Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.

Filing 306

Declaration of Derek C. Walter in Support of Apple's Reply to Elan's Opposition to Motion to Compel filed byApple, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K)(Mehta, Sonal) (Filed on 6/21/2011)

Exhibit C

Page 1

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
DEUTSCHLAND GmbH, Plaintiffs, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant. RAMBUS INC.,
Plaintiff, 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.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR
PRODUCTS, INC. Defendants.
No. CV-00-20905 RMW [Re Docket No. 3060], No. C-05-00334 RMW [Re Docket
No. 1088], No. C-06-00244 RMW [Re Docket No. 713]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764

February 2, 2008, Decided
February 2, 2008, Filed
SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Motion to strike granted
by, in part, Motion to strike denied by, in part Hynix
Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 11765 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2008)
PRIOR HISTORY: Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v.
Rambus, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10859 (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 28, 2008)
COUNSEL: [*1] For Hyundai Electronics Indust. Co.,
Ltd., Plaintiff: Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid &
Priest, LLP, San Francisco, CA; John D Beynon, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Tomomi
Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman &
Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Hyundai Electronics America, INC., Plaintiff:
Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CA; John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges
LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey,

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Plaintiff: Allen Ruby,
Law Offices of Allen Ruby, San Jose, CA; Belinda
Martinez Vega, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Geoffrey Hurndall Yost,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CA; Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers, Los Angeles, CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Townsend and Towsend and Crew LLP,
Palo Alto, CA; Jan Ellen Ellard, Jason Sheffield Angell,
Orrick Herrington & [*2] Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park,
CA; John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA; Joseph A. Greco, Townsend and
Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Linda Jane
Brewer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes LLP,

Page 2
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *2

San Francisco, CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen
Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Plaintiff: Allen
Ruby, Law Offices of Allen Ruby, San Jose, CA; Belinda
Martinez Vega, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Geoffrey Hurndall Yost,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CA; Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Los Angeles,
CA; Susan Gregory VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose,
CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA;
Jan Ellen Ellard, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
Menlo Park, CA; Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA; John D
Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges [*3] LLP, Redwood
Shores, CA; Joseph A. Greco, Townsend and Townsend
and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Linda Jane Brewer, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes LLP, San Francisco,
CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd, Plaintiff: Allen
Ruby, Law Offices of Allen Ruby, San Jose, CA; Belinda
Martinez Vega, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Geoffrey Hurndall Yost,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CA; Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Los Angeles,
CA; Susan Gregory VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose,
CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA;
Jan Ellen Ellard, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
Menlo Park, CA; Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA; John D
Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores,
CA; Joseph A. Greco, Townsend and Townsend and
Crew [*4] LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Linda Jane Brewer,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes LLP, San
Francisco, CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.

For Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH, Plaintiff:
Allen Ruby, Law Offices of Allen Ruby, San Jose, CA;
Belinda Martinez Vega, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Geoffrey Hurndall
Yost, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP,
San Francisco, CA; Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Los Angeles,
CA; Susan Gregory VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose,
CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA;
Jan Ellen Ellard, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP,
Menlo Park, CA; Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA; John D
Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores,
CA; Joseph A. Greco, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver
[*5] & Hegdes LLP, San Francisco, CA; Tomomi
Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman &
Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Rambus, Inc., Defendant: Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Burton Alexander Gross, Esq., Erin
C. Dougherty, Jennifer Lynn Polse, Miriam Kim, Peter
A. Detre, Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq., Munger, Tolles
Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA; Catherine Rajwani, Peter
Ivan Ostroff, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sidley Austin Brown
& Wood LLP, Dallas, TX; Gregory P. Stone, Sean
Eskovitz, Steven McCall Perry, LEAD ATTORNEYS,
David C. Yang, Kathryn Kalb Anderson, Keith Rhoderic
Dhu Hamilton, II, Lynn Healey Scaduto, Munger Tolles
& Olson, Los Angeles, CA; James J. Elacqua, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Dechert LLP, Mountain View, CA;
Jeannine Yoo Sano, LEAD ATTORNEY, Howrey LLP,
Alto, CA; Michelle B. Goodman, Rollin Andrew
Ransom, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sidley Austin LLP, Los
Angeles, CA; Scott W. Hejny, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Dallas, TX; Thomas N Tarnay, V. Bryan Medlock,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX;
William Hans Baumgartner, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY,
Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Craig N. Tolliver, Pierre
J. Hubert, McKool Smith, Austin, TX; John D Beynon,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA.
For Reed [*6] Elsevier, Inc., Movant: Grayson Seyichi
Taketa, LEAD ATTORNEY, San Jose, CA.
For Mosaid Technologies Incorporated, Movant: Tharan

Page 3
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *6

Gregory Lanier, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jones Day, Palo
Alto, CA.
For Micron Technology Inc., Movant: Jared B. Bobrow,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA; Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA.
For Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Movant: Brian C.
Riopelle, LEAD ATTORNEY, McGuire Woods LLP,
Richmond, VA; David J. Healey, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Houston, TX; David C.
Radulescu, LEAD ATTORNEY, Weil Gotshal & Manges
LLP, New York, NY; Edward Robert Reines, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood
Shores, CA.
For Samsung Electronics, Co. Ltd., Movant: Brian C.
Riopelle, LEAD ATTORNEY, McGuire Woods LLP,
Richmond, VA; David J. Healey, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Houston, TX, David C. Radulescu, Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, New York, NY; Edward Robert Reines,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA,
LEAD ATTORNEY.
For Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Movant: Brian
C. Riopelle, LEAD ATTORNEY, McGuire Woods LLP,
Richmond, VA; David J. Healey, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Houston, TX; David [*7]
C. Radulescu, LEAD ATTORNEY, Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, New York, NY; Edward Robert Reines,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA,
For Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Movant: Brian
C. Riopelle, LEAD ATTORNEY, McGuire Woods LLP,
Richmond, VA; David J. Healey, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Houston, TX, David C. Radulescu, Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, New York, NY; Edward Robert Reines,
Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA,
LEAD ATTORNEYS.
For Elpida Memory, Inc., Intervenor: Christina E. Rios,
LEAD ATTORNEY, San Francisco, CA; John J.
Feldhaus, LEAD ATTORNEY, Foley & Lardner LLP,
Washington, DC.
For United States of America, Intervenor: Eugene S.
Litvinoff, May Lee Heye, Nathanael M. Cousins, Niall
Edmund Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEYS, San Francisco,
CA.

For Rambus, Inc., Counter-claimant: Catherine Rajwani,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood,
LLP, Dallas, TX; Gregory P. Stone, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Munger Tolles & Olson, Los Angeles, CA; Kelly Max
Klaus, LEAD ATTORNEY, Munger Tolles & Olson
LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Scott W. Hejny, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Dallas, TX; Sean Eskovitz, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Los
Angeles, CA; Thomas N Tarnay, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Sidley Austin LLP, [*8] Dallas, TX; V. Bryan Medlock,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX;
William Hans Baumgartner, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY,
Sidley Austin LLP, Chicago, IL; Carolyn Hoecker
Luedtke, LEAD ATTORNEY, Munger, Tolles Olson
LLP, San Francisco, CA; Craig N. Tolliver, Austin, TX;
John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood
Shores, CA; Lynn Healey Scaduto, Munger, Tolles &
Olson LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Peter A. Detre, Munger,
Tolles & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Pierre J.
Hubert, Austin, TX; Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq.,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA.
For Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Counter-defendant:
Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Patrick Lynch,
O'Melveney & Myers LLP, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Los
Angeles, CA; Susan Gregory VanKeulen, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP,
Palo Alto, CA; Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San Francisco,
CA; Jan Ellen Ellard, Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, CA; John D Beynon, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood [*9] Shores, CA;
Tomomi Katherine Harkey, San Jose, CA.
For
Hynix
Semiconductor
America
Inc.,
Counter-defendant: Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, LEAD
ATTORNEYS, Los Angeles, CA; Susan Gregory
VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA; Theodore G.
Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Townsend and
Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Geoffrey

Page 4
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *9

Hurndall Yost, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid &
Priest, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jan Ellen Ellard, Jason
Sheffield Angell, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
CA; John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey, San
Jose, CA.
For Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd, Counter-defendant:
Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Patrick Lynch,
O'Melveney & Myers LLP, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Los
Angeles, CA; Susan Gregory VanKeulen, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP,
Palo Alto, CA; Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid
[*10] & Priest, LLP, San Francisco, CA; Jan Ellen Ellard,
Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP, CA; John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA; Linda Jane Brewer, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes LLP, San Francisco,
CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey, San Jose, CA.
For Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH,
Counter-defendant: Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, LEAD
ATTORNEYS, Los Angeles, CA; Susan Gregory
VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA; Theodore G.
Brown, III, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San Francisco,
CA; Jan Ellen Ellard, Jason Sheffield Angell, Orrick
Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, CA; John D Beynon, Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA; Linda
Jane Brewer, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes
LLP, San Francisco, CA; Tomomi Katherine Harkey, San
Jose, CA.
For
Hyundai
Electronics
Indust.
Co.,
Ltd.
Counter-defendant: Daniel J. Furniss, Jordan Trent Jones,
Theodore G. [*11] Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEYS,
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA. Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Patrick Lynch, LEAD

ATTORNEY, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA.
Susana Dana Roeder, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
& Priest LLP, San Jose, CA. Geoffrey Hurndall Yost,
Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San Francisco, CA. John D
Beynon, Weil, Gotshla & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores,
CA. Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For
Hyundai
Electronics
America,
INC.
Counter-defendant: Daniel J. Furniss, Jordan Trent Jones,
Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEYS,
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA. Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA. Patrick Lynch, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA.
Susana Dana Roeder, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
& Priest LLP, San Jose, CA. Geoffrey Hurndall Yost,
Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San Francisco, CA. John D
Beynon, Weil, Gotshla & Manges LLP, [*12] Redwood
Shores, CA. Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Hyundai Electronics U.K., Ltd, Counter-defendant:
Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CA. John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshla & Manges
LLP, Redwood Shores, CA. Kenneth Lee Nissly, Thelen
Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA.
Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman
& Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Hyundai Electronics Deutschland GmbH,
Counter-defendant: Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid
& Priest, LLP, San Francisco, CA. John D Beynon, Weil,
Gotshla & Manges LLP, Redwood Shores, CA. Kenneth
Lee Nissly, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP,
San Jose, CA. Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For Rambus, Inc. Counter-claimant: Catherine Rajwani,
LEAD ATTORNEY, Sidley Austin Brown & Wood
LLP, Dallas, TX. Kelly Max Klaus, Sean Eskovitz,
LEAD ATTORNEYS, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los
Angeles, CA. Kevin S. Kudlac, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Austin, TX. Scott W. Hejny, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Dallas, TX. Thomas N Tarnay, V. Bryan Medlock,
LEAD ATTORNEYS, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX.
William Hans Baumgartner, Jr. LEAD ATTORNEY,
Sidley [*13] Austin LLP, Chicago, IL. Carolyn Hoecker
Luedtke, Peter A. Detre, Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq.

Page 5
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *13

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, CA. Craig
N. Tolliver, Pierre J. Hubert, McKool Smith, Austin, TX.
John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Redwood
Shores, CA. Lynn Healey Scaduto, Steven McCall Perry,
Gregory P. Stone, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Los
Angeles, CA. John M. Guaragna, DLA Piper Rudnik
Gray Cary US LLP, Austin, TX.
For Hynix Semiconductor Inc. Counter-defendant:
Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid
Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth
Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD ATTORNEY, O'Melveney &
Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Patrick Lynch, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Los Angeles, CA; Susan Gregory
VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose, CA; Theodore G.
Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEY, Townsend and
Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA; Geoffrey
Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CAJan Ellen Ellard;Jason Sheffield Angell,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA;
John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshla & Manges LLP, Redwood
Shores, CA. Linda Jane Brewer, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes LLP, San Francisco, [*14]
CA. Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown
Raysman & Steiner, San Jose, CA.
For
Hynix
Semiconductor
America
Inc.,
Counter-defendant: Kenneth Lee Nissly, LEAD
ATTORNEY, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner
LLP, San Jose, CA; Kenneth Ryan O'Rourke, LEAD
ATTORNEY, O'Melveney & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,
CA; Patrick Lynch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Los Angeles,
CA; Susan Gregory VanKeulen, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP, San Jose,
CA; Theodore G. Brown, III, LEAD ATTORNEY,
Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP, Palo Alto, CA;
Geoffrey Hurndall Yost, Thelen Reid & Priest, LLP, San
Francisco, CAJan Ellen Ellard;Jason Sheffield Angell,
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Menlo Park, CA;
John D Beynon, Weil, Gotshla & Manges LLP, Redwood
Shores, CA. Linda Jane Brewer, Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart Oliver & Hegdes LLP, San Francisco, CA.
Tomomi Katherine Harkey, Thelen Reid Brown Raysman
& Steiner, San Jose, CA.
JUDGES: RONALD M. WHYTE, United States District
Judge.
OPINION BY: RONALD M. WHYTE

OPINION
This order addresses Rambus's recent motion in
limine to prevent the Manufacturers from putting into
evidence two allegedly privileged documents. The court
has reviewed the papers and considered the arguments of
counsel. [*15] For the following reasons, the court
denies the motion.
I. BACKGROUND
Earlier in this and parallel litigation, Rambus was
ordered to produce allegedly privileged documents
pursuant to a series of piercing orders. 1 For example, on
January 31, 2005, this court ordered Rambus to produce
allegedly privileged documents relating to Rambus's
document retention and production under the
"crime/fraud" exception. The court described that
decision regarding whether Hynix had established
"reasonable cause to believe" that Rambus had spoliated
documents a "close one." At the conclusion of a bench
trial on Hynix's unclean hands defense related to alleged
spoliation, the court concluded that "Rambus did not
engage in unlawful spoliation of evidence." Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law on Unclean Hands Defense,
Docket No. 1577, C-00-20905, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
30690, *68 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 5, 2006). Since the court
found that Rambus did not spoliate evidence, the
"crime/fraud" exception can no longer be said to justify
the production of privileged documents.
1 In Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc.,
C-00-20905 (N.D. Cal. filed Aug. 29, 2000), the
piercing orders were entered on February 26,
2004, January 31, 2005, February [*16] 28, 2005,
August 26, 2005, October 3, 2005, October 19,
2005, and October 20, 2005. In Micron
Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc., C-00-792 (D.
Del. Aug. 28, 2000), the piercing orders were
entered on May 16, 2001, February 10, 2006, and
June 15, 2006.
On September 10, 2007, the court ordered Rambus to
produce all materials that Rambus had previously been
ordered to produce to give all of the parties access to the
full scope of the discovery taken in these cases. See
Docket No. 399, C-05-334, PP 1, 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12,
2007). The order acknowledged that "[b]y producing
these materials in response to this Order, Rambus is not
waiving any protection to which it is otherwise entitled
under the attorney-client privilege or work product

Page 6
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *16

doctrine, and nothing in this Order shall preclude Rambus
from challenging the admissibility of any documents or
testimony at trial on any basis, including without
limitation on the basis of the attorney-client privilege
and/or work-product protection." Id. P 4.
On January 4, 2008, the Manufacturers disclosed
their trial exhibit list, which contains thirteen documents
produced pursuant to the piercing orders. Rambus filed
objections to the use of these documents [*17] on
January 16, 2008, and filed this motion in limine on
January 22. Rambus and the Manufacturers filed
additional briefing with regard to two documents,
"Exhibit C" and "Exhibit O," and this order resolves
Rambus's motion with respect to those two documents
only.
II. ANALYSIS
A. "Reasonable Efforts"
The circumstances surrounding a disclosure of
allegedly privileged documents determine whether the
disclosure waived the attorney-client or work products
privileges. United States v. de la Jara, 973 F.2d 746,
749-50 (9th Cir. 1992). In general, a disclosure
compelled by a court order like the piercing orders in this
case does not waive the attorney-client and work product
privileges.
EDNA
SELAN
EPSTEIN,
THE
ATTORNEY-CLIENT
PRIVILEGE
AND
THE
WORK-PRODUCT DOCTRINE 412 (5th ed. 2007);
PAUL R. RICE, ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN
THE UNITED STATES § 9:26, 9-78 (2d ed. 2007 rev.);
cf. Transamerica Computer Co., Inc. v. Int'l Bus.
Machines Corp., 573 F.2d 646, 651 (9th Cir. 1978)
(discussing general acceptance of the principle that
waiver cannot result from compelled production). The
caveat to this general principle is that the party claiming
privilege must take efforts "reasonably designed" to
protect [*18] the privilege. de la Jara, 973 F.2d at 750.
Rambus has strenuously objected every time it has
been ordered to produce allegedly privileged documents.
Furthermore, this court's most recent production order
expressly recognized that Rambus could reassert any
claim of privilege in the form of an evidentiary objection
at trial. The court imagines such assurances prevented
Rambus from further complicating these proceedings by
appealing the court's production order. It would be
perverse now for the court to hold that reliance on the
court's order was not "reasonably designed" to protect the

asserted privileges. While a "strenuous or Herculean
efforts" rule may have required Rambus to file a
peremptory motion in limine in those instances, the law
only requires "reasonable efforts." de la Jara, 973 F.2d at
750. Requiring more than what Rambus did to avoid
production would suggest that Rambus should have
expanded and intensified this already over-litigated
dispute despite everyone's knowledge that Rambus
objects to production of the documents. The Ninth
Circuit's rule in de la Jara requires reasonable efforts,
and those were taken in this court.
The Manufacturers point out that the two documents
[*19] that Rambus now wants excluded from evidence
were utilized in public proceedings in the District of
Delaware and the Eastern District of Virginia and remain
available to the public in Virginia. As in this court,
Rambus vigorously objected to production of the
documents during discovery. In Virginia, Rambus even
applied to the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandate when
ordered to produce the documents. When the documents
were used at trial, Rambus again objected to their use.
Rambus also moved the courts to use various methods to
at least prevent the public from seeing the documents.
Without belaboring the point and recounting each
instance where Rambus objected to the documents' use
and disclosure, the court finds that Rambus took
reasonable steps to lodge objections and preserve the
documents' alleged privileged status.
B. Applicability of the Attorney-Client Privilege
Of course, even if Rambus made all reasonable
efforts to protect alleged privileges in the documents, it
still must show that the privileges actually apply. Rambus
claims that both Exhibit C and Exhibit O are protected by
the attorney-client privilege. It is Rambus's burden to
demonstrate that the attorney-client privilege [*20]
applies. United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999-1000
(9th Cir. 2002). The Manufacturers argue that Rambus
has failed to show that the two documents are in fact
privileged.
1. Exhibit C - "Strategy Update 10/98"
"Exhibit C" is a copy of a Powerpoint presentation
entitled "Strategy Update 10/98" made by Joel Karp,
Rambus's Vice President of Intellectual Property. See
Karp Decl., P 3. Mr. Karp is not an attorney, though he
states that the document "reflects legal advice I received
from Mr. Steinberg related to patent prosecution and

Page 7
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *20

infringement analysis." Id. P 5. 2 Mr. Karp presented the
strategy update to Rambus's "Board of Directors and/or to
the Rambus executive staff on or around October 1998."
Id. P 4.
2 Neil Steinberg was Rambus's outside counsel
when Mr. Karp prepared Exhibit C. Id.
The fact that Mr. Karp, and not Mr. Steinberg,
conveyed Mr. Steinberg's legal advice to Rambus's
directors would not necessarily be fatal to the
attorney-client privilege. United States v. ChevronTexaco
Corp., 241 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1077 (N.D. Cal. 2002)
(adopted report of J. Brazil). The issue is whether Mr.
Karp was conveying Mr. Steinberg's legal advice, which
would be privileged, or Mr. Karp's [*21] business
analysis, which would not. Id.
Mr. Karp's declaration does not reveal which
portions of the presentation supposedly "reflect" Mr.
Steinberg's legal advice, and Rambus's briefing does not
shed light on this question. The court cannot distinguish
what portion, if any, of the presentation reflects Mr.
Steinberg's legal advice, as opposed to Mr. Karp's
business strategy. Indeed, some of the most relevant
portions of the document are explicitly prefaced as Mr.
Karp's opinions - for example, "What is compelling
business reason? I can't think of any." and "[In my
humble opinion], risks of damaging establishment of
dominant standard outweigh potential return."
Furthermore, the content appears not to be "legal advice,"
but instead a discussion of a business plan and strategy
that Mr. Karp was recommending which may have taken
into account advice from Mr. Steinberg as to Rambus's
legal positions. However, the document does not reveal
any confidential communications between Mr. Karp and
Mr. Sterinberg. As discussed, it is Rambus's burden to
demonstrate that the attorney-client privilege applies. A
vague declaration that states only that the document
"reflects" an attorney's advice is [*22] insufficient to
demonstrate that the document should be found
privileged.
2. Exhibit O - "Intellectual Property Update,
November 23, 1999"
"Exhibit O" is a Powerpoint presentation entitled
"Intellectual Property Update, November 23, 1999." Karp
Decl. P 6. Mr. Karp "prepared the slides . . . together with
Rambus's attorney Neil Steinberg." Id. P 8. 3 Mr. Karp
then presented the slides to "Rambus employees at

Chaminade in or around November 23, 1999." Id. P 7.
The Chaminade retreat was a company-wide meeting at
which Mr. Karp presented Exhibit O. See Vega Decl., Ex.
2 at 562:17-563:4. The slides discuss how many patents
have issued to Rambus, announce the name for Rambus's
patent enforcement campaign, and generally inform the
employees about Rambus's intent to enforce its patents.
3
The Karp Declaration's paragraphs are
erroneously numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 4, 5. Such
an error is understandable given the short time
available for preparing the declaration. The court's
citation to paragraph "8" refers to the second
paragraph 5. Likewise, paragraph "7" is the
second paragraph 4.
The attorney-client privilege only protects legal
advice provided to a client. See ChevronTexaco, 241 F.
Supp. 2d at 1069; [*23] see generally EPSTEIN, at
134-155 (discussing how the attorney-client privilege
applies to corporations as clients). An employee of a
corporation can be a "client," for example, where an
employee is questioned by an attorney conducting an
internal investigation. Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449
U.S. 383, 101 S. Ct. 677, 66 L. Ed. 2d 584 (1981). In
Upjohn, the Supreme Court rejected limiting the
definition of "client" to merely the corporation's "control
group," instead focusing on the subject matter of the
attorney's communication with the employee. Id. at
394-95; Epstein, at 142-45. In a sense, whether an
employee is a "client" collapses into whether the
communication between the attorney and the employee
constitutes the giving or receiving of legal advice.
Rambus argues that the slide presentation reflects the
legal advice given to Mr. Karp by Mr. Steinberg, and
then conveyed to the entire company. The court cannot
agree that the slides represent "legal advice," nor can the
employees who heard the presentation be called "clients"
within the meaning of the attorney-client privilege. To
the contrary, the slides are more akin to a press release albeit, shared with Rambus's employees only - informing
them of the company's [*24] business plans. Rambus had
no legal need to "advise" its rank-and-file employees
about when it planned to begin enforcing its patents. In
that sense, the communication here is quite unlike the
sensitive (and personalized) internal investigation
conducted by in-house counsel in Upjohn. Perhaps the
most relevant piece of evidence in the document to the
upcoming trial - that Rambus named the initiation of its

Page 8
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11764, *24

patent enforcement campaign "Lexington - the Shot
Heard Around the World" - cannot credibly be referred to
as "legal advice." It is a marketing slogan designed to
inspire Rambus's employees at an uncertain time in
Rambus's existence. While the presentation was
obviously confidential, it is not privileged.
As discussed, the two documents clearly contain
confidential Rambus business information. That is not,
however, a basis for excluding them from evidence.
Rambus's motion under Rule 403 is rooted in these
documents being protected by the attorney-client
privilege. Even were the court to hold that the documents
were erroneously ordered produced in discovery, Rambus
has not demonstrated that the two Powerpoint
presentations are privileged. Accordingly, Rambus has

not demonstrated that [*25] admitting the documents
into evidence would cause substantial unfair prejudice.
III. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the court denies Rambus's
motion in limine to exclude Exhibits C and O.
DATED: 2/2/2008
/s/ Ronald M. Whyte
RONALD M. WHYTE
United States District Judge