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

Filing 2798

ORDER regarding pretrial submissions with respect to willfulness. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 12/4/2008. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2008)

Download PDF
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 Nos. 1431, 1432] RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION No. C-05-00334 RMW ORDER MEMORIALIZING WILLFULNESS PROCEDURES [Re Docket Nos. 2674, 2677] E-filed: 12/4/2008 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 MEMORIALIZING WILLFULNESS PROCEDURES 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 Nos. 1660, 1661] The parties have been unable to reach agreement regarding procedures for making pretrial submissions related to the issue of willfulness. The court has considered the arguments presented in the parties' letter briefs and during a phone conference at 3:00 p.m. on December 4, 2008.1 The following memorializes the court's rulings during the phone conference. The parties' pretrial submissions with respect to willfulness will not be due before the beginning of the trial on infringement and validity. Such submissions will be due at a future time that will enable the court to try the willfulness issue within ten (10) days of the end of the damages portions of the trial. The Manufacturers represented that their positions on willfulness are set forth in their pending motions for summary judgment. To minimize the burden on witnesses, the parties may elect to examine with respect to willfulness a witness not under the control of an adverse party who the party calls during the liability phase of trial. Such testimony will be taken in the afternoon, outside the presence of the jury. Parties may request to examine an opposing party's trial witness with respect to willfulness. The opposing party may postpone that witness' willfulness testimony on the condition that they produce the witness again during the willfulness phase of the case. 1 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 Patent Local Rule 3-8 (Jan. 1, 2001) imposes a deadline for disclosing reliance on Each party was represented by counsel. The phone conference was not reported. ORDER MEMORIALIZING WILLFULNESS PROCEDURES C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 opinion of counsel. This deadline has passed. Postponing the willfulness phase of trial does not change the impact of Rule 3-8, and the Manufacturers may not disclose any new opinion of counsel defense to willfulness. The court also discussed with the parties various ways to administer these cases more efficiently. The court will welcome any reports from any parties listing the outstanding motions in this case, the status of such motions, and any comment on how ruling on such motions will impact the upcoming trial. The court also expects the parties to meet and confer prior to December 10 with respect to representative parts. Any issues with respect to representative parts will be raised at the December 10 hearing. 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 DATED: 12/4/2008 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge ORDER MEMORIALIZING WILLFULNESS PROCEDURES C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 3 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 lamison@kirkland.com 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 tgbrown@townsend.com kfrenza@thelen.com, pawilson@thelen.com djfurniss@townsend.com jagreco@townsend.com JJHan@townsend.com tharkey@omm.com jtjones@townsend.com plynch@omm.com kennissly@omm.com korourke@omm.com bvega@omm.com gyost@thelenreid.com svankeulen@omm.com 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 robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com john.bey non@weil.com jared.bobrow@weil.com y oniro senzweig@quinnemanuel.com halbarza@quinnemanuel.com lindabrewer@quinnemanuel.com aaroncraig@quinnemanuel.com kalay@fr.com david.lender@weil.com rachaelmccracken@quinnemanuel.com sven.raz@weil.com davidruderman@quinnemanuel.com elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x jangell@orrick.com kcornuelle@orrick.com cday@orrick.com jellard@orrick.com vfeeman@orrick.com rfreitas@orrick.com hlee@orrick.com hli@orrick.com x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ORDER MEMORIALIZING WILLFULNESS PROCEDURES C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 4 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 clui@orrick.com tnorton@orrick.com mshean@orrick.com ktseng@orrick.com 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 Kate.Anderson@mto.com detrepa@mto.com erin.dougherty@mto.com sean.eskovitz@mto.com Burton.Gross@mto.com keith.hamilton@mto.com phubert@mckoolsmith.com Andrea.Jeffries@mto.com Miriam.Kim@mto.com carolyn.luedtke@mto.com steven.perry@mto.com jen.polse@mto.com mpowers@sidley.com rransom@sidley.com rose.ring@mto.com gregory.stone@mto.com ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com Bill.Ward@mto.com david.yang@mto.com dcawley@mckoolsmith.com scole@mckoolsmith.com 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 steven.cherensky@weil.com claire.goldstein@weil.com dana.powers@weil.com matthew.powers@weil.com, matthew.antonelli@weil.com Edward.Reines@weil.com 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: 12/4/2008 TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte ORDER MEMORIALIZING WILLFULNESS PROCEDURES C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW TSF 5

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?