3012[1] Rambus Brief on Trial Procedures

8/14/2019 3012[1] Rambus Brief on Trial Procedures

1/28


2/28

1

RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW2

Plaintiff,3

vs .4

MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al. ,5

Defendants.

6

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RAMBUS INC.S B R IE F O N TRIAL PROCEDURESCV 00-20905 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RM W

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3012 Filed 01/05/2009 Page 2 of 28


3/28

1 TA B LE OF C O N T EN T S

2 Pa ge

3 I. IN TR O D UC T IO N 1

4 II. A R G U M EN T 4A. The M anu fa ct ur ers Propo sal N ot to C on te st In fr ing eme nt Is Le g ally

Ina de qu at e To Sup port Any o f the P ro ced ur al Chang es T he y Seek 4

6 B. If the M an u fa ctu re rs P ro p erl y C on ce de Inf r in ge m en t, the Cour t Sh ou ld

7In str uc t the Ju ry on Inf r in ge m en t, and R am b us Must be Pe rm it ted to ArgueInf ri nge m en t to th e Jury 9

8 C. If th e Ma n ufa c tur er s P rop er ly C o nc ed e Inf ri ng e m en t, Such T ha t It N eedN ot Be Tried, Valid ity and D am ag es Sh ou ld Be Tried To gether, andR am b us Should Prove Da m ag es F irs t 13

10 1. There are C om p el lin g R eas on s fo r Tr ying D ama g es and V alidi ty

11T o ge th er, and Little R eas on to Try T hem Separately 13

2. In A n y E ven t R am b us Should Ar gu e F irs t 1612 D. M ic ron Ca nno t Be P er mi tte d to Stand in fo r the O ther Ma n ufa c tur er s

13 U n de r the C on d ition s P ro po se d by the M an uf ac tu rer s 17

III. R A M BU S S COUIJTER-PROPOSA L AN D ITS O T HE R E F FO R TS TO14 S T RE A M L IN E T RI A L 19

15 IV. C ON C L US IO N 23

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2728

RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES- 1 - CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



4/28

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2 Page(s)

3 FEDERAL CASES

4 Altris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,318 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2003) 7, 8

Angelo v. Armstrong World Indus., inc.,

6F.3d 957 (10th Cir. 1993) 16

Big Horn Coal Co. v. Office of Workers Comp. Prog.,7 55 F.3d 545 (10th Cir. 1995) 8

8Booker v. City of Chicago,

2006 WL 4071596 (N.D. Iii. 2006) 6, 8

9 Brydges v. Lewis,18 F.3d 651 (9th Cir. 1994) 5

10 Budde v. Harley-Davison, inc.,

11250F.3d1369(Fed.Cir.2001) 5,6

Cristobal v. Siegel,12 26 F.3d 1488 (9th Cir. 1994) 5

13Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood,

369 U.S . 469 (1962) 6

14 de Graffenried v. United States,20 C1.Ct. 458 (1990) 10

15 Foster v. Halico Mfg. Co.,

16947 F.2d 469 (Fed. Cir. 1991) 7

Georgia- Pacfic v. US. Plywood Corp.,17 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) 14

18Greenleafv. Garlock, Inc.,

174 F.3d 352 (3d Cir. 1999) 16

19 Henry v. Gill Indus.,983 F.2d 94 3 (9th Cir. 1993) 5

20 Howmedica Osteonic Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc.,

21540F.3d1337(Fed.Cir.2008) 5

In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, ill., On May 25, 1979,22 803F.2d304(7thCir. 1986) 11,12

23 In re Diet Drugs(Phentermine/Fenfluramine/Dexfenfluramine) Products Liability,

369 F.3d 29 3 (3d Cir. 2004) 4, 6, 11

24 Innovative Office Prods., Inc. v. SpaceCo, Inc.,2006 WL 1340865 (E.D. Pa. 2006) 13

25 Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc.,

26392F.3d1317(Fed.Cir.2004) 9

Jang v. Boston ScientUic Corp.,

27 532F.3d1330(Fed.Cir.2008) 728

Johnson v. Mortham,91 5 F. Supp. 1574 (N.D. Fla. 1996) 16

RAMBUS [NC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES- 11 - CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05 -334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



5/28

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES(continued)

2 Page(s)

3 Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC,445 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 7

Lux v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,5

608F.Supp.98(D.Il1. 1984) 12

Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software,6 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 7

Seachange mt 1,Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,413 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 6

8 Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa North America Corp.,29 9 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2002) 8

Warldorfv. Shuta,

10 142F.3d601 (3dCir. 1998) 6

11TREATISES

12 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil 3d 2651 (1990) 5, 6, 13

13

14OTHER AUTHORITIES

15Lu Wang and Ian King, Micron Will Need to Raise Money Soon, Wachovia Says (Dec. 29,

2008), available at http://www.bloomberg.comlapps/news?pid=2060 1087&sid

16azuVdPEu8.kg&refer=home 19

Manufacturers Letter Brief, Dec. 29, 2008, Dkt. No. 3003 517 Micron Mot. for Separate Trials, Aug. 1, 2008, Dkt . No. 2005 15

18 Micron Press Release, Dec. 23, 2008, available athttp://download.micron.comlpdf/financials/Release_Q 1-2009.pdf 19

19 Nanya Mot. to Sever, Aug. 1, 2008, Dkt. No. 2006 15

20 Rambuss Motion in Limine No. 12, Dec. 3, 2008, Dkt. No . 2713 14

21Samsung Mot. for Separate Trials, Aug. 1, 2008, Dkt. N o. 2 01 6 15

22

23

24

25

26

2728

RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES-- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



6/28

1 I. IN T RO DU C TI O N

2 R am bu s shares the M anu f actu re rs stated obj ect iv e of st re am linin g the trial and focus ing it

3 on the fac tual issu es th at are a m att e r o f actual dispu te. There are, R am b us believes , p ro per and

4 rel ia ble way s of str uc t u rin g the tria l to ac hi ev e th a t o b jec tive m et ho ds g ro un ded in the

5 fr ame w or k o f ou r adv er sa ry sys tem, the limit a tion s o fju st ici ab ili ty and the practical re q uir em ent s

6 o f appe llate rev iew, and tha t al so a re con sis tent wit h due proc ess . Bu t the Manufacturers no vel

7 trial pr op o sa l veers from these e st ab lis he d m et h ods and co nt ra ve ne s the ir un de rly in g pr in ci pl es

8 and structu res. The M anu fa ctu rers p ro po sa l w ou ld gamble the reso u rce s o f the Cour t and the

9 p ar tie s on irreg u lar p ro ce du re s w it ho ut any co nc re te b en ef it in th e wa y of efficien cy, and w it h the

10 ca lc ula ted effec t of unfa ir ly res tr ict in g R am bus from pr es en tin g its ev id en ce to the jury

11 Any eff or t to pare inf ri nge m en t from th is case m us t satisfy fo ur pr i ncip le s. j , it m u st

12 resolve the fact u al issue o f infr in ge m en t in a m an ner tha t will su ppo rt a v a lid judg men t h av in g th e

13 same force and effect as one en ter ed af te r t ri al or u po n su m m ar y ju dgm ent. Second, it m us t

14 p ro vid e the F ede ra l Ci rc ui t w ith an ad eq uate rec o rd up on w hi ch to rev iew th is Cou rts claim

15 co ns tru ct io n ru li ng and the con ce ss io n of inf ri ng em ent . This me an s th at the r eco r d should

16 co n tai n suf fi cie nt facts to all ow the Fe dera l C ir cu it to de term ine the iss ue of inf r in ge m en t, if

17 appro p ria te , e ve n if th is Cou rts c la im c on s truc tion is m o di fie d . F ai lu re to satisfy this pri nc ip le

18 wo u ld u nn ec es sa ril y ris k ti m e-c o nsu m in g pr oc ee din g s on remand. Thi rd, the jur y must be

19 ad vise d th at the M anu fa ct ur er s have in fr ing ed. Th at in st ru ct ion is prop er an d necessary , b ot h

20 beca use R am bu s is en ti tle d to argue in fring e me n t in co nn ec ti on w ith its seco ndary co nsi de ra tio n s

21 proofs, and bec aus e the ju ry will other w ise be left qu es t io ni ng why it is bei ng asked to d ecid e th e

22 val id ity o f R amb u ss patents. Fourth , the trial on the rem aini ng is su es da m ag es and the

23 aff irm ativ e de fe ns e of in val id ity sh o uld be st ru ct ur ed so as to pro tect Ra m bu s s right, as th e

24 p lain tiff and p at en th ol de r, to pre se nt firs t its ev id en ce and its ar g um ent to the ju ry .

25 A st re am li ne d trial, st ruc tu re d in accor dan c e w ith thes e ba sic prin ci pl es , wo u l d t ak e the

26 following, fa mi lia r form:

27 The M anu fa ct ure rs w o uld con ced e in fri n gem ent , as a m a tter o f fact, unde r this C o urt s

28 claim con s truc ti on , or they w ould en te r into w ith R am bus a st ip ula te d o rd er of

1 RA M BU S I N C S BRIE F ON TRIA L P RO C ED URE S-- CV 05-02 2 98 R M W ; C 05-3 34 RMW , C -0 6 -24 4 RM W



7/28

1 inf r in ge m en t a lon g t ho se lines. The M anu fa ct ur er s wo u ld pre se rv e the ir righ t to app eal

2 the C ou rt s cla im con str u ctio n order and th e C ou rts g ra n t o f pa rtial summary ju dgm ent

3 for Ram bus . B ecau se a full re co rd is essential to any ap p ea l, and bec aus e the current

4 su m m ar y judg men t reco rd on inf ri ng em en t is ina de qu at e, at le as t in part, the con ce ss ion s

5 or st ip ula ti on wo u ld in clu d e the facts and ev id en ce n ec es sa ry to su pp or t the claim

6 co ns tru ct io n an d the judg m en t of infringement. Th e mo st effi ci en t w ay to create th is

7 fac tual re cord w ou ld be thr ou g h an of fer of proof, w hic h w oul d prov ide the Federal

8 C ir cu it w ith ne arly the same evide nce to rev iew as it wo ul d have if inf r in ge m en t w ere

9 tried to the jur y. Th e pa rties also would st ipu la te th a t th e judg men t of in fri n gem ent w o uld

10 have the same force and effect, in cl ud in g for re s ju di ca ta and col lateral estoppe l p urp o ses ,

11 as a jud g me n t ente re d a ft e r trial or up on sum m ary ju d gm e nt.

12 At trial, the ju ry w ou ld be told, in str a igh tf orw ard fash ion , th at th ey need n ot de cide

13 in fri ng em ent becau se the M anu fa ctu rers ha ve co nc ede d tha t issue. Th is in st ru ct ion w o uld

14 pr ov id e the p ro of nec e ssa ry to establ ish cer ta in o f the im p or tan t second ary con si de ra tio ns .

15 T his p ro of ot her w ise w o uld be pr es en te d to the ju ry du rin g the tri al o f the infr in gem ent

16 issue, but if tha t issue is ta k en from the jur y , an app ro pr iat e and ef fec ti ve ly equ iv al en t

17 ins tr uc tio n m u st rep l ace it.

18 Since Ra m bu s m us t still bea r the bu rd en of p ro of on da ma g es an issue tha t ov e rlap s

19 su bsta nt ial ly w ith va lid it y iss ue s R am bus w ou ld pr ove its case first, as any p la in tif f

20 o rdin arily w o uld in a civ il trial .

21 W ha t the M anu fa ctu re rs ha ve offered is an animal of an al to ge th er different stripe. Ra ther

22 th an ha v ing inf ri ng em ent d ete rm ine d on a full factua l re cord , the y seek to pro cee d to jud gm ent on

23 a re co rd that lacks suf fi cie nt ev id en ti ary support. R ath e r th an h ee di ng the Federal C irc u its

24 ca u tio n abou t en su ri ng an ade q ua te ap p e lla te reco rd, the M a nuf actu re rs cit in g no legal

25 autho ri ty re je cte d R am bu s s pr op o sa l to stipu late to a suff ic ien t factual re co rd on the ve ry is su es

26

27The Manufacturers su g ge sti on th at the summary judgm ent p ape rs p ro vid e such a factual b asis

is incorrect. For exa m ple , R am bu s did n ot seek sum m ar y jud g me n t o f inf ri ng em en t on all o f the28 cla ims in dispute, and thus th er e is no summary jud gme nt rec or d w ha tso eve r as to those c la im s.

2RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES-

- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



8/28

1 they pur po rt ed ly do not c on te st . And , rath er tha n in fo rm in g th e jur y o f w ha t would be a

2 conc eded fact that is both re le va nt to the va li dity issues join ed for tri a l an d essential to an

3 o bj ec t iv e un de rs tan ding of th is case, the M an uf ac tur er s seek to con ce al any in fr in ge m en t

4 de te rm in at ion from the ju ry.

5 If these were not en ough , there are still mo re an om a li es . W it h in fr in ge m en t off the table,

6 the M an u fac ture rs cl ai m e d need fo r b ifu rc ate d and se ria ti m t ria ls wo ul d no lo ng er obtain. The

7 ris k o f p re jud ic e o r co nf us io n t ha t the M an uf ac tu rer s have b een argu in g w oul d arise if th ere is a

8 jo int in fr ing em ent trial w ou ld eva porate. At th e sam e tim e, the de v elo p me n t of the

9 M anu fa ctu rers c om m on da m ag e s th eor i es since th e se v era n ce he ar in gs in Se p tem ber shows th at

10 even if in fri ng em ent r em ain s in the case there is no re as on to bif ur ca te dam age s from lia bi l it y.

11 M uc h o f the same evid en ce tha t w ill be in tr od uc ed on da m ag es w il l also be in tro du ce d in

12 con ne ct ion w ith the va li dit y issues . The sim p le st an d be st w ay to pr om o te efficiency, espe c ial ly

13 if in fri ng em ent is con ce ded , w ou ld be to try these iss ues tog e the r in th e or din ary course, w ith th e

14 p la in tif f going first. Instead, ho w ev e r, the M anu fact u rers w an t to us urp R am bu s s role as

15 pl ai nti ff , dictate the orde r o f issu e s and proof, and in th e p roce ss deny R am b us access to ke y

16 w it ne ss es on invalidity. The only cou nt er va ili ng ju stif icati o n th e M an uf act ur er s o ff er is that f the

17 M anu fa ctu re rs pr ev a il o n in vali d ity wi th resp ect to every as se rte d c lai m a resu l t that the ir

18 pr op os al is de s ign e d to adv an ce th en damages w ill be mo oted . On to p of this, the

19 M an uf ac tu re rs seek to force R am b u s inv ol un ta ril y to try th e M an u fac t ur ers invalidity case

20 aga in st the defe n dan t of their ch oo si ng , Micron, ev en thou g h it w o ul d deny R am bu s access to

21 critical witnesses. E ff ic ien cy, indeed .

22 The courts have ste ad fa stl y rej ec te d such ef for t s to sta ck the deck ag a ins t pl ain ti ffs , an d

23 the rea so ns for the ir s ke p tic ism apply with full fo rce to th e M anu fa ct ure rs proposal :

24 [R jes tric ti ng pla in tif f to a sterile co nc es si on and the rig h t to litigate two

25partic u lar iz ed q ue sti o ns wo u ld seriously d is ad va nt ag e h er at trial (as sk il led

262 The M anu fa ctu rers ignore the issue, first ra is ed wi th the C ou rt at the hea ri ng on D ec em b er 19,200 8, and again in the D ec e mb er 24 m ee t-an d -co nfer , tha t the Fe deral Ci rc ui t should be pr ovid ed

27with a full factual re co rd on w h ic h to re vie w thei r inf ri nge m en t co nc es si on , including to ena bletha t Cour t to affirm the de te rm in ati on of in fr in ge m en t in the ev ent this Cou rts claim con stru c tion

28 ord er is mod ified.

1 R AM B US IN C.S B R IEF ON TR IAL P R OC ED U RE S-- CV 05 -0 22 98 RM W ; C 05-3 34 RM W ; C- 06 -2 4 4 RM W



9/28


10/28


11/28

C 5 05 00334 RMW D t 3012 Fil d 01/05/2009 P g 12 f 28


12/28

I Amendment requires submission to a jury of all factual raised by legal claims, barring court

2 determination of issues common to legal and equitable claims). A t th e same time, the

3 Manufacturers appear to contemplate that the purported judgment would not give rise to res

4 jud ic ata consequences, as would a judgment entered after a full trial. (Letter at 4.) Bu t even a5 stipulated judgment ordinarily ha s claim preclusive effect. See Foster v. Hailco Mfg Co., 947

6 F.2d 469 , 47 6 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ([C]laim preclusion[] applies whether the judgment of the court is

7 rendered after trial and imposed by the court or the judgment is entered upon the consent of the

8 parties.). Th e Manufacturers seem to think that the judgment they propose will not, because

9 they indicate that they will only dismiss their counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-

10 infringement without prejudice. (Letter a t 4 .) There is n o precedent for such a non-binding

11 judgment as envisioned by the Manufacturers.

12 A more robust concession is also necessary to provide the Federal Circuit the appellate

13 record it prefers when reviewing infringement determinations and related claim construction

14 issues. In Ja n g v. Boston Scientfic Corp., 532 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Cour trefused to

15 review a jointly-stipulated order of non-infringement. While ajudgment entered based on a

16 stipulation of the parties may in appropriate circumstances be reviewed on appeal,the Federal

17 Circuit ha s shown a willingness to remand i f [t]he lack of information concerning infringement

18 makes it difficult to comprehend the claim construction issues. Id. at 1338. Th e Court explained

19 that, on the record before it, there was no explanation in the stipulation as to w hy th e accused

20 products would not infringe under the district courts claim construction or why they would

21 infringe under the alternative claim constructions offered by [the patentee], and therefore there

22 wa s inadequate context for deciding the claim construction issue. Id. Accordingly, the Court

23 remanded for clarification. Id.; see also Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Mgmt., LLC, 445

24 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (Without knowledge of the accused products, this court cannot

25 assess the accuracy of the infringement judgment under review and lacks a proper context for an

26 accurate claim construction.); Massachusetts Inst. o f Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344,

27 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (similar).

28 Fo r this reason, the preferred practice, demonstrated in Altris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318

7RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES

- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



13/28



14/28

1 D D R products. But the co lla te ra l es t opp e l c ons eq ue nc es o f th e Manu facturers no -c on te st

2 judgm ent are murky at b es t, and nee d to be cl ar ifi ed by inc lu di ng a st ip ula ti on that the judg men t

3 will carry the pr ec lus ion c ons eque n ce s of a fu lly -a dj ud ic at ed ju dgm ent.

4 Rambus is w il lin g to ac ce pt a true co nces sion o f inf rin g em ent. But Rambus canno t, a nd5 th is C our t should not, ac ce p t th e M anu fa ct ure rs ste ri le and legally and pr oc ed u ral ly im pr op er

6 no contest approach. The re sult of the Manufacturers p rop o sa l can only be a n o n- jud g me n t

7 o f inf rin ge m en t.

8 B. If th e M a nuf a ctu rers Pr o per ly Co n ce de Inf rin ge m en t, the C o urt S ho u ldIn stru ct th e Jur y o n Infr inge men t , and R a mb u s M ust be Pe rmi tt ed to A rgue

9 Inf rin g em en t to the J ur y

10 A sse rti ng tha t [ i]nfr inge m en t is simply not rele va n t to th e v al idi ty de te rm in at ion , th e

11 M an uf ac tu re rs argue th at [t]h e ju ry ne ed n ot be tol d, a nd sh ou ld n ot be told, du ring its

12 d eter m ina tion of v ali di ty th at the M an uf ac tu rer s are not co nt es tin g in fr in ge m en t. (L e tter at 4.)

13 It is suf f ic ien t, in th eir view , if th e jur y is to ld tha t it is only b eing asked to determine the v alid ity

14 of th e c laim s at issue. (Id.) An in st ru cti on dir ec t in g the ju ry to ass u me in frin gem ent (id.)

15 w oul d not even be cor rec t on the cu rr en t record , as thi s Co u rt a lrea d y has fou nd in fri n gem ent as a

16 mat ter o f law on on e of R am b us s claims. B u t the pr op os ed in stru c tio n suffe rs from a m ore

17 fu nd am ent al defect, for it is flatly w ro ng in as sum in g th at in frin ge me n t is irr ele v ant to in vali di ty .

18 The la w is cl ea r th at inf ri nge m en t is cr itic ally rele van t to se co nd ar y con siderations. Fu rthe rmo re ,

19 ta ki ng in fri ng em ent away from the jur y wi th ou t some e x pla n atio n o f why it is not at issue w ill

20 con fus e t he jur y and p rej u dic e R amb u s, as the Third C ir cu i t rec og ni ze d in In re D ie t D ru g s. In

21 thi s respect , th e M anu fa ct ure rs pos ition makes c le ar th at th ey do n ot wa nt Ram bus to be in as

22 good a po si tio n as it w ou ld be if inf ri ng em ent we re tried: in th at event, R amb u s wou ld b e a ble to

23 argue inf rin ge m en t to the ju ry and , if the jury found in fr ing eme nt, it would be en titled to ap ply

24 those p art ic ula ri ze d fin din g s to its de te rm in at io n on v alidi ty , including, pa rtic ul arl y, its wei ghin g

25 of second ary cons i dera ti on s o f n on -o b vi ou sn es s.

26 E vi de nc e o f the M an uf ac tu re rs inf r in ge m en t is re leva n t to at least three o f the sec o nda ry

27 con side ratio n s of n on -o bv io us ne ss : copying, co m m ercia l su c cess , an d industry acc ep ta nc e.

28 A lt ho u gh inf ri ng em en t, st and i n g alone , do es not prove cop yi ng , se e I ron G ri p B arbe ll Co., Inc. v.

RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES-CV 05 -02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW

Case 5:05 cv 00334 RMW Document 3012 Filed 01/05/2009 Page 14 of 28



15/28

1 USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004), it proves one element: utilization of the

2 invention. Th e connection to commercial success is even more pronounced. Infringement,

3 especially where there is a nexus between the infringed invention and a products success, is

4 potent evidence of commercial success. See, e.g., de Graffenriedv.

United States, 20 C1.Ct. 458,5 474-75 (1990) (finding adequate evidence of commercial success where the sole alleged

6 commercial success of the controller patent [was] the alleged infringement of the patent by the

7 defendant). And, the fact that nearly 100% of the DRAMs sold today, and for many years prior,

8 infringe Rambuss patents, an d that ne w designs of DRAMs continued to use Rambuss patented

9 inventions and , a t various times, to use more of Rambuss inventions that had been used in earlier

10 designs, is compelling evidence of industry acceptance. Bu t the ke y fact an d the fact that the

11 Manufacturers seek to avoid an d obscure is that all of these DRAMs do in fact infringe. In

12 order to appreciate the significance of the industrys acceptance of Rambuss inventions,the jury

13 must understand that these market-dominating products infringe and that the products were

14 designed and manufactured knowing that they infringed. That evidence shows that the industry

15 no t only accepted these inventions, bu t d id so appreciating that they were infringing on Rambuss

16 patents. Despi te thepurported existence of numerous alternatives, the Manufacturers chose

17 Rambuss inventions, and did so repeatedly. What stronger evidence could there be o f industry

18 acceptance than repeated and knowing infringement?

19 To the extent the Manufacturers attempt to show, and are permitted to argue, that

20 Rambuss revenues are inconsistent with commercial success, the Manufacturers unlicensed use

21 of Rambuss inventions explain why Rambuss revenues were not higher, despite its

22 revolutionary technology: namely, that technology was taken without permission and without

23 compensation. Because telling the jury that the accused devices practice the claims at issue

24 would highlight,rather than explain, Rambuss lack of revenues from the products, that

25 instruction is not sufficient to permit Rambus to press its legitimate commercial success

26 argument. Further, the fact of infringement, as opposed to mere utilization, explains why there

27 was no t wider industry acclamation of the inventions: the Manufacturers, dominant players in the

28 industry, had an incentive to downplay and discredit Rambuss technology in order to distract

1 RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURE5- . - CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW

g



16/28

1 from the fact that they were using it unlawfully and in order to undermine and devalue the patents

2 they would no t pa y to license.

3 Th e Manufacturers suggested jury instruction would also deny the jury a basic

4 understanding of the reality of how Rambuss inventions were received and treated in the DRAM5 industry. A trial is more than a matter of presenting a series of individual factquestions in arid

6 fashion to a jury. In re Diet Drugs, 369 F.3d a t 314 . The jury properly weighs fact questions in

7 the context of a coherent picture of th e w ay th eworld works. Id. The Manufacturers approach

8 not only would withhold from the jury a coherent picture of how the DRAM industry operated,

9 bu t it also would create vacuums in Rambuss evidence that might l ead to jurors assuming,

10 erroneously, that Rambus is unable to prove infringement. A s th e Third Circuit explained, a

11 sterile concession, coupled with [t]he absence of proof that would normally be expected may

12 cause the jury to draw unwarranted inferences. 369 F.3d a t 315 . Here, the sterile concession

13 proposed by the Manufacturers might lead thejury to wonder why a company with such a popular

14 and revolutionary technology could not show commercial success in the simplest of ways:

15 revenue and licenses. Th e jury might be confused as to why Rambus would permit companies to

16 use its inventions without securing a l icense andcharging them royalties if Rambus truly believed

17 the inventions were worthwhile. Thus, as in In re Diet Drugs, [i]n this case, the proposed

18 concession by [defendant] would ... raise a substantial possibility that one or more jurors would

19 be influenced by the lack of evidence and the lack of explanation. Id. (quotation marks omitted).

20 And members of the jury are likely to know that on e of the key issues in every patent

21 infringement trial is infringement, and to wonder and speculate on why that issue is not being

22 presented.

23 If the Manufacturers provide a stipulation or concession of infringement sufficient to

24 obviate a trial, the Court should instruct the jury that they need not decide infringement because

25 the Manufacturers have already conceded it. In In re Air Crash Disaster Near Chicago, ill ., On

26 May 25, 1979, 803 F.2d 304 (7th Cir. 1986), the Seventh Circuit rejected a defendants argument

27 that because it had stipulated to liability, the i ssue was off the table and shouldnot have been the

28 subject of a jury instruction:

11 RAMBUS IN C. S B R IEF O N TRIAL PROCEDURES- 1- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW

g


17/28


18/28



19/28

1 M an ufa c tur er s p ro p os a l is th at th is e v ide nce wou ld be p res en ted or argued to the ju ry at least

2 twice , and po ss i bl y eve n mo re often if the Man ufac turers re q ues t fo r seriatim da mag e trials w ere

3 to be granted. Such redu n da n cy w ou l d be n eit her e ffic ie nt n or str ai gh tfo rw ard for the ju ry .

4 The M an uf ac tur ers pr op osal tha t damages w ou ld be tr ied on a co m pa ny -b y- co m pa ny

5 ba si s w o ul d be similarly ine ffi ci en t, part ic ul arl y in light of th e co mm o na li tie s cu tting across ea ch

6 side s da m ag es con te nti o ns . Alt h oug h the Cou rt h ad ex pr es se d a te nta ti ve view in favo r of suc h a

7 p ro cedu re at the S ep te m be r 24, 2008 severance he arin g (R T 30), sub se qu en t d ev elo p me n t of th e

8 parties dam age s th eor i es no w m ak es c le ar tha t the fair es t and m os t effic ien t p roce d ure will be to

9 try all th e d am age s issues as one. Ram bus s damages case ag ain st all the M a nufa c tur er s is ba se d

10 on th e an a lys is o f Dr. Teece. H e us es the same an alytic fr am ew or k, as set forth in G eo rgia

11 Pac ,fIc v. US. Ply w oo d C or p. , 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N .Y. 1970), in the same way , as to eac h

12 M anu fa ctu re r, and co n clu d es that th e sam e re as on ab le ro y alty rate o f 7% should apply to ea ch

13 M an uf ac tu re rs inf ri ng in g D D R 2+ pr od ucts. S imi l a r o ve rla p also ma rk s the M anufacturers

14 da ma ge s con t en tio n s, ev en tho u gh th ey hav e reta in ed di ffe re nt dam age s ex perts. (See R amb u ss

15 M otio n in Limine No. 12, Dec. 3, 2008, Dkt. No. 271 3.) A ll the M an ufac tu re rs are in the sam e

16 in du st ry and ma k e the same sta nd ar di ze d p ro du ct s; th e sha red ec on om ic con d itio ns that affec te d

17 the D RA M in dus t ry and its pro d uct s form a si gn ifi can t pa rt of eac h M an uf ac tur er s d ama g es

18 ana lysis. Sp ecifically , th e op in io ns and ex pec t ed te st im on y of the Manufacturers se pa ra te

19 da m ag es ex perts ove rlap ex te nsi ve ly , and in at least th e fol lo wi ng respects :

20 T ha t each co nt en ds tha t th e as se rt ed p at en t claims form a subset of R am bus s b ro ad

21 p ate nt p or tf olio ;

22 T hat each relies on R am b us s h ist o ric al li ce ns in g pra c tic e s w it h reg ar d to SD RAM and

23 D D R SD RAM;

24 Th at each rel ies on Ram bus s h isto ri ca l lice n sin g p rac tices w ith r ega r d to R D R AM ;

25 That each relie s on the amo u nt o f ro ya l ti es R am b us h as re ce iv ed und er its SD R AM and

26 DD R SDRAM licenses;

27 That each co nte nds th ere is red u ced value from a US -o nl y li cen se and that this re du ce d

28 valu e should be ref le cte d in the h yp othe ti ca l neg o tia ti on as com p are d to R am b us s

1 A R A M B US INC .S B R IE F ON TR IAL PR O C ED U R E S-- CV 05-0 229 8 RMW ; C 05 -3 34 R M W ; C -0 6- 24 4 R M W


20/28



21/28

1 which p at en ts an d th ey w o ul d simp ly b e asked to d eter m ine the ro yalt y rates ap pli ca ble to a set

2 o f pr ed o mi na nt ly in du str y- st an da rd pr odu c ts, su bje ct to com m o n econ omic co nd iti ons and

3 industry trends, a nd sub je ct to th e same Ge o rgi a -Pa c ific framework.

4 If theM a nuf actu re rs o ff er a p ro per and le ga l ly suf fic ie nt conc e ssio n o f in fri n gem en t , th en

5 the ef f ic ien cy c on ce rn s th at the y to ut would we ig h in fav or of m aint ai ni ng the na tu ral

6 con so lid at io n of the re m ain ing issues for a single tr ia l, no t the inv ers i o n o f tr ial order they

7 propose. R at he r tha n fo rc ing th e p ar tie s to p res ent th eir evide nce, and the jur y to w eig h tha t

8 evidence , m u lti ple ti m es , the Co urt shou ld o rder th at v ali di ty and damages be tr ied to geth er .

9 2. In Any Ev en t R amb us S ho u ld Ar gue Fi rs t

10 W het h er v ali d ity and d ama ges are tried tog ethe r o r separately, Rambus shou ld be11 p er mi tte d to p rese nt its case first.

12 A plai nt iff, be ar in g the bu rd en o f proof, trad it ion a lly has the rig ht to pr e sen t its evi den c e

13 and arg um ent first. O rd in ari ly the orde r of p rese ntat ion at tria l re qui r es p la in tif fs to p re sen t th eir

14 cases first, fol lo we d by the d ef en da nt s (i nc lu di ng th e p rese n tat io n o f any aff irm ativ e de fe ns e s),

15 and co n clu d ed by th e pl ai nti ff s reb ut tal . Jo hnso n v. Mo rtha m , 915 F. Supp. 1574, 1581 (N.D.

16 Fla. 1996 ) ( thre e-ju d ge panel ). Indeed, bu t fo r th e M anufa ct ure rs prop o sa l to n ot co n tes t

17 in fri n gem ent , the re w o uld be no qu es t io n bu t th at th is w o ul d be the way in w hi ch the trial w o uld

18 proceed . E v en if the M an u fac ture rs were to m ak e a leg all y pro p er con ce ss io n of inf rin ge m en t,

19 there wo uld be no reaso n to de pa rt from the lo ngs tand ing pr ac tic e , w hi ch fl o ws d ire ct ly fro m the

20 str uc t u re of ou r adv ersa ry system. Rambus is the p la in tif f here. It w ou ld still b ear the bu rden on

21 damages. The ev id en ce it wo ul d introduce on tha t k ey iss ue o v erl ap s wi th th e inv ali di ty d efe nse s

22 tha t the M anu fa ct ur er s se ek to use as a fu lcru m fo r le v era g ing a fav or ab le ord er of p roo f .

23 A do pting the M an uf ac tu rer s o rde r of p roo f, in con tr as t, wou ld seriously pr ej ud ic e

24

256 The M an u fac tu re rs arg ue th at if dam ages an d v alid ity are tr ie d separately, damages sho ul d betried second. (L e tter at 8.) R amb u s not es that re ve rs e- bif ur ca tio n , in w hic h da m ag e s are tri e d

26 f irst, is no t un com m on in co mp le x m ult ip art y li tig at io n. See Angelov. A rm stro n g World Indus.,

Inc., 11 F.3d 957, 964-65 (10th Cir. 1993); Gr eenl eafv . Garlock , Inc., 174 F.3 d 352 (3d Cir.

27 1999). Indeed, in mos t p ate n t cases, as in Hynix I, th e p la int if fs ev ide n ce of da m age s is

p re se nte d alon g w ith its inf rin g em en t case and b ef or e ev ide n ce of invalidity is offered by the28 defendant.

1 RAMBUS [NCS BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES-- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



22/28

1 R am bu ss abi li ty to p re se nt its case. The M anu fact ur ers might take the po si tio n th a t the y ne ed

2 not make the ir wi tn ess es ava i la ble for live te st im on y un til such tim e as they n ee d t h ose w it ne ss es ,

3 say to tes tif y to da m ag es or w illfu lnes s. The eff ec t of a b ifu rc ate d trial in w hi ch inv a lidi ty w er e

4 lit iga te d fir st w ould be

todeny Rambus access to key w itne ss es on that issue. This is becau se

5 m an y o f the com pan y wit n ess es who the M an u fac tu rer s hav e identified as w itn es se s they wi ll o r

6 may call are a ls o w itn esse s R amb us will or may call to give rele v an t tes ti mo n y on se co n dar y

7 co ns id er ati on s, am on g ot he r topics. These in clu d e G rah am Allan, D S . Chu ng, Jo n Kang, J.B.

8 Lee, Jae Park, G il be rt R u sse ll , B ria n Shirley, D av id Ta ylor, and Steve Wang .

9 Ra m bu s in te nd s to call, and should be en ti tle d to call, the M an uf ac tu rer s wi tn es se s sl at ed

10 to oth er w ise tes tify live. Yet, if the trial is div id ed into separate p ha ses , the M an u fa ctu re rs m a y

11 h ol d b ack th eir w itn es se s until after R am b us has h ad to re st its case on cer tai n issues , such as

12 sec ond ar y con si de ra tio ns , and th us eff ec tiv e ly bar R am b us from calling them. A v al idi ty -fi rs t

13 trial wo u ld th er ef or e e ff ec tiv el y u nd er cu t Ra m bu ss ab ili ty to prov e up se co nd ar y cons id er at ion s

14 and defen d the va li di ty o f its patents. A t the same time, b ecau se th e M an ufac ture rs w itne ss li st

15 inc lu de s m o stl y R amb us wi tn es se s, t he M anuf actu re rs w o uld ha v e th e adv an ta ge of ex am inin g

16 R am bus s w itn es se s be fore Ra m bu s it se lf does.

17 D. M icron C an no t Be P e rmi t ted to Sta n d in fo r th e Oth e r Ma n ufa c ture rs Un d er

18the C on di ti on s Pr opos ed b y the M an u fac tu rer s

The M a n ufa c tur er s u npr ec ed en te d r e que s t to ha ve Micron, and M ic ron alon e, sit as19

de fe nd ant in the p rop o se d b if ur ca ted va li dit y tria l m ust be denied. As a thr es ho ld matter, M icron20

pl ain ly can no t stand in fo r Hynix and Samsung if d am ag es are tried w it h v al idi ty , as R am b us21

sug gests th ey should. Bu t even if va lidit y we re tri ed on its own, there is simply nopre cede n t for

22fo rc ing a p la in tif f to tr y its case aga ins t only one of several di st inc t defen dant s. Do ing so w o uld

23po te nti al ly deny R amb us access to critical wi tn es se s and d is tor t the tria l n arr at ive in th e

24Manufacturers favor. M o reo v er, the prop osa l , if adop ted, w ou ld neg a te the effi c ien cy the C ou rt

25sough t to re a lize by or de ri ng a con so lid a ted trial. B ec ause N an ya ha s not joi n ed in the p ropo sal,

26the Court w o uld still need to sepa rately try Na n ya s in va li di t y claims in the fu ture, eve n thou gh

27all the M an uf ac t u rer s, inc lu din g N any a , m ak e th e same in va li dity con te nt io ns and share the sa me

28

1 7 RAM BU S I NC. S BRI EF O N TR IA L PR OC EDU RE S-- CV 05-0 2298 RM W ; C 05 -33 4 R MW ; C-0 6 -24 4 R MW

_ __ __ _ __ __ __ _ __ __ __



23/28

1 inv a lid it y ex pert. Even as to the M an ufa ct ure rs who jo ined in the pro p osa l, the prop osed M icron-

2 only trial pr esen ts si gn ifi ca nt p ra c tica l ri sks , in c lud in g the po ss ib ili ty of restar ti ng the tria l from

3 scratch if M ic ro n settles wi th R am b us or de cl are s ban krup tcy, or if the res u lts of thi s case were to

4 beimpacted, as they con ce iva b ly m ig ht be fo r M icr on bu t n ot for th e o th er defendants , by the

5 ru lin g s from the M icr o n sp ol ia tio n trial th at wa s co nd ucte d in the Di s tric t o f Delaware a ct io n.

6 Fo r at le as t th es e r eas o ns , the M an u fac tu re rs su gg es tio n o f tria l b y p roxy m us t be denied.

7 The M an u fa ctu re rs have c it ed no auth o rit y fo r the p rop o siti o n th a t R amb u s can be for ce d

8 to try the va lidit y case aga in st only Micron. To be sure, parties can stip ul ate to such a course

9 w he n they ag ree th at it is a fair and eq ui tab le wa y o f tr yi ng a case; b u t a group of defe n da nt s

10 cannot, ove r pla inti ff s object ion, sele ct a p rox y to stand in the ir ste ad and th ere b y exc use11 th em se lv es from app ea ri ng in th e tri a l. E x cu sin g the other M an ufa c ture rs also wou ld com p lic a te

12 Ra.mbuss ac ce ss to im por ta nt wi tn es se s, e ff ect iv ely pe rm itt in g the M anu fa ctu re rs , again , to sei ze

13 control of R am bu s s case. A tr ial ag ain s t on ly Micron , and n ot its la rge r co -d ef en da nts, w ou ld

14 d isto rt the jur y s im pr es sio n of th e sec on da ry co ns id era ti on s in a case w her e ma n y of the gr ea tes t

15 users o f Ra m bu s s te ch n olo g y are th e same p ar tie s seeking to in va li da te R am b us s patents.

16 Te lling ly, the M an uf ac tu rer s do not e x pla in ho w thi s p rop osa l wo u ld fu rthe r ju dici a l eco nom y or

17 co nv en ie nc e. The only ap pa re nt p ur po se o f the p rop o sal is to ske w th e p roc ee din g s to make it

18 more di ffi cu lt fo r R am bus to pre sent th e facts in the ma nn er of its cho o sing .

19 The p ro p os al also is im pr ud en t be ca use it could h in de r eff icien t re solu ti on o f this case in

20 m ult ip le ways. With only M ic ro n in the t ri al, R am b us would be pr even ted from reac hing a

21 se t tl em en t w it h M ic ron un less it w ishe d to start th e trial over from scr atc h as to the other

22 M anu fa ctu rers . R esta rt ing th e trial m ig ht pr o ve n ec es sa r y, r eg ardl es s, if M icro n goes ba n kru p t

23 and is una bl e to proc eed. Given tha t M icr on s lo sse s in th e last qu arter ap pa re nt ly were

24

A pp e llate rev ie w also m igh t be im p ac te d by M icr on s un ique sta n din g o r license de fen s e25 that w ou ld pr ev en t a final jud g me n t from bei ng affirmed as to H yn ix, Samsu ng and N an y a if

26M ic ro n w ere to succeed in som e fas hi on on th is uniqu e defense.8 F or exa m ple , Hynix an d Samsung has eac h as se rte d invalidity co un te rcl a im s against R am b us s

27 patents. Th ey, no less so than Micron, bea r the b ur de n o f de m on st ra tin g the ir e n titl em ent to th e

de c lara tory ju d gm ent of in va lid it y th at th ey seek. As a m at te r o f bas ic fai rne ss, Ra m bu s sho u ld28 be pe rm itt ed to try the inv alidity co u nte rclai m s aga in st each p ar ty th at has asse rte d t hem.


- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW



24/28

1 sub stan ti ally more than 50% o f its rem ainin g cash res er ve s, the re is a palp able risk that exactly

2 such a sc ena r io m igh t soon occur. The C ou rt w ou l d then be fo rced to start all over, with no th in g

3 gaine d and m u ch time, money, and ju dic ial re sou r ces wasted. Finally, a rul in g could issue from

4 the D elaw are D ist ri ct Court tha t mi gh t a lt er the trial dyn am ic as be twe e n M icr on and Rambus,

5 bu t no t w it h resp ect to the o ther p arti es. This, too, mi g ht n ece ssita te a n ew trial. And, Microns

6 u n iqu e s ta nd in g d efe nse , on the ba sis of w h ich M icro n conte n ds it is li ce ns ed and therefore is

7 not an inf r in ge r, m ig ht re su lt in an out co m e, pe rhap s on appeal, th at wo u ld be unique to Micron.

8 And, w it h co mp le te ce rt ain ty , the p ro po sa l adv o cat ed by the Ma n ufa c tur e rs would mean two

9 ne ar ly id en ti cal tr ia ls b ecau se Nan ya wants to be tri ed se pa ra te ly on all the iss ue s the com m o n

10 iss ue s tha t are cur re nt ly sch edu le d fo r a com m on trial. R athe r th an p rom o tin g efficiency, th at11 asp ect o f th e M an uf ac tu re rs pr op os al en su re s th a t one trial will be re p lac ed w ith two. A

12 pro c eed ing w ith just M ic ro n as the pro x y for Hy n ix and S am su n g and a separa te trial on the sa m e

13 is su e s with Nan ya ma k es no sense and w ould s u bje ct Ra m bu s to un ne ce ss ar y ex pe nse and w ou ld

14 in ap p rop riate ly re qu ir e it to face m u ltip le attacks on the v ali d ity of its patents.

15 B eca us e th ere is no legal b as is for forcing R am bu s to accep t the M ic ron -on l y trial, and

16 be ca use such a trial w oul d be both in effi ci en t and u nf ai r to R am b us , the Manufacturers pro p osa l

17 sh o u ld be denied.

18 il l. R AM BUS S C OU NTE R-P R OP OS A L AND ITS O TH E R E FFO RT S T OST R EA ML INE TRI AL

19In v iew o f the fo reg o ing p rinc ip les and disc us sio n , Ra m bu s re spec tf ul ly submits th at the

20cou nt er -p ro po sa l Rambus has m ade to the M anu fa ctu re rs p re se nt s a p rop er and fa ir way to

21

sti p ula te to in fr in ge me n t and try dam ag es and validi ty. The co unte r-pr op os a l inc lu de d the

22fol lo w in g elements:

231 . The Court w ou ld e nte r a final o rder de te rm in ing tha t v ar io us and sp e c ific a lly ide n tif ie d

24

25 See Lu Wang and Ian King, M ic ron Will Ne ed to Raise Money Soon, Wachovia Says (Dec. 29 ,2008), ava il ab le at

26 h ttp:/ /w w w .bl o om b erg .c om lapp s /ne w s?p id=2 0601 08 7& sid= azuV dPE u8 .kg&refer=home

( M icr on had ab ou t $1 bil lio n of cash and sho rt- te rm in v est m en ts at the end of N ov emb er and

27 debt o f $2.9 bi l li on . The co m pa ny repo rt ed a ne t loss o f $706 mi lli on in its m os t re cent qu ar ter , its

eighth m o ney -los ing qu ar ter in a ro w . ); M ic ro n P ress Release , Dec. 23, 2008, av a ilab le at28 h ttp ://do w nlo ad.m icr o n.co mlp d f/fi n anc ials/ R ele a se_ Q 1 -2009.pdf.

10 R AM B US INC.S BRIE F ON TRIA L PR OCE D UR ES

-- CV 05 -022 98 RM W ; C 05 -33 4 RM W ; C-0 6-24 4 RM W



25/28

1 products infringe the claims in suit, with the specification of which products infringe which

2 claims to be consistent with Mr. Murphys infringement report and Rambuss infringement

3 contentions. This order would be based on the Courts claim construction order, its Order of

4 November 24, 2008, the additional factual submission to be made by Rambus as described in

5 paragraph 4 below, and the Manufacturers statement that they will no longer contest

6 infringement. An appea l with regard to this finding of infringement could be taken to the extent

7 the finding depends upon the claim construction order, the November 24, 2008 Order, or both.

8 2. Th e Courts final order adjudicating infringement will h av e th e s ameforce and effect

9 as if it ha d been entered after a full t rial andjury verdict determining Rambuss infringement

10 claims in Rambuss favor and sha ll also compel a dismissal on the merits and with prejudice of11 the Manufacturers counterclaims for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. In other

12 words, the parties would agree, to eliminate any later dispute, that the order would have the same

13 res judicata and collateral estoppel effect as if it had been entered after a full t ri al on the issues, or

14 on summary judgment. This would mean, for instance, that it would extend to the S DR a nd DDR

15 products of Samsung andNanya that are accused in this case to the extent they incorporate the

16 same features a s are in DDR2+ and are found to infringe)

17 3. For purposes of an appeal f rom the f inal determination of infringement, the record that

18 wa s developed in connection with the summary judgment motions would be supplemented by Mr.

19 Murphys reports regarding infringement and such other evidence, including exhibits, designated

20 written discovery responses, an d designated prior testimony as Rambus may choose to submit as

21 part of an offer of proof. This will ensure a full evidentiary record for appellate review at least

22 approximately the same record that would be available to the Federal Circuit if the case were to

23 proceed to trial on infringement.

24 4. Th e trial would proceed with Rambus as the plaintiff and the first issue to be tried

25 would be damages. This is consistent with the trial protocol followed in Hynix I. Th e

26

2710 Th e patent claims to be adjudicated as infringed by these S DR a nd DDR parts w o uld b e the

same claims asserted against the DDR2+ products. Th e parties would need to reach agreement on28 which of these claims would be found to be infringed by which specific S DR a nd DDR products.

RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES-- CV 05 -02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW


26/28



27/28

1 Second, in the November 24, 2008 Order, the Court itself suggested ways in which the

2 parties might streamline the infringement case: The court anticipates that Nanya and Rambus

3 can reach a stipulation with respect to Nanyas DDR3 SDRAMs to prevent unnecessary issues

4 from having to be tried to the jury. (Order a t 25. ) Rambus has proposed such a stipulation to

5 Nanya on three occasions (December 4, 11, and 30, 2008) an d received no response until

6 December 31, 2008, when Nanya informed Rambus that it does not believe entering into such a

7 stipulation is necessary or appropriate in light of the Manufacturers pending no contest

8 proposal.

9 Third, Rambus has proposed, again on three occasions (December 3, 9, and 29, 2008), that

10 the parties stipulate that the claim limitations for which the Manufacturers non-infringement11 experts offer no opinion are infringed, thus obviating the need for Rambus to present evidence on

12 them at trial. Hynix responded on December 30, and Nanya responded on December 31, both

13 claiming, as Nanya did above, that such a stipulation is not necessary or appropriate under the

14 current circumstances, which, presumably, refers again to the Manufacturers pending no

15 contest proposal.

16 Th e Manufacturers focus on strategic considerations, and not efficiency, is further

17 reflected in trial time estimates proposed in connection with the parties joint pretrial statement to

18 be f iled on January 5, 2009. If their no contest proposal is rejected, the Manufacturers estimate

19 a total of 156-160 hours (53 days or 14 weeks) just to present their evidence, of which 108-112

20 hours would be to present just their evidence to the jury, 40 hours of which would be spent on

21 infringement (10 hours for each Manufacturer). This estimate is vastly inflated and wholly

22 unreasonable for several reasons, but particularly so in light of the Courts order requiring

23 common non-infringement issues to be addressed through a single non-infringement expert an d

24 the fac t that only common non-infringement issues remain to be tried.

25 Th e purported efficiencies to be gained b y t he Manufacturers no contest proposal

26 result, in large part, from their ow n actions up to this point in ignoring or refusing to agree to

27 Rambuss reasonable proposals to streamline the presentation of infringement evidence in the

28 upcoming trial. Th e great majority of the efficiencies the Manufacturers now claim to seek could

RAMBUS INC.S BRIEF ON TRIAL PROCEDURES-- CV 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RM W



28/28

1 have b een ach ie ve d , and still can be ac hie v ed , simp ly by req ui rin g the M an uf ac tu rer s to res olv e

2 the issues th e Court has a lrea dy id en ti fie d and dir ec ted the p ar tie s to resolve .

3 IV . C O N CL U S IO N

4 If w ha t the M an u fac tu rer s aim to acc o mp lish is to re m ov e i nf rin gem en t from the is su es

5 slated for trial, w hil e p ress in g the ir ch al len g e to the c la im c ons t ru ct io n, they shou ld s imply do

6 w h at o th er civil de fe nd an ts do: conced e in fri ng em ent , per mit the Co u rt to dev elop a th o ro ug h

7 rec o rd to p re se nt the inf ring e me n t and cla im c o ns tr uct io n iss ues on app eal , all ow the jury to be

8 in stru c ted on inf rin ge m en t, and th en p re se nt t heir in v alid ity ar gu m en ts on the merits. The

9 con cess io n ne ed n ot com p ro m ise the M an uf ac tu re rs rig h t to ap peal the c lai m cons t ru cti o n o rd er

10 or the p ar tia l gr an t of sum m ary ju dgm ent for R am b us . Then , in a tr ia l sans in fri nge men t ,

theb es t

11 way to p ro m ot e ef fic ie nc y w o uld be to m ai nta in th e n atu ra l c o ns o lida tion o f the re m ai nin g iss ue s

12 for a single trial. Ins t ead , the M an u fac tu re rs att emp t to radi c ally t ra ns fo rm civi l t rial stru c tur e

13 from the m ec h ani c s o f con c ed ing liability to th e ir p rop os al to select a p rox y d efen d an t in orde r

14 to gain a str ate gi c ad va nt ag e. T he re are no eff ic ien c ies from the Manufacturers p ro po sa l, o n ly

15 tac ti ca l adv a n tag es to the M an uf ac tu rer s.

16 Th is C ou rt s ho u ld reje c t P la in tif f s pr op os al and ad op t Ra m bu s s co u nte r- pro p os al fo r

17 con d u cti ng the trial. Ot h erw ise , a trial on all iss u es sho ul d simply pro ce ed in the tr ad iti on al

18 ma nner.

19DATED: Jan ua ry 5, 2009 M UN G E R , TOLLES & OLSON LLP

20 S IDL E Y A U ST iN LLPM cKO O L SMITH P. C.

21

22By: / s / G re g ory P. Stone

23 G R EG O R Y P. STONE

24 A tt or ne ys for RAMBUS INC.

25

26

27

28


- cv 05-02298 RMW; C 05-334 RMW; C-06-244 RMW

3012[1] Rambus Brief on Trial Procedures

Documents

Transcript of 3012[1] Rambus Brief on Trial Procedures