Hyundai Electronics, et al v. Rambus, Inc.

Filing 4189

STIPULATION AND ORDER 4188 Permitting a Consolidated Opposition to Hynix's Motions. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/20/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Steven M. Perry (SBN 106154) Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 Email: Gregory.Stone@mto.com Email: Fred.Rowley@mto.com Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196192) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, California 90013-1010 Telephone: (213) 896-6000 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 Email: rransom@sidley.com 6 7 8 9 Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619) MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, California 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Email: peter.detre@mto.com 10 11 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 16 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, 17 18 vs. 19 CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW STIPULATION AND [] ORDER PERMITTING A CONSOLIDATED OPPOSITION TO HYNIX’S MOTIONS RAMBUS INC., Defendant. 20 21 Date: Time: Location: Judge: December 19, 2012 2:00 p.m. Courtroom 6 (4th Flr.) Hon. Ronald M. Whyte 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19292295.1 STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE: OPP’N BRIEF TO HYNIX MOTIONS CASE NO. 00-20905-RMW 1. 1 On October 17, 2012, Hynix filed the following motions in the above- 2 captioned matter: (a) Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Reply to Defendant and 3 Counterclaim Plaintiff Rambus Inc.’s Amended Counterclaim; (b) Motion for Summary 4 Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment on the Issue of the Collateral 5 Estoppel Effect of Reexaminations of Rambus’s Patents; and (c) Motion for New Trial, or in the 6 Alternative, Motion for Stay (collectively, the “ Hynix Motions”). 7 2. On November 5, 2012, Hynix filed a Supplemental Memorandum in 8 support of the Hynix Motions. 9 3. Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order Adjusting Briefing Schedule and 10 Hearing Date, entered November 15, 2012, Rambus’s opposition papers to the Hynix Motions are 11 due on November 20, 2012. 4. 12 Under Local Rule 7-4, Rambus is permitted to file an opposition brief of up 13 to 25 pages in response to each of the Hynix Motions, for a total of 75 pages. Under Local Rule 14 7-4, Hynix is permitted to file a reply brief of up to 15 pages regarding each of the Hynix 15 Motions, for a total of 45 pages. 16 5. In the interest of judicial efficiency, the parties stipulate that Rambus shall 17 be permitted to file a single consolidated opposition brief, not to exceed 55 pages, in response to 18 the Hynix Motions. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // 19292295.1 -1- STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE: OPP’N BRIEF TO HYNIX MOTIONS CASE NO. 00-20905-RMW 6. 1 The parties further stipulate that Hynix shall be permitted to file either 2 three reply briefs, not to exceed fifteen pages each or, at Hynix’s election, a single consolidated 3 reply brief not to exceed 40 pages regarding the three Hynix Motions. IT IS SO STIPULATED. 4 5 Dated: November 16, 2012 6 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 7 8 By: /s/ Jeffrey Y. Wu Jeffrey Y. Wu 9 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC. 10 11 12 Dated: November 16, 2012 13 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP 14 15 By: /s/ Jeffrey Y. Wu for Theodore G. Brown III Theodore G. Brown III 16 17 Attorneys for HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR GmbH 18 19 20 ORDER 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 23 Dated: November , 2012 Hon. Ronald M. Whyte United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 19292295.1 -2- STIPULATION AND [] ORDER RE: OPP’N BRIEF TO HYNIX MOTIONS CASE NO. 00-20905-RMW

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?