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

Filing 2803

REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS. Signed by Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 12/12/2008. (rmwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008)

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 RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION No. C-05-00334 RMW REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS E-filed: 12/12/2008

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

REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS TSF

-- C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW

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

The parties have three hearing dates scheduled in the coming weeks. December 19 has been designated as the pretrial conference. January 6 and 7 of 2009 have been reserved as additional dates for hearing the parties' numerous pending motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions. December 19 is scheduled as a pretrial conference. The court has not yet received a joint pretrial conference statement from the parties. The court understands that a variety of pretrial conference matters like trial time estimates and witness lists depend on the court's rulings on summary judgment and the number of representative products and prior art references. The court therefore extends the deadline for the parties to file their joint pretrial conference statement to January 5, 2009 and does not anticipate discussing trial time estimates on December 19. The court's current agenda for December 19 therefore consists of: (1) resolving any lingering disputes over representative products (if briefed in letters by December 17); (2) resolving any lingering disputes over expert opinions related to the court's construction of "memory device" (if briefed in letters by December 17); and (3) hearing argument on motions on which oral argument is needed. As before, the court would benefit from the parties' insight regarding what matters they wish to be heard on December 19. See Docket No. 2665 (Nov. 26, 2008). Any proposal should be similar in format to those filed in response to the court's prior request, but filed jointly. If the parties cannot agree on a priority list, each party should list up to five matters they wish to have addressed or heard on December 19 (in addition to those mentioned above). The joint proposal should be filed by Monday, December 15 at 5:00 p.m.
REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS TSF

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

-- C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Finally, the extraordinary1 nature of this litigation should compel the parties to make an additional good faith effort to settle. At the December 10 hearing, the court encouraged counsel to settle this dispute, but counsel's clients were not there to hear the court. The court therefore expects counsel to convey the court's following concerns to their clients. A court's orders and a jury's verdict necessarily have binary outcomes. Motions are generally granted or denied. The court cannot discount the relief requested because the matter was a close call. Patents are valid or invalid. The jury cannot recognize the probabilistic nature of patent rights. Injunctions are entered or not. The court cannot fashion remedies that force the parties to engage in joint research and development, to shape product roadmaps, or to create innovative new joint ventures. No order that this court can enter can possibly benefit the parties as much as a settlement. Until that happens, the litigation will continue to grind forward with motions, trials, and appeals, and potentially more motions, retrials, and further appeals. This litigation produces only uncertainty, and it does so at tremendous cost. It sacrifices the time of employees that could be spent developing new technologies. It diverts and consumes money that could be spent on innovation. And it chills the development of new products that remain hostage to the rights of others. The opportunity cost of this litigation is staggering, and in light of economic conditions, ghastly. It is time for the parties to move on.

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:

12/12/2008 RONALD M. WHYTE United States District Judge

1

By "extraordinary," the court does not necessarily mean "exceptional." 35 U.S.C. § 285. -- C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW 3

REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS TSF

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 Cathy Yunshan Lui Theresa E. Norton Email Appearances: 05-00334 05-02298 x 06-00244

e [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 oniro [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

[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

REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS TSF

-- C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

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]

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

[e-mail]

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: 12/12/2008 TSF Chambers of Judge Whyte

REQUEST FOR PROPOSED AGENDAS TSF

-- C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298-RMW; C-06-00244-RMW 5