Rambus Inc., v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. et al

Filing 2603

ORDER clarifying the court's construction of "memory device." Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 11/21/2008. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A., Defendants. RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., Defendants. No. C-05-02298 RMW [Re Docket No. 1020] RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION No. C-05-00334 RMW ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" [Re Docket No. 2066] E-filed: 11/21/2008

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. Defendants.

No. C-06-00244 RMW [Re Docket No. 1415]

Rambus has filed a motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration regarding the court's construction of the term "memory device" in the Farmwald/Horowitz patents. To ensure that the court had not committed a "[a] manifest failure," the court granted the motion and requested a response from the Manufacturers. The court has reviewed the papers and its prior order. For the following reasons, the court clarifies its prior construction of the term. In its prior order, the court construed the term "memory device" to mean "a device in which information can be stored and retrieved electronically." Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., 569 F. Supp. 2d 946, 972-74 (N.D. Cal. 2008). The court rejected Rambus's request that the term be read as "an integrated circuit device in which information can be stored and retrieved electronically," which incorporated a limitation that the device be on a single chip. See id. at 971-72. At the time, the court noted that it could not fully grasp the nature of the claim construction dispute without some understanding of the Manufacturers' invalidity contentions. Id. at 971. As those contentions have begun to come to light, the dispute between the Manufacturers and Rambus with respect to the meaning of the asserted claims has come into focus. This has permitted the court to reevaluate its claim construction and refine its scope. Cf. Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (suggesting the wisdom of an iterative approach to claim construction). The court remains convinced that there is no basis for reading a "single chip" limitation into the term "memory device." The specification discusses no such limit, and at various times, Rambus crafted dependent claims suggesting that a "memory device" is a broader concept than a single chip. Moreover, had Rambus meant to limit its claims to a single chip, it could have claimed a "memory
ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 2

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

chip" or used a similarly clear limitation. It chose the broad term "device," and must live with the claims it wrote. But that does not mean that the term "memory device" lacks any dimensional limit, and any limitation on the scope of the term is missing from the court's first attempt at construing it. The Farmwald/Horowitz specification does not define "memory device," but it does discuss it in relation to a "memory subsystem" and otherwise suggest some limits. For example, the specification states that "[t]he present invention includes a memory subsystem comprising at least two semiconductor devices, including at least one memory device, connected in parallel to a bus . . ." U.S. Patent No. 6,426,916, col. 3, ll. 51-54. Thus, a "memory device" is limited in scale to being a component in a memory subsystem. Indeed,"[e]ach memory device contains only a single bus interface with no other signal pins." Id., col. 4, ll. 13-15; col. 5, ll. 62-67. This "component" interpretation of the term "memory device" is further bolstered by the detailed description. The description distinguishes "memory devices" from "processing devices." Id., col. 5, ll. 33-36. A "memory device" is "a complete, independent memory subsystem with all the functionality of a prior art memory board in a conventional backplane-bus system," suggesting that a "memory device" is smaller than a prior art memory board. Id., col. 7, ll. 23-26. The description repeatedly gives DRAMs, SRAMs, and ROMs as examples of "memory devices." E.g., id., col. 1, ll. 50-55; col. 6, ll. 16-21. Finally, the devices used in the overall system preferably have "very low power dissipation and close physical spacing" to allow for a relatively short bus (and thus higher frequencies). Id., col. 18, ll. 1-5; see also col. 19, ll. 52-55 (describing the limited number of devices that can be connected to the preferred bus architecture because of size constraints). A person of ordinary skill in the art, reading the term "memory device" in light of the specification, would not necessarily conclude that a "memory device" is limited to a single chip. Such a person of ordinary skill would, however, conclude that a "memory device" is constrained in its dimensions and features. A "memory device" does not include a microprocessor like a CPU or memory controller. It connects to a bus as a component in a larger system. While its size is not explicitly defined, it is on the order of a single chip, and smaller than a "memory board."
ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 3

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Condensing this understanding into a concise construction poses difficulties. The court believes the following construction captures the meaning of the term "memory device" as used in the claims and given meaning by the specification: a "memory device is a component of a memory subsystem in which information can be stored and retrieved electronically. It is smaller in physical size than that of a prior art memory board and has low power dissipation so it can be closely spaced to other components of the memory subsystem such as a processing device."

DATED:

11/21/2008 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to counsel in: C-05-00334, C-05-02298, C-06-00244.
Counsel Elpida: Eric R. Lamison Hynix: Theodore G. Brown , III Karin Morgan Cogbill Daniel J. Furniss Joseph A. Greco Julie Jinsook Han Tomomi Katherine Harkey Jordan Trent Jones Patrick Lynch Kenneth Lee Nissly Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke Belinda Martinez Vega Geoffrey Hurndall Yost Susan Gregory van Keulen Interdigital: Nathan Loy Walker Micron: Robert Jason Becher John D Beynon Jared Bobrow Yonaton M Rosenzweig Harold Avrum Barza Linda Jane Brewer Aaron Bennett Craig Leeron Kalay David J. Lender Rachael Lynn Ballard McCracken Sven Raz David J. Ruderman Elizabeth Stotland Weiswasser Nanya: Jason Sheffield Angell Kristin Sarah Cornuelle Chester Wren-Ming Day Jan Ellen Ellard Vickie L. Feeman Robert E. Freitas Craig R. Kaufman Hao Li Email Appearances: 05-00334 05-02298 x 06-00244

[e-mail]

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x x

x

x

x x x x x x

nathan.walker@wilmerhale

x

[e-mail] john.bey [e-mail] [e-mail] y o n i r o s e n z w e i g @ quinnemanuel.com [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

x x x x

x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

x x x x x x x x

x x

x x x x

x

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cathy Yunshan Lui Theresa E. Norton Mark Shean Kaiwen Tseng Rambus: Kathryn Kalb Anderson Peter A. Detre Erin C. Dougherty Sean Eskovitz Burton Alexander Gross Keith Rhoderic Dhu Hamilton, II Pierre J. Hubert Andrea Jill Weiss Jeffries Miriam Kim Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke Steven McCall Perry Jennifer Lynn Polse Matthew Thomas Powers Rollin Andrew Ransom Rosemarie Theresa Ring Gregory P. Stone Craig N. Tolliver Donald Ward David C. Yang Douglas A. Cawley Scott L Cole Samsung: Steven S. Cherensky Claire Elise Goldstein Dana Prescott Kenned Powers Matthew Douglas Powers Edward Robert Reines Texas Instruments: Kelli A. Crouch

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

x x x x

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

[e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail] [e-mail]

x x x x x

x x x x x

x

kcrouch@jonesday .com

x

x

x

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program in each action. Dated: 11/21/2008 TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte

ORDER CLARIFYING THE COURT'S CONSTRUCTION OF "MEMORY DEVICE" C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 6