horowitz family and there is no reason to postpone claim construction proceedings on the Farmwald/Horowitz and Barth II patents, none of which is subject to the § 1659 stay. Rambus proposes scheduling claim construction proceedings in accordance with the
Filed06/17/11 Page12 of 47
Patent Local Rules, except for two variations in view of the holidays in November and December—a six-day extension of the deadline for claim construction briefs, and a six-day extension or any other extension the Court prefers for the claim construction hearing. Given the number of claim terms that may be disputed, a hearing for the six Farmwald/Horowitz and four Barth II patents is expected to last a full day. 3. Advice of Counsel Disclosures
Rambus proposes that disclosures under Patent Local Rule 3-7 be made within 21 days after a Markman ruling issues. (See P.L.R. 3-7 (providing for such disclosures “[n]ot later than 50 days after service by the Court of its Claim Construction Ruling”).) 4. Trial
Rambus proposes scheduling trial to begin on or around July 16, 2012 for the six Farmwald/Horowitz and four Barth II patents to which the § 1659 stay does not apply. This trial would include any infringement or validity issues not resolved by summary judgment or otherwise, as well as damages. While Rambus proposes the deadlines set forth above, Rambus specifically reserves its right to request that the schedule be amended due to changes occurring in the course of the case, such as amendments to the pleadings, additions of parties, or other good cause, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). B. There is Nothing in Either Hynix or Micron That Prevents Rambus’s Case From Continuing to Proceed These consolidated cases have been pending since July 2008, but have been delayed over the course of three years. NVIDIA had urged waiting for the Federal Circuit’s opinions in Micron and Hynix to see how the Federal Circuit would treat the district courts’ differing determinations as to alleged spoliation (even though NVIDIA itself has not alleged spoliation in any pleading in this case). Rambus, on the other hand, always had noted that resolution of an allegation of unenforceability due to alleged spoliation is intensively fact-specific, including as to the particular defendant, accused products, and patents, but acknowledged that the thenpending Federal Circuit opinions may provide guidance on other issues such as claim
Filed06/17/11 Page13 of 47
construction. See Rambus Opposition to NVIDIA Mtn. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 93, at 4 (explaining that the lower court’s ruling in Micron “cannot be given preclusive effect here because of the lack of identity between the issues, including as to patents (patents in Micron case and present case are different), parties (Micron and NVIDIA are not the same party), and products (Micron memory devices are not the same as NVIDIA controller devices)”), 20-45. Now the Federal Circuit has ruled in Hynix and Micron. Consistent with Rambus’s longheld position, there is nothing in the Federal Circuit opinions that suggests this case should not move forward under a normal schedule. First, NVIDIA and Rambus were awaiting the Federal Circuit’s opinion with respect to claim construction regarding certain terms in certain Farmwald/Horowitz patents, as Rambus has asserted claims containing the same terms against NVIDIA. The Federal Circuit in Hynix affirmed Judge Whyte’s rulings regarding Farmwald/Horowitz patents with respect to claim construction, the patents’ adequate written description support, and the non-obviousness of the patents. 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9728, at *30-42. Accordingly the parties now should proceed with claim construction. Second, NVIDIA and Rambus were awaiting the Federal Circuit’s treatment of JEDECrelated allegations in Hynix, in view of the similar JEDEC-related allegations in NVIDIA’s complaint. The Federal Circuit in its recent Hynix opinion rejected JEDEC-related allegations against Rambus, holding that Rambus “did not breach its disclosure duty” to JEDEC. 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9728, at *30. To the extent NVIDIA chooses to maintain its JEDEC-related allegations despite the Federal Circuit’s Hynix decision, Rambus intends to seek the Court’s permission to file a motion on the pleadings and/or for summary judgment by application of the Federal Circuit’s Hynix decision. Third, consistent with Rambus’s long-held position included in briefs to the Court, even assuming arguendo that NVIDIA had pled unenforceability due to spoliation in its complaint (which NVIDIA has not), there is nothing in the Federal Circuit decisions that would resolve any allegation of unenforceability as to NVIDIA in this case. In fact, the Federal Circuit decisions in Micron and Hynix do not resolve the allegations of patent unenforceability due to alleged
Filed06/17/11 Page14 of 47
spoliation even in those cases, much less in the case at bar. The Federal Circuit vacated the judgments in both Hynix and Micron and remanded for further proceedings. In Hynix and Micron, the parties therefore must await the Federal Circuit mandate, engage in renewed district court proceedings, and then complete any appeal process.5 Moreover, as Rambus has explained in briefing, the Hynix and Micron opinions would not resolve any spoliation/unenforceability issues in NVIDIA’s favor in this case, even if Hynix and Micron had proceeded to completion, due to, for example, the inherent differences in the cases—including differences in parties, patents, and products—that would preclude application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. See Rambus Opposition to NVIDIA Mtn. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 93, at 20-45. In sum, there is nothing in either the Hynix or Micron issued opinions that suggests that Rambus’s case at bar should not proceed. The parties should complete discovery, complete the items required by the Patent Local Rules, including claim construction, and otherwise work towards a prompt trial date. C. Settlement and ADR Despite having been found by the ITC to be in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337, because its memory controller products infringe seventeen claims of three asserted Barth I patents, NVIDIA has refused to settle either that dispute or the present litigation. Rambus remains willing to engage in global settlement negotiations but believes that moving this action forward will be more productive than ADR at resolving the parties’ disputes. The cases are not suitable for reference to binding arbitration or the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. DISCOVERY SHOULD REMAIN OPEN ON ALL ISSUES This Court should not disturb the discovery plan agreed upon by the parties and shepherded by Discovery Master Infante for discovery to proceed on all issues. NVIDIA’s contrary proposal to phase discovery would take this case backwards rather than forwards.
Rambus and Hynix both sought and were granted 14-day extensions of time (until June 27, 2011) to file petitions for panel rehearing and/or rehearing en banc, and the Federal Circuit mandate has not yet issued. Judge Whyte held a conference on June 3, 2011 regarding the remand and, according to the minute entry, determined that the court would “wait until the Federal Circuit issues a mandate” before proceeding.
Filed06/17/11 Page15 of 47
NVIDIA’s proposal to limit discovery to “the remaining issues related to unclean hands” is also inchoate given that NVIDIA has pled no unclean hands defense. First, NVIDIA already has presented limited discovery as an option to Discovery Master Infante, and Discovery Master Infante has rejected NVIDIA’s position. Discovery Master Infante has emphasized that discovery is wide open as to all issues. He entered as an order the parties’ stipulated discovery plan to accomplish just that. (Attachment 2; Dkt. No. 204.) There is no reason for the Court to revisit Discovery Master Infante’s discovery rulings. Second, as this Court has previously observed, it simply would be unfair to permit NVIDIA to move forward on still-unpled allegations while effectively staying Rambus’s claims as NVIDIA now proposes. (12/30/2008 order (Dkt. No. 76) at 3-4 (“The Court is also persuaded that it would be unfair to stay the patent infringement litigation on the FH patents while allowing related antitrust claims to proceed.”).) This is particularly true given that NVIDIA is not merely an accused infringer with respect to Rambus and its patent portfolio, but an adjudicated infringer of valid and enforceable Rambus patents. Third, NVIDIA’s proposal to phase spoliation discovery is unfair because NVIDIA does not even have a pleading in this case demanding the relief it appears to seek in its proposal. At a minimum, NVIDIA must file an answer setting forth the basis for its contentions before Rambus and the Court can even properly consider the contours of NVIDIA’s proposal. NVIDIA’s broadbrush proposal is an attempt to paint over its failure to come forward with plausible, concrete suggestions as to what evidence might have been destroyed that was not either redundant or irrelevant to a trial on NVIDIA’s infringement of Rambus’s patents. If, as NVIDIA posits, this Court reaches the same conclusion as the ITC, then this Court, like the ITC, will find no evidence that Rambus destroyed unique, relevant documents. Under such circumstances, there would be no finding that any spoliation of documents prejudiced NVIDIA and no finding of unclean hands. For all of these reasons, the Court should deny NVIDIA’s proposal to phase discovery.
Filed06/17/11 Page16 of 47
DISCOVERY SHOULD PROCEED ON SCHEDULE AS TO ALL ASSERTED PATENT CLAIMS In the Discovery Plan Order entered by Discovery Master Infante, NVIDIA stipulated to the current schedule including infringement contentions and invalidity contentions. In adherence to that schedule, Rambus timely served its infringement contentions. NVIDIA proposed to Rambus that NVIDIA’s invalidity contentions be delayed by 30 days, but Rambus rejected NVIDIA’s proposal to extend the parties’ agreed-upon schedule. NVIDIA now seeks to reduce the number of infringing claims to which it committed to respond. NVIDIA never raised this issue with Discovery Master Infante, who assisted the parties in setting dates for infringement and invalidity contentions. Further, the Court should deny NVIDIA’s request as premature. Rambus recognizes that it may be appropriate at some point before trial to streamline the case by limiting the number of infringed claims asserted. Before attempting to make any determination as to further narrowing of asserted claims, however, Rambus is entitled to discovery on NVIDIA’s accused products and the invalidity contentions NVIDIA has committed to provide in August. The reduction in the number of claims asserted at trial in the Coordinated Cases litigation before Judge Whyte occurred only after the accused infringers there had provided their invalidity contentions. To require Rambus to reduce the number of asserted claims at this stage would be unfair. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June 17, 2011 MCKOOL SMITH P.C. CROWELL & MORING LLP By: /s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone: 512/692-8700 Facsimile: 512/692-8744 Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
Filed06/17/11 Page17 of 47
[PROPOSED] SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER The Court orders the parties to adhere to the following schedule which shall govern proceedings in this case:
Event Asserted Claims & Infringement Contentions; Accompanying Document Production (P.L.R. 3-1 & 3-2) NVIDIA to serve its answer and counterclaims (if any) in response to Rambus’s complaint; and Rambus to serve its response to NVIDIA’s North Carolina-filed complaint, unless NVIDIA withdraws the complaint Each party to serve response to any counterclaims Invalidity Contentions; Accompanying Document Production (P.L.R. 3-3 & 3-4) Exchange of Proposed Terms for Claim Construction (P.L.R. 4) Exchange of Preliminary Claim Construction & Extrinsic Evidence (P.L.R. 4.2) Joint Claim Construction & Prehearing Statement Due (P.L.R. 4.3) Completion of Claim Construction Discovery (P.L.R. 4.4) Claim Construction Briefs Due (P.L.R. 4.5(a)) Responsive Claim Construction Briefs Due (P.L.R. 4.5(b)) Reply Claim Construction Briefs Due (P.L.R. 4.5(c)) Markman/Claim Construction Hearing (P.L.R. 4.6)
Deadline [Rambus already served per stipulated order]
+21 days (Aug. 5) Aug. 12 per stipulated order
+ 14 days (Aug. 26) + 21 days (Sept. 16)
+ 25 days (Oct. 11) + 30 days (Nov. 10) + 21 days (Dec. 1) + 14 days (Dec. 15) + 7 days (Dec. 22) + 20 days (Wed., Jan. 11, 2012)
Austin 65391v5 Rambus’s Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI, C-08-05500 SI Austin 68050v4
Filed06/17/11 Page18 of 47
Dates below are estimated, assuming a claim construction order issues approximately 5 weeks after the claim construction hearing Advice of counsel disclosures (P.L.R. 3-7) Fact discovery cutoff Opening expert reports Rebuttal expert reports Expert discovery cutoff Dispositive motion filing deadline Dispositive motion hearings Pretrial conference statement Pretrial conference Trial 21 days after claim construction ruling (Mar. 9) 5 weeks after claim construction ruling (Mar. 23) + 2 weeks (April 6) + 2 weeks (April 20) + 3 weeks (May 11) + 2 weeks (May 25) + 2 weeks (June 8) + 2 weeks (June 22) + 1 week (June 29) Monday 2 weeks after pretrial conference (July 16)
______________________________ Honorable Susan Illston United States District Judge
NVIDIA’s Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI, C-08-05500 SI
Filed06/17/11 Page19 of 47
Page 1 of 5 Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page20 of 47
Craig N. Tolliver Friday, June 17, 2011 10:47 AM Chatterjee, Neel; Pierre Hubert Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A.; Ong, Andrew S.; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement
Attachments: 2011-06-17 draft cmc statement.pdf
Neel, Rambus's overall position on the case management statement has not changed from the one presented in the document that we provided you on June 15. Following the parties' meet and confer from yesterday -- NVIDIA's first availability -- Rambus has considered NVIDIA's current position, as understood by Rambus, and Rambus's response thereto. Please see the attached updated draft of Rambus's portion of the CMC statement, which reflects the same. Please note that we are still proofing this draft. Thanks, - Craig ________________________________________ From: Chatterjee, Neel [nchatterjee@orrick.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 5:54 PM To: Pierre Hubert Cc: Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A.; Ong, Andrew S.; Craig N. Tolliver; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Pierre, As I told you before, I think it is premature to be discussing such dates. As a result, I do not think it is appropriate to discuss such dates. Neel -----Original Message----From: phubert@mckoolsmith.com Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:33 PM To: Chatterjee, Neel Cc: Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A.; Ong, Andrew S.; ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Neel, Rambus's position will include a proposed schedule, in addition to opposing NVIDIA's proposals for phased discovery and claim reduction. Does NVIDIA have any position on these dates (even if it is understood that NVIDIA is providing its position only in the alternative, i.e., if the case continues to go forward without phased discovery)? Pierre -----Original Message-----
Page 2 of 5 Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page21 of 47 From: Chatterjee, Neel [mailto:nchatterjee@orrick.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 3:42 PM To: Pierre Hubert Cc: Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A.; Ong, Andrew S.; Craig N. Tolliver; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Pierre, Some of my availability is dependent on time. Are there other things you want on the agenda other than the answering issue? Neel -----Original Message----From: phubert@mckoolsmith.com Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:41 PM To: Chatterjee, Neel Cc: Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A.; Ong, Andrew S.; ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: Re: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Neel, That works. If you want to talk earlier, we are available earlier as well. Thanks. On Jun 15, 2011, at 3:33 PM, "Chatterjee, Neel" <nchatterjee@orrick.com<mailto:nchatterjee@orrick.com>> wrote: Pierre, Can we talk at 10 am California time tomorrow? Neel From: phubert@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:phubert@mckoolsmith.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 11:49 AM To: Chatterjee, Neel; Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A. Cc: Ong, Andrew S.; ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com>; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Neel, we received NVIDIA's email below and also NVDIA's draft statement under separate cover this morning. Rambus notes that although NVIDIA says in its email below that NVIDIA does not wish to discuss scheduling with Rambus, NVIDIA's draft seems to seek the Court's guidance on an Answer. That seems like exactly the kind of scheduling issue the parties could be discussing. We understand that you were not available earlier this week for meet-and-confer, that you were not available yesterday, and that you are travelling today, but if NVIDIA has availability today to discuss, please advise of a time. Pierre ________________________________ From: Chatterjee, Neel [mailto:nchatterjee@orrick.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2011 1:18 AM To: Pierre Hubert; Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A. Cc: Ong, Andrew S.; Craig N. Tolliver; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally 6/17/2011
Page 3 of 5 Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page22 of 47 Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Pierre, We do not believe setting such dates is appropriate at this time. As a result, we will not reach agreement on that point if Rambus intends to present it. Neel From: phubert@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:phubert@mckoolsmith.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 6:48 PM To: Chatterjee, Neel; Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A. Cc: Ong, Andrew S.; ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com>; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Neel, Rambus looks forward to receiving a statement of NVIDIA's position. Rambus disagrees with NVIDIA's positions (1) and (2), to the extent understood. Rambus intends to ask the Court to set dates to conform to a typical schedule under the local rules, as the parties continue ongoing discovery with the assistance of Judge Infante. Rambus is generally available tomorrow afternoon to meet and confer if that is your earliest availability. Since you are travelling, please let us know what is the earliest convenient time for you. Rambus strongly believes that the parties should try to reach agreement on as many upcoming dates as possible (even if NVIDIA wishes to agree to those dates only in the alternative), to make the CMC statement as joint as possible to maximize its usefulness to the Court. Pierre ________________________________ From: Chatterjee, Neel [mailto:nchatterjee@orrick.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2011 12:49 PM To: Trent E. Campione; Sutton, Theresa A. Cc: Ong, Andrew S.; Pierre Hubert; Craig N. Tolliver; Goldstein, David M.; Lee, Sally Subject: RE: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Trent, We will send you a draft today (hopefully) of our case management statement submission. We will be providing the Court with a number of the orders relevant to this case. To ensure you are prepared on certain issues, we are considering proposing the following: 1. Requesting that the Court enter an order phasing discovery following the Federal Circuit's rulings and focusing discovery on the issues of bad faith and remedy. 2. If the Court declines and wishes to proceed on all issues, to limit the number of claims in dispute. I am not sure a live meet and confer is necessary, but, if you feel it is, let us know times you are available tomorrow. I am travelling in the morning tomorrow so the earliest we can talk is the afternoon. Neel From: Trent E. Campione [mailto:tcampione@McKoolSmith.com] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 11:05 AM To: Goldstein, David M.; Sutton, Theresa A.; Krow, Catherine Morris 6/17/2011
Page 4 of 5 Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page23 of 47 Cc: Chatterjee, Neel; Ong, Andrew S.; phubert@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:phubert@mckoolsmith.com>; <mailto:ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com> ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com> Subject: Rambus/NVIDIA - meet and confer re case management statement Please let us know when you are available to meet and confer regarding the case management statement that is due this Friday. We are generally available to discuss and propose doing so no later than tomorrow. Best regards, Trent Trent E. Campione McKool Smith 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 692-8718 tcampione@mckoolsmith.com<mailto:tcampione@mckoolsmith.com> NOTICE OF CONFIDENTIALITY: The information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail is SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT and ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE and is CONFIDENTIAL. It is intended only for the individual or entity designated above. You are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, use or reliance upon the information contained in and transmitted with this e-mail by or to anyone other than the addressee designated above by the sender is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by reply immediately. Any e-mail erroneously transmitted to you should be immediately destroyed. =========================================================== IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. For more information about Orrick, please visit <http://www.orrick.com> http://www.orrick.com/ =========================================================== =========================================================== IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. 6/17/2011
Page 5 of 5 Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page24 of 47 For more information about Orrick, please visit <http://www.orrick.com> http://www.orrick.com/ =========================================================== =========================================================== IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. For more information about Orrick, please visit <http://www.orrick.com> http://www.orrick.com/ =========================================================== =========================================================== IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com/<http://www.orrick.com> =========================================================== =========================================================== IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication, unless expressly stated otherwise, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax-related matter(s) addressed herein. =========================================================== NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND MAY BE A COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E- MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION. For more information about Orrick, please visit http://www.orrick.com/<http://www.orrick.com> ===========================================================
Filed06/17/11 Page25 of 47
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page26 of 47 Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document204 Filed03/21/11 Page1 of 6
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page27 of 47 Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document204 Filed03/21/11 Page2 of 6
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page28 of 47 Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document204 Filed03/21/11 Page3 of 6
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page29 of 47 Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document204 Filed03/21/11 Page4 of 6
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page30 of 47 Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document204 Filed03/21/11 Page5 of 6
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page31 of 47 Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document204 Filed03/21/11 Page6 of 6
Filed06/17/11 Page32 of 47
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page33 of 47 Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document40 Filed06/13/11 Page1 of 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. BROADCOM CORP., Defendant. ____________________________________/ RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. LSI CORPORATION Defendant. ____________________________________/ RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. MEDIATEK INC., Defendant. ____________________________________/
*E-Filed 6/13/11*
No. C 10-05437 RS ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO STAY
No. C 10-05446 RS
No. C 10-05447 RS
NO. C 10-05437 RS ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTIONS TO STAY
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page34 of 47 Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document40 Filed06/13/11 Page2 of 6
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants. ____________________________________/
No. C 10-05449 RS
I. INTRODUCTION On December 1, 2010, plaintiff Rambus filed separate patent infringement actions against defendants Broadcom, LSI Corporation, Mediatek, and STMicroelectronics. In these suits, Rambus alleges that defendants’ respective products infringe various patents flowing from different patent groups: the Farmwald/Horowitz (FH), Barth, and Dally patents. On the same day that Rambus filed these infringement actions, it also instituted proceedings at the International Trade Commission (ITC) involving all three of the Barth patents and three out of the six Dally patents asserted in the district court cases.1 Under 28 U.S.C. section 1659, on timely request by a respondent in an ITC proceeding, the district court must stay a civil action with respect to “any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission.” Thus, all defendants filed motions requesting mandatory stays of litigation involving the Barth patents and the overlapping Dally patents and discretionary stays of the remainder of their cases. Rambus does not contest staying litigation with respect to the Barth patents and all of the Dally patents. Thus, defendants’ motions to stay litigation of those patents are granted.2 The contested issue is whether the Court should also stay litigation of
Rambus asserts the following FH patents in this action: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,034,918; 6,038,195; 6,260,097; 6,304,937; 6,426,916; 6,564,281; 6,584,037; 6,715,020; 6,751,696; and 7,209,997. The Barth patents involved in both this case and the ITC proceeding are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,470,405; 6,591,353; and 7,287,109. The six Dally patents at issue in this suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,542,555; 7,099,404; 7,580,474; 7,602,857; 7,602,858; and 7,715,494. The latter three Dally patents are also part of the ITC suit. 2 In a fifth related case, No. C 10-5448 RS, Rambus asserts only the Dally patents against Nvidia Corporation. The Court previously granted Nvidia’s motion to stay its suit until a final determination in the ITC proceeding. In the sixth case filed concurrently with these suits, No. C 105445 RS, Rambus and Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. reached a settlement.
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page35 of 47 Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document40 Filed06/13/11 Page3 of 6
the FH patents until the end of the ITC action and/or until reexamination proceedings of them at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) are completed.3 Based on the parties’ submissions and oral argument, and for the reasons stated below, defendants’ motions to stay litigation of the FH patents are denied. II. LEGAL STANDARD A district court may, in its discretion, stay proceedings as part of its inherent power “to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). In determining whether to grant a stay, the court weighs the following factors: (1) possible damage caused by the imposition of a stay; (2) hardship or inequity that would result from going forward; and (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1110 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962)). The party seeking a stay bears the burden of demonstrating its necessity. See Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997). III. DISCUSSION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1659, proceedings with respect to the Barth and Dally patents that are at issue in the ITC suit shall be stayed “until the determination of the Commission becomes final.” Defendants argue that Rambus will not suffer any harm from a similar stay of the FH patents until the end of the ITC action. As all of the FH patents have expired or will expire shortly, Rambus is unable to seek injunctive relief in this suit.4 Thus, according to defendants, a stay would not
Defendants also sought a stay until resolution of two appeals then pending before the Federal Circuit involving some of the same FH patents at issue here. See Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Cal. 2006); Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 255 F.R.D. 135 (D. Del. 2009). On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its decisions in those appeals. See Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9728 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011); Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 9730 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011). 4 Although these cases are related, they remain four separate suits. For simplicity, these district court cases are referred to collectively in the singular as “this suit.” Furthermore, each defendant separately filed its own motion to dismiss. The Court reviewed all pleadings submitted by the parties. As defendants’ arguments largely overlap, they are addressed altogether within this Order.
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page36 of 47 Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document40 Filed06/13/11 Page4 of 6
prevent Rambus from obtaining all of the relief to which it ultimately may be entitled in the form of damages. For its part, Rambus raises the potential loss of evidence, including that based on witnesses’ memories or in the control of third parties, were the case to be delayed. It also claims that defendants’ failure to pay royalties for past infringement harms its goodwill and reputation. While Rambus’ claims of prejudice are fairly general, there likely is at least some harm associated with a stay. Even though defendants claim that the technology overlaps significantly between the Barth and FH patent families, the latter patents are not at issue in the ITC case. Thus, unlike a stay in light of an ITC proceeding involving the same patent family, Rambus will not have an opportunity through parallel proceedings to develop any aspects of its case specific to the FH patents. As defendants themselves mention the depositions of employees when discussing their own harm, Rambus’ assertion that it seeks timely access to witnesses is not unreasonable. Ultimately, even if the potential harm to Rambus is minimal, defendants still must demonstrate their own hardship in the absence of a stay and that a stay would benefit the resolution of issues in this case. With respect to hardship in the absence of a stay, defendants argue that they will be harmed by being forced to engage in duplicative litigation. As an initial matter, with or without a stay, there are two proceedings pending. Defendants potentially must engage in discovery, produce employees for depositions, expend effort on claim construction and expert reports, and incur litigation expenses for this district court case either now or after the ITC action. In other words, duplication based on litigation of the FH patents and the ITC proceedings on the Barth and Dally patents in and of itself is not a hardship that weighs in favor of granting a stay. While specific hardship might arise should these actions proceed simultaneously, such as particular strain on expenses or employees, defendants have raised such harm only generally. For instance, they object to subjecting their employees to duplicative depositions, but have not established that it would be less disruptive to expose employees to two depositions based on the likely schedule in light of a stay versus the absence of one. Defendants do not just argue harm from participating in parallel proceedings generally. In their view, the similarities in technology involved in the FH and Barth patents will result in substantial wasted effort in the absence of a stay. Each group of patents is directed to memory
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page37 of 47 Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document40 Filed06/13/11 Page5 of 6
controllers for semiconductor devices and defendants’ same products are accused of infringing both. Defendants, however, likely overestimate the potential for the ITC action to narrow issues with respect to the FH patents. Foremost, decisions of the ITC are not binding on this court. See Texas Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1569 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Even if they were, the fact that the ITC action involves different patents means there would be no reason to wait for a final decision, including any potential appeal to the Federal Circuit, to move forward on the FH litigation. In short, there is nothing determinative about the Commission’s final decision on the Barth patents with respect to any issue in this suit. To the extent that the parties, based on overlapping technology, develop relevant tutorials, claim constructions, or prior art arguments, they can realize those potential efficiencies in this case without waiting until the end of the ITC action. Finally, even if the Barth and FH patents involve substantial overlap in technology, many issues that will be highly contested as to each will be patent-family specific. For instance, claim construction and invalidity arguments likely will depend heavily on the particular details of the patents’ respective specifications. Further with respect to defendants’ potential hardship, they also contend that being forced to litigate the district court case itself on two tracks imposes significant harm. In their view, moving forward on the FH patents now, while litigation specific to the Barth and Dally patents is stayed, will multiply discovery obligations, employee disruptions, and expenses within this suit. While the stay imposed on the overlapping ITC patents is “mandatory,” it is mandatory in the sense that the Court must grant it on timely request. Defendants, as they are entitled to do, requested the stay. Although there may be some burden on defendants to move forward with the FH patents, this potential hardship does not weigh heavily in favor of granting a stay. The last factor to consider as to a discretionary stay is whether it will benefit the parties and the Court in terms of “the orderly course of justice.” Defendants suggest that litigating the FH patents on different timing from the Barth and Dally patents will be highly duplicative, thus straining the parties and the Court. As previously discussed, the potential for the ITC action to generate efficiencies in this case does not hinge on waiting until the final decision of the Commissioner. Moreover, to the extent that the different patent families involve overlapping
Case3:08-cv-05500-SI Document42 Filed06/17/11 Page38 of 47 Case3:10-cv-05437-RS Document40 Filed06/13/11 Page6 of 6
technology and issues, progress made with respect to the FH patents in this case may also allow efficiencies to be gained once the stay of the Barth and Dally patents is lifted. In short, a stay of litigation involving the FH patents until the end of the ITC proceeding involving different patent families is not warranted. Finally, defendants also seek a stay based on reexaminations of the FH patents pending at the PTO. They suggest that waiting for the final outcomes has the potential to narrow issues in this suit. According to Rambus, the ten FH patents at issue here have been the subject of seventeen different reexamination proceedings initiated between 2007 and 2010. Of these seventeen challenges, four reexaminations are still pending before the examiners; five have been completed with all claims confirmed and have no appeal pending; six appeals are pending where all claims were confirmed by the examiner; and two appeals are pending where some claims were rejected by the examiner. Overall, nine out of ten of the FH patents are still involved in some stage of reexamination, but only two patents have had any claims rejected to date. Given the various stages of these multiple reexaminations, the sheer number of them, and the relatively few claims cancelled to date, staying this suit until all possible reexamination proceedings are exhausted also is not justified. IV. CONCLUSION Defendants’ motions to stay proceedings in this case with respect to the Barth and Dally patents are granted. The motions to stay litigation of the FH patents are denied.
Dated: 6/13/11 RICHARD SEEBORG
Filed06/17/11 Page39 of 47
Filed06/17/11 Page40 of 47
I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985) nchatterjee@orrick.com THERESA A. SUTTON (STATE BAR NO. 211857) tsutton@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, CA 94025 Telephone: 650-614-7400 Facsimile: 650-614-7401 DAVID M. GOLDSTEIN (STATE BAR NO. 142334) dgoldstein@orrick.com 405 Howard Street San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-773-5700 Facsimile: 415-773-5759 Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant NVIDIA CORPORATION UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVIDSION
Case No. 3:10-cv-03343-SI Consolidated with C-08-05500 SI NVIDIA CORPORATION’S SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT Date: Time: Court: Judge: June 24, 2011 3:00 P.M. Dept. 10, 19th Floor Honorable Susan Illston
NVIDIA CORPORATION, Cross-Complainant, v. RAMBUS INC., Cross-Defendant.
NVIDIA’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-08-03343 SI
Filed06/17/11 Page41 of 47
INTRODUCTION NVIDIA submits this Case Management Conference Statement in accordance with Civil
L.R. 16-10(c) and (d). NVIDIA believes resolution of four case management issues will be helpful: 1. NVIDIA requests the Court to phase this case and limit discovery and other activities at this time to the dispositive issues of bad faith and prejudice, sanctions and remedies in light of the recently issued rulings from the Federal Circuit in Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2009-1263 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011) (attached hereto as Ex. 1) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2009-1299 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011) (attached hereto as Ex. 2). In these decisions, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Micron Court’s ruling that Rambus had engaged in spoliation while litigation was foreseeable and reversed the Hynix Court’s ruling that Rambus had not engaged in spoliation. The Federal Circuit also remanded for further findings on the issues of bad faith and prejudice and for further explanation on whether dismissal is the appropriate sanction for Rambus’ conduct. The ITC has found that Rambus’ spoliation was in bad faith. Certain Semiconductor Chips Having Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory Controllers and Prods. Containing Same (“Certain Semiconductor Chips”), 337-TA-661 (the “ITC proceeding”), Initial Determination (Jan. 22, 210) at 112-114 (attached hereto as Ex. 3). If this Court reaches the same conclusion as the ITC, NVIDIA believes Rambus will be foreclosed from asserting the patents currently at issue in this case. NVIDIA requests that the Court focus discovery on the remaining issues related to unclean hands and sanctions, given the dispositive nature of this issue. 2. To the extent that this Court decides to proceed on all issues, NVIDIA requests that this Court limit the number of claims in dispute in this case. Rambus has currently asserted 87 claims from 10 patents. The patents come from two families and the number of claims asserted appears to be presented merely for harassment to needlessly proliferate the proceedings. This Court has authority to limit the claims in dispute under Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3212, *17-18
Filed06/17/11 Page42 of 47
(Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011). In the Rambus cases before Judge Whyte, the Court limited the claims in dispute because of Rambus’ effort to needlessly proliferate the proceedings. 3. NVIDIA would like the Court’s guidance on how to coordinate with the co-pending actions before Judge Seeborg that are related to many of the same patents at issue in this case against numerous other defendants. All other cases (except for the earlier cases before Judge Whyte) have been related and are proceeding before Judge Seeborg. 4. NVIDIA requests the Court provide guidance to NVIDIA in providing an Answer to Rambus’ Complaint in which part of the litigation has been stayed. Given NVIDIA’s case management issues, NVIDIA believes that Rambus’ request to set a case and trial schedule is premature. While NVIDIA disagrees with statements contained in Rambus’ submission, it does not wish to improperly address the merits of Rambus’ arguments in its case management statement and believes those issues are better reserved for substantive motions. Instead, NVIDIA submits the following statement to update the Court on the status of discovery and on related proceedings that have an impact on this case, as well as to explain its position on the issues set forth above. II. STATUS OF DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS A. Phase I Discovery is Ongoing and Is Not Complete.
NVIDIA continues to assess the extent to which Rambus has complied with the relevant Orders for Phase I Discovery. On January 24, 2011, Special Master Infante ordered both parties to complete document productions from existing cases by February 25, 2011. (Dkt. No. 191.) Pursuant to this Order, Rambus deemed produced certain materials from its relevant cases but withheld from its production documents previously produced pursuant to privilege piercing orders. Following the Federal Circuit’s affirmations of the Micron and Hynix Courts’ application of the crime-fraud exception to pierce Rambus’ attorney-client privilege,1 Rambus stipulated that Order No. 15, Order Granting in Part NVIDIA’s Motion to Compel Production of Materials Subject to Privilege Piercing Orders, from the ITC proceeding is also controlling in this action.
See Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2009-1263 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011) (the “Micron action”) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2009-1299 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2011) (the “Hynix action”).
OHS WEST:261178151.8 NVIDIA’S CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT CASE NO. C-08-03343 SI
Filed06/17/11 Page43 of 47
(See Dkt. No. 210.) On May 24, 2011, Special Master Infante issued an order that all documents previously produced pursuant to Order No. 15 from the ITC Action be produced to NVIDIA in this action by May 30, 2011. (Dkt. No. 210.) Accordingly, Rambus supplemented its Phase I production and deemed certain materials from its privilege logs produced. NVIDIA believes that Rambus may be improperly withholding previously-produced materials based on claims of attorney-client privilege. To this date, Rambus has not provided to NVIDIA a single, comprehensive privilege log that lists those materials Rambus is currently withholding from its Phase 1 production based on privilege. Accordingly, NVIDIA currently does not know whether Rambus has complied with the Court’s and Special Master’s Orders related to Phase 1 discovery. NVIDIA is currently working to make this issue ripe for resolution with Judge Infante. B. Rambus Has Provided Insufficient Infringement Contentions.
On May 12, 2011, Rambus served NVIDIA its disclosure of asserted claims and infringement contentions. In its infringement contentions, Rambus asserted 87 claims from its “Barth II” and “Farmwald” patents to have been directly infringed by NVIDIA. Rambus also alleges that NVIDIA has indirectly infringed (through contributory and/or induced infringement) the same 87 patent claims. NVIDIA is currently assessing the sufficiency of Rambus’ disclosure and infringement contentions and believes the contentions are insufficient. Absent further Court orders, NVIDIA’s invalidity contentions are due on August 12, 2011. III. NVIDIA’S REPORT ON OTHER PROCEEDINGS. A. The ITC Proceeding, and the Associated Mandatory Stay, Continues.
This Court issued a mandatory stay of the “Barth I” and “Ware II” patents pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659. The ITC action is currently on appeal. Reply briefs were recently filed on June 16, 2011. Oral argument has not been set. The mandatory stay remains in place, at least until all judicial review of the ITC proceeding, including Federal Circuit review, is complete. In re Princo, 478 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Filed06/17/11 Page44 of 47
New District Court Cases.
In several District Court Actions, Rambus has asserted the “Barth I” patents, the “Farmwald” patents, and a new set of patents, the “Dally” patents, against several companies: Rambus Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., No. C 10-5437, Rambus Inc. v. LSI Corp., No. C 10-5446, Rambus Inc. v. Mediatek Inc. No. C 10-5447, and Rambus Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, No. C 105449.2 In addition, Rambus has asserted only the “Dally” patents against NVIDIA in a new case, Rambus, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., C 10-5448, (N.D. Cal. 2010). On February 23, 2011, Judge Richard Seeborg in the Northern District of California related all these cases and all cases were reassigned to Judge Seeborg’s Court. (See Feb. 23, 2011 Order, attached hereto as Ex. 4). On June 13, 2011, Judge Seeborg granted a mandatory stay of litigation with respect to the “Barth I” and “Dally” patents in the four related cases as patents in these families are also involved in parallel ITC proceedings instituted by Rambus.3 However, Judge Seeborg declined to stay litigation of the “Farmwald” patents for the four related cases. (See June 13, 2011 Order, attached hereto as Ex. 5). As a result Judge Seeborg and this Court will be proceeding on substantively similar issues with respect to the Farmwald patents. IV. NVIDIA’S PROPOSAL TO FOCUS DISCOVERY AND OTHER ACTIVITIES OR LIMIT THE NUMBER OF INFRINGMENT CLAIMS A. NVIDIA Requests the Court Limit Discovery and Other Activities to Bad Faith and Remedy.
NVIDIA requests the Court to phase the case and limit discovery and other activities at this time to the issue of bad faith and remedy with respect to Rambus’ spoliation. The Federal Circuit affirmed that Rambus had engaged in the intentional destruction of evidence, and dismissal of this action may be a proper sanction after application of the proper standard for determination of bad faith. The underlying Court found bad faith, but the Federal Circuit remanded for greater detail in fact-finding. The ITC consistently found bad faith by Rambus. Certain Semiconductor Chips, Initial Determination at 112-114. Because this case may be
In another related case filed concurrently with these suits, Rambus Inc. v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., No. C 10-5445, the parties reached a settlement. 3 The Court had previously granted NVIDIA’s motion to stay its suit until a final determination in the ITC proceeding.
Filed06/17/11 Page45 of 47
resolved following this Court’s determination of bad faith and remedy, NVIDIA proposes that discovery and other activities be limited to these principal issues for the next phase. B. NVIDIA Requests the Court to Limit the Number of Infringement Claims Asserted by Rambus.
If the Court does not limit this phase to bad faith and remedy in this case, NVIDIA proposes that Rambus be asked to limit the number of asserted claims in its infringement 6 contentions to 25. The Court has broad discretion to administer the proceeding and may limit the 7 number of patent claims it considers in an infringement case in order to manage the cases before 8 it. Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig. v. Am. Airlines, Inc. (In re Katz Interactive Call 9 Processing Patent Litig.), 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3212, *17-18 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 18, 2011). In 10 Katz, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Court’s order limiting the total number of claims to be 11 asserted in a case involving 14 patents to 40 per defendant group, with a total of 64 claims for all 12 defendants. The Court also permitted the plaintiff to add new non-duplicative claims. Id. at *7. 13 In this case, Rambus has asserted 87 claims from its 10 patents to have been directly 14 infringed by NVIDIA. Rambus has also asserted the same 87 claims to have been indirectly 15 infringed by NVIDIA. The asserted patents appear to contain many duplicative claims that may 16 not present unique issues of infringement or invalidity. See Katz, 2011 U.S. APP. LEXIS 3212 at 17 *17-18 (noting that Katz did not seek to demonstrate that some of its unselected claims presented 18 unique issues). Requiring NVIDIA to prepare invalidity contentions for a large number of 19 duplicative claims is unduly burdensome. Accordingly, NVIDIA requests that Rambus be limited 20 21 22 23 this. Rambus’ proposal seeks to impose the standard Patent Local Rules structure for a complex 24 multijurisdictional dispute involving at least 10 patents against over 150 products. NVIDIA does 25 not believe that Rambus’ proposed schedule is appropriate for this action. Instead, NVIDIA 26 27 28
to a total number of 25 non-duplicative claims.4 V. RAMBUS’S PROPOSED SCHEDULE SHOULD BE REJECTED Rambus seeks to impose an approach that is ill designed for a complex litigation such as
See Ex. 6, Rambus’ Disclosure of 25 Asserted Claims (Hynix action). The Hynix Court ordered Rambus to reduce the number of asserted claims to 25, even though Rambus asserted 22 patents in the Hynix action.
Filed06/17/11 Page46 of 47
proposes that the Court set appropriate dates for service of answer and counterclaims, and schedule remaining events at a later date based on the status of the case at that time. See Patent L.R. 1-3 (rules may be modified based on the complexity of any particular case as shown by the patents, claims, products, or parties involved). NVIDIA believes that Rambus’ proposed schedule will result in numerous motions to enlarge time and extensive, needless motions practice. Rambus cannot claim that providing the parties with sufficient time will cause undue delay in this case because it intentionally delayed its own proceedings in the Micron action. Following remand of the Micron Court’s sanction of dismissal, the Court ordered a teleconference be held on May 19, 2011 to discuss a schedule for the pending proceedings. (See Rambus’ May 18, 2011 letter to Judge Robinson, attached hereto as Ex. 7). Rambus objected to the scheduling of the teleconference, stating that the Micron Court did not have jurisdiction until the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in the appeal. Id. Rambus further stated that the appellate proceedings are not complete as a petition for rehearing en banc may be filed. Id. After a review of Rambus’ letter requesting the cancellation of the scheduled teleconference, the Court cancelled the telephone conference scheduled for May 19, 2011. (See Robinson Order, attached hereto as Ex. 8.) The Court has not rescheduled any status conference as of this date and the Micron proceedings remain stalled. Since that filing, Rambus has successfully sought to enlarge the time for it to file a petition for rehearing. Furthermore, Rambus may not claim harm as it was Rambus who chose to engage in the destruction of evidence that is at issue in the pending Micron action. VI. NVIDIA REQUESTS GUIDANCE IN ANSWERING RAMBUS’ COMPLAINT NVIDIA requests this Court’s guidance in answering Rambus’ Complaint. In this case, the Court issued a mandatory stay of the “Barth I “and “Ware II” patents prior to NVIDIA’s answer of Rambus’ Complaint. The Court also stayed motion practice in the remainder of the case and only allowed limited discovery to proceed. (Dkt. No. 120.) Accordingly, there is currently no deadline by which NVIDIA is required to respond to Rambus’ complaint. NVIDIA requests the Court’s guidance as to when and how it should answer Rambus’ Complaint given that many, but not all, of the claims in the Complaint have been stayed.
Filed06/17/11 Page47 of 47
CONCLUSION The Federal Circuit has affirmed the finding that Rambus engaged in the destruction of
critical evidence. It remanded the Micron and Hynix cases for further findings on the issues of bad faith and prejudice and for further explanation on what relief, including dismissal, may be the appropriate sanction for Rambus’ conduct. The determinations of the proper sanction for Rambus’ improper conduct may moot this case in its entirety. Accordingly, NVIDIA respectively requests that the Court limit discovery and other activities to the dispositive issues of bad faith and prejudice, and its proper sanctions and remedies.
Respectfully Submitted, Dated: June 17, 2011 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
Documents Similar To Https Ecf.cand.Uscourts.gov Cgi-bin Show Temp.pl File=7574396-0--15559Skip carouselTransportRoom 028330434174513Norwich Pharmacal Company and OthersA02_362206.194.185.202 exparteMauldin v. Rose et al - Document No. 5231175612-Federal-Litigation-Quick-Reference.pdfDigital Envoy Inc., v. Google Inc., - Document No. 39Legal NewsletterPinnacle Drilling LLC v. Louisiana Transportation, Inc. - Document No. 6Carpenter v. Allstate Insurance Company - Document No. 6Capital Investments-USA, Inc. v. Keybank National Association - Document No. 5Kirch v. Pulmonary Data Services, Inc. - Document No. 7Wultz v. Bank of China Order Compelling Discovery8:12-cv-01137 #61Request Ex Spanx 06-06-2014DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDERAmgen Inc. v. F. Hoffmann-LaRoche LTD et al - Document No. 725Ruling on motion in limine re5_Disclosure of Documents in Legal CasesHP Motion to Compel EC Docs (Redacted)WILLIAMS et al v. ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant Answer to Motion to Compel Docs10000028392Carlson CivProA Fall20113:09-cv-02292 #289DC 91 LNV's Objection to Motion to CompelGolight, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant/third Party and North Arkansas Wholesale Company, Inc. v. Innovative International (h.k.) Ltd., Third Party, 355 F.3d 1327, 3rd Cir. (2004)00006-H028579Documents About Discovery (Law)Skip carouselRP 2013 30FarrellTWIA lawsuit - 6th Amended PetitionBirthday EvidenceK-Beech - Order &amp; Report &amp; Recommendation (Ordered 5-1-12)Jameswoods Doe Oppo10-19-16 Corgan Motion to Compel & Memo in Support OCR06-30-2014 Motion and Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary InjunctionKEYES v OBAMA - 57 - ORDER SETTING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE FOR 10/5/2009 at 8:30 AMBoa Answer to Freddie Objection in Re Taylor Bean &amp; Whitaker Mortgage Corp.Arthur J. Usher Disciplinary OpinionCosby UnsealJudicial Watch v Dept of State "Bachelor" TV producers vs. "Reality Steve" LawsuitTracy Martin and Alicia Stanley DivorceBundy wants govt to ID informantsCourt Order Denying Motion Re iPhone 5 iPad 3Unsealing Memo Cosby02-19-2016 ECF 182 U.S.A. v A. BUNDY et al - Joint Status Report Filed by Ryan PayneKEYES|BARNETT v OBAMA - 90 - NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Reconsideration - Gov.uscourts.cacd.435591.90.0Bundy Report Jail ConditionsJustice Department Reply brief 7.29.16Getty Images v. MotamediUber driver lawsuit settlementDiscovery SentencingDiscovery to BentleyMatera Google SettlementFirefly Systems v. Markusic v. Galactic - Virgin Galactic opposed motion to dismiss.pdfBG3181 Reforming FINRA David Burton February 2017101705882 4-17-2012 Motion to Take Pre Complaint DiscoveryMore From sabatino123Skip carouselshow_temp1show_tempshow_temp.pdfIdtIDT.pdfshow_tempg.pdfBlackberrySJMicrosoft1710NikonMazatBmwMicrosofthphaBlackbest buy117AmazonIdtSprintClaim Construction OrderCanonAppleIAM Magazine Issue 67 - Hands-On Counsel