Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 190

Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn in Support of #189 Opposition/Response to Motion to Dismiss and Strike Apple's Counterclaims 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)(Related document(s) #189 ) (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 8/29/2011)

Exhibit B

~

IIII m1m 111111111111111111 II
San Francisco Superior Courts
Information Technology Group

Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Feb-24-2006 3:45 pm

Case Number: CGC-04-4311 05
Filing Date: Feb-24-2006 3:43
Juke Box: 001

Image: 01391819

CROSS COMPLAINT

RAMBUS INC., VS. MICRON TECHNOLOGY,INC.,A DELAWARE CORPORATION et c

001C01391819

Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.

.

(

(
1 SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
2 Including Professional Corporations
GARY L. HALLING, Cal. Bar No. 66087
3 JAMES L. MCGINNIS, Cal. Bar No. 95788
MONA SOLOUKI, Cal. Bar No. 215145
4 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4106
5 Telephone: [phone]
FacsImile: 415-434-3947
6
Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Complainant
7 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

8

ORIGINAL

Saftancl b~orCourt
~D
1

FEB ,24 2006
GORDON pa:K-U, Clerk
~
?'Q'} rnm.. ·

OeputyClerk-

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

9

RAMBUS INC.,
10

11

v.

Plaintiff,

12 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et aI.,
Defendants.

16

Defendant and Cross-Complainant,

17

v.

18 RAMBUS, INC
19

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant

20
21

AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
W02-SF:FN0I61485765.1
Cas. No. 04-431105

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAM SUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT RAMBUS,INC.

c

(

•

CROSS-COMPLAINT

1

2
3

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Samsung Electronics Co, LTD. ("SEC")

4 brings the following cross-claims against Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Rambus Inc.
5 ("Rambus") and Does 1-20, inclusive.

6

1.

SEC is a Korean corporation based in Seoul, Korea, with its principal

7 place of business at 250 Taepyungro-2ga ]ung-Gu, Seoul, 100-742, Republic of Korea.
8 SEC is the ultimate parent of defendants and cross-complainants Samsung Semiconductor,
9 Inc. ("SSI") and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ("SEA"). SEC, SSI, and SEA are
10 collectively referred to herein as "Samsung."

2.

11

Rambus is a corporation incorporated and existing under the laws of

12 Delaware, with its principal place ofbusiness at 4440 El Camino Real, Los Altos,
13 California, 94022.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

3.

Cross-defendants Does 1-20, inclusive, are hereby sued herein under

such fictitious names. Their true names and capacities of Does 1-20 are unknown to SEC.
When their true names and capacities are ascertained, SEC will amend this CrossComplaint by inserting their true names and capacities. SEC is informed and believes, and
thereon alleges, that each of the fictitiously-named cross-defendants Does 1·20 acted in
concert with Rambus and each other, and each is somehow responsible for the illegal and
wrongful acts, and injury suffered by SEC, as alleged herein.

21

22

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4.

23

This Court has jurisdiction over this Cross-Complaint under

24 California Code of Civil Procedure Section 428.10.

5.

25

Venue is proper in this county under California Code of Civil

26 Procedure Section 428.10 and Section 395.
27
28
W02-SF:~"N0'61485765.1

Case No. 04-4311 OS

-1-

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT RAM BUS, INC.
.....~ - - _ . _ - -

c

(

•

1
2

RAI\1BUS' UNFAIR, ANTICOMPETITIVE AND ILLEGAL CONDUCT
6.

Rambus has used a series of unfair, anticompetitive and illegal tactics

3 to systematically eliminate, or prevent the development of DRAM products which compete
4 with Rambus' own "Direct Rambus DRAM" or "RDRAM" technology. These wrongful
5 activities included systematic misuse of standard-setting organizations through repeated
6 efforts to gain industry-wide acceptance for standards which would incorporate alleged
7 Rambus proprietary and patented technologies without disclosing that fact to the other
8 participants in those standard-setting organizations, and in violation of the rules of those
9 organizations. Rambus has pursued an anticompetitive business strategy employing
10 litigation, threats and illegal tactics against Samsung and others, including a carefully
11 orchestrated document destruction program to make sure that none of its damaging internal
12 documents would ever be produced or discovered.
13

7.

Beginning no later than 1998, and continuing to the present, Rambus'

14 unfair, anticompetitive and illegal scheme directly targeted DRAM manufacturers such as
15 Samsung that manufactured and sold DRAM products that competed with Rambus'
16 RDRAM technology. Rambus' illegal plan included pursuing a raft of illegitimate claims
17 and allegations against DRAM manufacturers that developed competing technologies,
18 including Samsung, Micron, Hynix and Siemens, threats in negotiations, and unfounded
19 lawsuits which included alleged claims for unfair competition, antitrust violations and
20 alleged patent infringement.
21

8.

From the time of its founding, Rambus never had any intention of

22 manufacturing any products. Its business plan included improperly obtaining patents and
23 either compelling others to take licenses, or suing. Since at least 1998, spurious litigation
24 has been an important component of Rambus' business strategy against its rivals. Rambus
25 purports to be the owner by assignment of various U.S. Patents purportedly related to the
26 manufacture of DRAM and DRAM interfaces.
27

9.

During the 1990s, Rambus actively participated in industry meetings

28 on standards for DRAM products, including SDRAM and DDR DRAM products in the
-2-

c

(

1 Joint Electron Device Engineering Council ("JEDEC"). Rambus improperly used
2 information it obtained as a result of its membership in JEDEC to secure additional patents
3 and claims. Rambus' use of this information was in violation of policies applicable to all
4 JEDEC members and constituted fraud on JEDEC and its members. Further, Rambus'
5 failure to disclose to other members of JEDEC that it had taken information from JEDEC
6 to craft its patent claims, only to seek to enforce its claims against JEDEC compliant
7 products many years after JEDEC members had invested heavily in the technology without
8 notice of Rambus' conduct, is inequitable and estops Rambus from enforcing its claims
9 herein.
10

10.

Rambus'unfair, anticompetitive and iIlegal plan included the secret

11 hiring ofa Samsung in-house counsel, tortious interference with that lawyer's contract with

12 Samsung and inducing that lawyer to breach his fiduciary duties to Samsung, as a way to
13 gain surreptitious advantage in its efforts to harm Samsung's business. Neil Steinberg,
14 Esq. was employed as an in-house attorney at SEA (an affiliate ofSSI and a whoIly-owned
IS subsidiary of SEC) into August 1998. By February 1998, Rambus had secretly engaged
16 Mr. Steinberg to actively work for it as an attorney, providing legal advice and strategies
17 for the enforcement oflegal claims, including patent claims against DRAM manufacturers,
18 notwithstanding the fact that Ramblis knew Mr. Steinberg was employed as a full time, in19 house counsel for Samsung. By at least as early as June 1998, while stiIl employed at
20 Samsung, Mr. Steinberg had a Rambus e-mail account.
21

II.

As an in-house attorney for Samsung, Mr. Steinberg owed Samsung a

22 fiduciary duty of utmost good faith and fair dealing and undivided loyalty and honesty in
23 fact. Mr. Steinberg ended his employment with Samsung in August 1998.
24

12.

Upon information and belief, Mr. Steinberg in breach of these duties

25 actively worked to help Rambus plan patent prosecution strategies, patent enforcement
26 strategies, document handling and retention strategies for use in litigation, and to take
27 other measures to extract royalties from manufacturers of DRAMs, including against
28 Samsung. SEA does not know whether Mr. Steinberg actuaIly worked on patent
-3W02-SF:FN0I61485765.\
Case No. 04-43\105

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINSTCROS5-DEFENDANT RAMBUS,INC.

(

(

1 applications for Rambus during his Samsung employment, but reserves the right to take
2 discovery and amend if discovery shows that he did so. Further, upon information and
3 belief, Mr. Steinberg used information about Samsung's business and DRAM products in
4 connection with his work for Rambus, despite the fact that he was under contractual and
5 fiduciary duties not to disclose such information about Samsung's business or use it
6 contrary to Samsung's interests.
7

13.

Rambus was aware that Mr. Steinberg was still employed as an

8 attorney by Samsung when Rambus engaged his services. Rambus was further aware of
9 the fiduciary capacity in which Mr. Steinberg worked for Samsung, and ofthe duties that
10 Mr. Steinberg owed to Samsung. The existence of Mr. Steinberg's dual employment with
11 Samsung and Rambus was revealed for the first time during the trial of Rambus v.
12 Infineon, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in 2005, and
13 Rambus' wrongful conduct herein alleged could not have been discovered by SEC before
14 that time.
15

14.

By February 1998, Rambus had decided on a scheme to employ

16 litigation, threats and intimidation in order to license its purported SDRAM and DDR
17 SDRAM technology to the DRAM industry. By the Spring of 1998, while working on this
18 scheme, Rambus was actively seeking to improve its SDRAM and DDR SDRAM patent
19 portfolio.
20

15.

On or about October 31,2000, SEC and Rambus entered into an

21 agreement entitled "SDRlDDR IC and SDRlDDR Memory Module Patent License
22 Agreement Between Rambus Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." (the "SDRlDDR
23 License"), and executed an "SDRlDDR License" to Rambus' patents for, among other
24 things, SDRAM and DDR patents, in 2000. On or about November, 1994 these same
25 parties also entered into an agreement titled "Semiconductor Technology License
26 Agreement" concerning RDRAM technology. The SDRlDDR License required Rambus to
27 provide notification if another, later license received a lower effective royalty rate; and
28 further to adjust SEC's rate to the lower effective rate. Further, the SDRlDDR License also
-4-

(

(
•

1 required good faith negotiation of a renewal by Rambus which it has refused to do. Earlier
2 this year, Rambus' efforts to injure SEC's business escalated when Rambus wrongfully
3 chose to discontinue its license arrangement with SEC in breach of its legal obligations,
4 and then commenced spurious patent and other litigation, in part, as a negotiation tactic to
5 further its unfair, anticompetitive and illegal plan alleged herein.
6

16.

Rambus systematically and deliberately destroyed documents, over

7 the course of more than four years, that would (a) demonstrate the falsity of Rambus'
8 claims and positions, (b) reveal Rambus' motives, actions and knowledge, and (c) allow
9 Rambus' DRAM industry targets to defend themselves fully against Rambus' spurious
10 claims.
17.

11

A federal district court in Virginia has declared that Rambus' conduct

12 was illegal. That court found that Rambus' document destruction plan "was devised and
13 implemented with the aid and advice oflawyers, both in-house and outside," and was
14 intended "to destroy discoverable documents as part of its litigation strategy."
18.

15

In September 1998, Rambus commenced its first known "shred

16 party." During this first shred party, Rambus began to "cleanse" its patent prosecution and
17 related files which provided evidence of its illegal scheme alleged herein, by destroying
18 documents related to, at least, patents that Rambus was planning to enforce against the
19 DRAM industry. The destroyed documents related to, among others, patents to which
20 other Rambus patents claim priority, including patents that issued after the first shred
21 party.
22

19.

During April 1999, Rambus had its patent attorneys "cleanse" their

23 files. During August 1999, Rambus commenced its second known "shred party." During
24 this second shred party, Rambus again "cleansed" its patent prosecution and related files
25 which provided evidence of its illegal scheme alleged herein, by destroying additional
26 documents related to, at least, patents that Rambus was planning to enforce or was
27 litigating against the DRAM industry. The destroyed documents related to, among others,

28
W02-SF:FN0I6148S76S.\
C.seNo.04-43110S

-5-

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT RAMBUS,INC.

(

(

I patents to which other Rambus patents claim priority, including patents that issued after
2 the second shred party.
3

20.

During the Spring of2000, Rambus was notified by its outside

4 counsel that it had a duty to preserve all documents related to its patents and/or the
5 litigation against DRAM manufacturers. During June 2000 and after litigation with one
6 DRAM manufacturer settled, Rambus again directed its patent attorneys to destroy
7 documents.
8

21.

During December 2000, Rambus commenced its third known "shred

·9 party." During this third shred party, Rambus again "cleansed" its patent prosecution and
10 related files which provided evidence of its iIlegal scheme alleged herein, by destroying
II additional documents related to, at least, patents that Rambus was enforcing and litigating
12 against the DRAM industry. The destroyed documents related to, among others, patents to
13 which other Rambus patents claim priority, including patents that issued after the third
14 shred party.
15

22.

SEC could not have discovered Rambus' destruction of documents

16 until it became public in the Rambus v. Infineon litigation in the Eastern District of
17 Virginia in February, 2005.
18

23.

Rambus' document destruction covered all major categories of

19 documents generated in the ordinary course of Rambus' business, such as e-mail
20 communications, notes of contract negotiations, and drafts and other information useful in
21 ascertaining the truth and in testing the validity of the positions taken by Rambus in this
22 and its other lawsuits. Rambus' anticompetitive conduct described herein has caused
23 substantial harm to consumers, to developers of competing DRAM technology and to
24 DRAM manufacturers and their customers. Rambus by its conduct fraudulently concealed
25 the violations alleged herein.
26

24.

Rambus' wrongful conduct caused SEC and others to pay substantial,

27 unwarranted fees and/or royalties to Rambus.
28
W02·SF:FNO~148S76S.1

CaseNo.04-43110S

-6-

CROSS·COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS·DEFENDANT RAMBUS, INC.

(

(
25.

1

Rambus' conduct caused SEC and others to incur substantial

2 unrecovered costs and expenses associated with researching and developing products
3 based on Rambus' purported technology.

4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

5

(Unlawful Business Acts or Practices in Violation of the

6

California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)

7

26.

SEC realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 25

8 above, and 35 through 37 and 40 through 42 herein, as though fully restated herein.

9

27.

California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business and

10 Professions Code section 17200 et seq., proscribes "unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent"
11 business acts or practices. By committing the above-described acts and practices, and each
12 of them, Rambus has engaged, and continues to engage, in an ongoing course of unlawful
13 business acts or practices within the meaning of the UCL in that Rambus' business acts and
14 practices, as alleged herein, that violate, without limitation, federal and state antitrust laws;
15 laws against obstruction ofjustice, including without limitation 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505;
16 laws proscribing destruction of evidence, including wit~out limitation, California Penal
17 Code § 135; the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et
18 seq.; and state common law torts, including without limitation knowing and intentional
19 interference with SEC's contractual and prospective business and employment relations,
20 each ofwhich described herein constitutes a separate and independent ground for violation
21 ofthe UCL.
22

28.

As a result ofthe alleged unlawful acts and practices of Rambus, SEC

23 has suffered injury in fact and has lost, and continues to lose, money or property.
24

29.

The above-described, ongoing course of unlawful conduct by Rambus

25 constitutes a continuing threat to SEC. SEC is thus entitled to injunctive and declarative
26 relief preventing Rambus from continuing its wrongful course of conduct. SEC is further
27 entitled to additional relief including, without limitation, restitution from Rambus for all
28 license and royalty fees paid.
W02·SF:FN0I6148S76S.1

Case No. 04-43 11 OS

-7-

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT RAMBUS,INC.

(

(
1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2

(Unfair and Fraudulent Business Acts or Practices in Violation of the

3

California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200)

4

30.

SEC realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 25

5 above, and 27,35 through 37 and 40 through 42 herein, as though fully set forth herein.

6

31.

Rambus' acts and practices, as alleged herein, constitute unfair and

7 fraudulent acts and practices within the meaning of the VCL in that such conduct, without
8 limitation, threatens an incipient violation ofthe federal and state antitrust laws, and
9 violates the policy or spirit of one or more of those laws because the effects of Rambus'
10 above-described conduct are comparable to, or the same as, a violation ofthe law, or
11 otherwise significantly threaten or harm competition.
12

32.

As a result of the alleged unfair and fraudulent acts and practices of

13 Rambus, SEC has suffered injury in fact and has lost, and continues to lose, money or
14 property.
15

33.

The above-described, ongoing course ofunfair and fraudulent conduct

16 by Rambus constitutes a continuing threat to SEC. SEC is thus entitled to injunctive and
17 declarative relief preventing Rambus from continuing its wrongful course of conduct.
18 SEC is further entitled to additional relief including, without limitation, restitution from
19 Rambus for all license and royalty fees paid.
20

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

21

(Intentional Interference with SEC's Existing Contractual Relations)

22

34.

SEC realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 25,

23 27-28 and 31-32 above as though fully set forth herein.
24

35.

Rambus was aware that Samsung was involved in a valid and existing

25 contractual relationship with Mr. Steinberg, which included fiduciary duties to Samsung,
26 when Rambus wrongfully hired Mr. Steinberg and induced breaches of said employment
27 relationship and attendant fiduciary duties. Rambus was aware of SEC's valid and existing
28 contracts with SEC's customers for delivery ofvarious DRAM products, including those
-8W02-SF;FNO'01485765.1
Case No. 04-431105

-------

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.• LTD.
AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT RAMBUS, INC.

- - -----------------

c

(

1 developed and distributed related to various licenses with and purported technology of
2 Rambus.
3

36.

Through the anticompetitive and otherwise illegal and improper

4 conduct alleged herein, Rambus intentionally and knowingly interfered (1) with the
5 SamsunglSteinberg employment relationship and attendant fiduciary duties by hiring
6 Mr. Steinberg while still employed at Samsung and prior to expiration of his contractual
7 employment term; and (2) with SEC's existing contracts with SEC's customers for the
8 delivery of DRAM products manufactured and delivered, including products related to
9 various licenses with and purported technology of Rambus, by hindering SEC's
10 performance under those contracts and/or making SEC's performance more expensive and
11 burdensome.
12

37.

SEC is entitled to recover actual damages because it has been, and

13 continues to be, proximately harmed as a result ofRambus' wrongful and illegal
14 interference with SEC's valid and existing contractual relations as herein described, and
15 has suffered, and continues to suffer substantial damages.
16

38.

In doing the illegal acts described herein, Rambus acted with

17 oppression, fraud, and malice toward SEC. Accordingly, SEC is entitled to punitive and
18 exemplary damages sufficient to punish and deter Rambus.
19

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

20

(Intentionallnterrerence with SEC's Prospective Economic Advantage)

21

39.

SEC realleges and incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 25,

22 27-28,31-32 and 35-36 above as though fully set forth herein.
23

Rambus was aware of SEC's economic relationships with prospective

40.

24 purchasers, including existing customers, for the future delivery of DRAM products,
25 including those produced and distributed related to various licenses with and purported
26 technology of Rambus.
27
28
-9.

W02·SFHl0\61485765.1
Case No. 04-431105

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS-DEFENDANT RAMBUS. INC.

__ - - - - . _ -

--.

.

----.

---------- - - - - ._._,--

(

(
•

1

41.

Through the anticompetitive and otherwise illegal and improper

2 conduct alleged herein, Rambus intentionally and knowingly interfered with SEC's
3 economic relationships with such prospective purchasers, including existing customers.
4

42.

SEC is entitled to recover actual damages because it has been, and

5 continues to be, proximately harmed as a result of Rambus' wrongful and illegal
6 interference, and has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial damages.
7

43.

In doing the illegal acts described herein, Rambus acted with

8 oppression, fraud, and malice toward SEC. Accordingly, SEC is entitled to punitive and
9 exemplary damages sufficient to punish and deter Rambus.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

10
11

WHEREFORE, SEC asks this Court to enter judgment in its favor and

12 against Rambus, and to grant the following relief under the above causes of action
13 according to proof:
14

a.

An award of actual damages;

15

b.

An award of monetary recovery pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code

§ 17203, including restitution of all license and royalty fees paid;

16
17

c.

Punitive and exemplary damages in a sum sufficient to punish and

18

deter Rambus from its intentional, illegal, and wrongful course of

19

conduct as described herein;

20

d.

21
22

An award of all unjustly-obtained royalties and license fees collected
by Rambus;

e.

Injunctive and declaratory relief with respect to the unfair, illegal and
deceptive business acts and practices described herein;

23
24

f.

An award of pre- and post-judgment interest;

25

g.

An award of reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses;

26

h.

And such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

27

28
W02·SF:FNO'b148S765.1
Casc No. 04431105

-10-

CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.
AGAINST CROSS·DEFENDANT RAM BUS, INC.

---

... _ . - - ... _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~

(

(
1

2 DATED: February p..4, 2006
3

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

4
5

By

6
7

Attorneys for efendant and Cross-Complainant
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

8
9

10
11

12

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Cross-Complainant and Defendant SEC hereby demands a trial by jury on all

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP

By
Attorneys for Defendants and Cross-Co plainants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

-11-

~- -~--~---------~-----~-~--

c

(
1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

Ramblls Inc. v. Micron Tee/molom Inc.! et al.: and Related Cross-Actions.
San Francisco Superior Court No. 04-431105

3
I am employed in the County of San Francisco; I am over the age ofeighteen
years and not a party to the within entitled action; my business address is Sheppard,
5 Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor, San Francisco,
California 94111-4106.
6
On February 24, 2006, I served the following document(s) described as:
7
CROSS-COMPLAINT OF SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AGAINST
8 CROSS-DEFENDANT RAl\tBUS, INC. (JURY TRIAL DEMANDED)

4

9 on the interested party(ies) in this action by placing true copies thereof enclosed in sealed
envelopes and/or packages addressed as follows:
10
See Attached Service List
BY FACSIMILE: I caused said documents (without attachments) to be
transmitted by facsimile Fursuant to Rule 2008 of the California Rules of Court.
The telephone number 0 the sending facsimile machine was 415-434-3947. The
name{s) and facsimile machine telephone number(s) of the person(s) served are set
forth In the service list. The sending facsimile machine (or the machine used to
forward the facsimile) issued a transmission report confirming that the transmission
was complete and without error.
BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and
processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited
with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at
San Francisco, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid ifpostal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in
affidavit.
.
STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of
California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on February 24, 2006, at San Francisco, California.

EDWARDJ. WHI~

C05< No. 04431105
W02·SF:FE2'61477752.\

-1-

PROOF OF SERVICE

(

(

•

1

SERVICE LIST

2

Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al.; and Related Cross-Actions,
San Francisco Superior Court No. 04-431105

3
Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
4 Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
Philip L Gregory, Esq.
5 Nanci E. Nishimura, Esq.
Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy
6 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, CA 94010 .
7 Tele{lhone: (650) 697·6000
FacSImile: [phone]
8 E-mail: [e-mail]

Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
Bradley S. Phillips, Esq.
Steven M. Perry, Esq.
Shont E. Miller, Esq.
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
Tele{lhone: [phone]
FacSImile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

9 For: PlaintiffRambus Inc.

For: PlaintiffRambus Inc.

10 Jeffrey I. Bleich, Esq.
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
11 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105·2907
12 Tele{lhone: [phone]
FacSImile: [phone]
13 E-mail: [e-mail]
14 For: PlaintiffRambus Inc.
15

Patrick Lynch, Esq.
Kenneth R. O'Rourke, Esq.
O'Melveny & Myers, LLP
400 South Hope Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Tele{lhone: [phone]
FacSImile: (213 430-6407
E-mail: lchomm.com;
korourke omm.com
For: Defendant Hynix Semiconductor
America, Inc.

16
17 Theodore G. Brown, 111, Esq.
Townsend and Townsend and Crew
18 379LyttonAvenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
19
Tele{lhone: [phone]
20 FacSImile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
21
Defendant Hynix Semiconductor America,
22 Inc.

Kenneth L. Nissly, Esq.
Susan C. Van Keulen, Esq.
Thelen Reid & Priest LLP
225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200
San Jose, CA 95113
Tele{lhone: [phone]
FacSImile: [phone]
E-mail: kennisslthelenreid.com;
svankeulen the enreid.com
For: Defendant Hynix Semiconductor
America, Inc.

23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 04-431105
W02·SF:FE2\6147n52.\

-2PROOF OF SERVICE

•

(

(

•

1 John B. Quinn, Esq.
Adrian M. Pruetz, Esq.
2 Jon R. Steiger, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urguhart
3
Oliver & Hedges, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
4 Los Angeles, CA 90017·2543
5 Telephone: [phone]
FacsImile: [phone]
6 E-mail: ·ohnuinnuinnemanue1.com;
adrian rueta uinnemanuel.com;
7 jonstelger quinnemanuel.com
8 For: Defendants and Cross-Complainants
Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron
9 Semiconductor Products, Inc.
10
11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 04-43110S
W02-SF:FE2'6\4777S2.\

-3PROOF OF SERVICE