146-2

7/29/2019 146-2

1/54

EXHIBIT A

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document146-2 Filed03/07/13 Page1 of 54

7/29/2019 146-2

2/54


7/29/2019 146-2

3/54


7/29/2019 146-2

4/54

EXHIBIT B


7/29/2019 146-2

5/54

TELEPHONI C HEARI NG BEFORE J UDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 02/ 21/ 2013

1 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT2 FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A3 - - -o0o- - -45 RAMBUS, I NC. ,6 Pl ai nt i f f ,7 vs. No. C- 10- 5449 RS8 STM CROELECTRONI CS, N. V. ,et al . ,9 Def endant s.10 ____________________________/11 Tel ephoni c Conf er ence12 Hon. Vaughn R. Wal ker13 Thur sday, Febr uar y 21, 201314151617181920 REPORTED BY: DEBORAH FUQUA, CSR #12948212223 NOGARA REPORTI NG SERVI CE24 5 Thi r d st r eet , Sui t e 415San Franci sco, Cal i f orni a 9490325 ( 415)398- 1889

1< NOGARA REPORTI NG SERVI CE >>


7/29/2019 146-2

6/54


1 at K&L Gat es shal l , not l at er t han - - and, agai n, we' l l2 det ermne what dat e shoul d be i nser t ed - - shal l subm t3 under penal t y of per j ur y a decl ar at i on t hat st at es, A,4 i nstr uct i ons on t he means t o pr eser ve document s5 respons i ve t o Request f or Product i on served6 J ul y 8, 2011, Nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, and 31 wer e conveyed t o7 STM cro t oget her wi t h i nst ruct i ons on appropr i at e means8 of compl yi ng wi t h t he f oregoi ng document requests , and,9 B, t o t he best of counsel s' knowl edge, STM cr o has10 f ul l y compl i ed wi t h i t s di scover y obl i gat i ons i n11 response t o t he f oregoi ng Request f or Product i on.12 Now, Mr . Det r e and Mr . Grat z i nger , you' ve been13 deal i ng wi t h counsel f or STM cr o f or some per i od of14 t i me. The bl anks i n what I pr oposed ar e wi t h r espect15 t o how much t i me t hey shoul d be gi ven t o r espond. Do16 you have a suggest i on?17 MR. GRATZI NGER: Wel l , your Honor , here' s my18 concer n. And I apol ogi ze i f i t ' s not a - - i f i t ' s a19 sl i ght l y l onger answer than what you were hopi ng f or .20 But what I see as a pr obl em her e i s t hat t he par t i es21 have, apparent l y, a very di f f erent unders tandi ng of22 what i t means to compl y wi t h t hese request s.23 I bel i eve t hat ST- - - Ms. Chow' s l et t er24 suggest s t hat t hey bel i eve t hat t hey have done a25 di l i gent sear ch. And our r esponsi ve l et t er poi nt s out



7/29/2019 146-2

7/54


1 the many ways i n whi ch they have not .2 And what I ' m af r ai d i s we may get back t hese3 decl arat i ons and we may get them back prompt l y, but the4 under l yi ng di sput e of what i t means t hat a di l i gent5 search was made and no addi t i onal document s exi st , t hat6 di spute wi l l r emai n.7 And t her ef or e, your Honor , whi l e I t hi nk t hat8 t hi s t ype of decl ar at i on i s ver y appr opr i at e, I t hi nk9 i t woul d be pr ef er abl e i f your Honor woul d gi ve STM cr o10 some gui dance as t o what a reasonabl e search l ooks11 l i ke, f or exampl e, ver y basi c t hi ngs, l i ke i t needs t o12 cover al l of t he accused pr oduct s, or , " I f you' r e13 compl yi ng wi t h a request f or al l document s appl yi ng to14 Rambus, you need t o search f or t he word ' Rambus. ' "15 I ' maf r ai d wi t hout i ncor por at i ng some of t he16 m ni mal gui del i nes f or r easonabl e sear ch that we' ve put17 i n our l et t er t hat we' r e not goi ng t o move t he bal l18 f or war d. And t hat ' s of gr eat concer n t o us wi t h t hat19 di scover y endi ng not - - i n t he not - t o- di st ant f ut ur e.20 THE COURT: Wel l , t hat ' s cer t ai nl y a l egi t i mat e21 concer n, Mr . Gr at z i nger . But her e' s my thi nki ng.22 Number one, i t appears t hat we may be movi ng23 t o a poi nt at whi ch t her e wi l l be a mot i on on your par t24 f or sanct i ons f or f ai l ur e t o compl y wi t h di scover y25 obl i gat i ons. That r equi r es a speci f i c cour t or der .



7/29/2019 146-2

8/54


1 And what I pr opose i s a cour t or der wi t h some2 speci f i ci t y so t hat , i f t her e i s not adequat e3 compl i ance, t hat appr opr i at e sanct i on can be i mposed.4 Secondl y, none of t hi s i n any way f or ecl oses a5 di scussi on wi t h STM cr o about what i s an appr opr i at e6 response to these di scover y r equest s . And what you7 pr opose i s not i n t he l east f or ecl osed by an or der8 di r ect i ng t he subm ssi on of t he decl ar at i ons t hat I9 have out l i ned.10 And i t may be t hat r equi r i ng t hese11 decl ar at i ons i s what i s necessar y i n or der t o engage12 STM cr o i n t hat ki nd of a di scussi on. I t ' s essent i al l y13 i mpossi bl e t o have a di scussi on wi t h t hemat t he14 pr esent . Af t er al l , t hey ar e not her e, and t hei r15 counsel ar e not here.16 MR. GRATZI NGER: Fai r enough, your Honor . I t hi nk17 I under st and bet t er your t hi nki ng on t hi s, and I18 appr eci at e t hat .19 I f t hat ' s t he st r uct ur e t hat you have i n m nd,20 I t hi nk t hat t he r esponse dat es f or t hese decl ar at i ons21 shoul d be r el at i vel y qui ck. I ' m not t er r i bl y hopef ul22 that STM cro i s goi ng to under t ake a maj or new document23 col l ect i on ef f or t i n advance of pr ovi di ng t hese24 decl ar at i ons.25 I f t hey t el l us t hat t hey i nt end t o do so,



7/29/2019 146-2

9/54

EXHIBIT C


7/29/2019 146-2

10/54

123456789

10111213141516171819202122

232425262728

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTSREQUEST NO.1:

Documents sufficient to identify any Accused STMicro Product made, used, imported into,sold, or offered for sale in the United States, including documents identifying different models ofsuch Accused STMicro Products.REQUEST NO.2:

Five (5) samples of each and every Accused STMicro Product made, used, imported into,sold, or offered for sale in the United States, including any associated materials normallyaccompanying the product, such as user manuals or installation instructions.REQUEST NO.3:

Complete design specifications for each and every Accused STMicro Product made, used,imported into, sold, or offered for sale in the United States.REQUEST NO.4:

All documents relating to the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, andmanufacturing of Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited to specifications,schematics, block diagrams, data sheets, layouts, databases, depictions, photographs, simulations,test protocols, test results, manuals, journals, notes, and notebooks.REQUEST NO.5:

All documents relating to the standardization of the features, functions, or specifications ofthe DRAM Memory Controllers of the Accused STMicro Products, including but not limited todocuments related to decisions regarding what features, functions, or specifications to include in theDRAM Memory Controllers of the Accused STMicro Products.REQUEST NO.6:

All documents relating to the theory of operation, method or manner of operation, or functionof each Accused STMicro Product.

FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION6 FROM RAMBUS TO STMICROCASE NO. 3:10-CV-05449 RS


7/29/2019 146-2

11/54

1 REQUEST NO.7:2 All documents and things demonstrating that any of STMicro's Accused Products are3 designed to be compatible with memory devices that comply with any revision, iteration, or4 addendum of JEDEC Standard No. 21-C, JEDEC Standard JESD79, JEDEC Standard JESD79-2,5 JEDEC Standard JESD79-3, JEDEC Standard JESD209, JEDEC Standard JESD209-2, JEDEC6 Standard JESD208, or JEDEC Standard JESD212.7 REQUEST NO.8:8 All documents that relate to design meetings and/or discussions for Accused STMicro9 Products, including but not limited to all notes, agendas, minutes, reports, action item lists,

10 management summaries, and assignment lists relating to the design ofAccused STMicro Products.11 REQUEST NO.9:12 Documents sufficient to identify third parties contacted, consulted, hired, and/or retained that13 have worked with STMicro or with another third party on STMicro's behalf on the conception,14 design, development, implementation, testing, marketing, manufacturing, or distribution of any15 Accused STMicro Product.16 REQUEST NO. 10:17 Documents sufficient to show any distribution agreement between STMicro and any third18 party for any Accused STMicro Product.19 REQUEST NO. 11:20 Documents sufficient to show the identity of any third-party products imported into or sold in21 the United States that contain or use any Accused STMicro Product.22 REQUEST NO. 12:23 Documents sufficient to show, quarter by quarter, for each model or version of the Accused24 STMicro Products, the number or volume of (a) Accused STMicro Products manufactured in the25 United States and (b) Accused STMicro Products manufactured outside of the United States and26 imported into the United States.2728



7/29/2019 146-2

12/54

1 REQUEST NO. 13: .2 Documents sufficient to show the means and agents by which any Accused STMicro Product3 is imported into the United States.4 REQUEST NO. 14:,5 All documents referring to Rambus or Rambus's DRAM Memory Controller technology.6 REQUEST NO. 15:,7 All documents relating to whether Rambus mayor may not have proprietary rights, via8 patents or otherwise, with respect to any technology.9 REQUEST NO. 16:

10 All documents that relate to any of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.11 REQUEST NO. 17:12 All documents relating to the circumstances under which STMicro first came into possession13 or became aware of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, including without limitation when, how, and14 from whom STMicro became aware of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.15 REQUEST NO. 18:16 All minutes taken of, and documents distributed in connection with, any meeting of17 STMicro's board of directors or other corporate committees or subcommittees concerning any of the18 Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.19 REQUEST NO. 19:20 All documents and things that support or undermine any belief or contention of STMicro' s21 concerning the validity or invalidity, enforceability or unenforceability, infringement or22 noninfringement, or scope of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.23 REQUEST NO. 20:24 All documents and things that support or undermine any belief or contention of STMicro's25 concerning secondary indicia ofnon obviousness, including but not limited to long-felt need, failure26 of others, unexpected results, praise for the claimed inventions, commercial success of the claimed2728



7/29/2019 146-2

13/54

1 REQUEST NO. 27:2 All documents and things relating to or concerning whether the manufacture, use, offer for3 sale, or sale of any STMicro product would infringe the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.4 REQUEST NO. 28:5 All documents and things relating to or concerning any attempt by STMicro, or anyone6 acting on behalf of STMicro, to design around any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.7 REQUEST NO. 29:8 All documents relating to any communications or negotiations between STMicro and9 Rambus relating to the licensing of any patents owned by, or exclusively licensed to, Rambus,

10 including but not limited to the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents.11 REQUEST NO. 30:12 All documents relating to STMicro's analysis or consideration ofpossible royalty rates for13 the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, including any documents reviewed or relied upon in connection14 with any such analysis.15 REQUEST NO. 31:16 All marketing, promotional, sales, or advertising documents or presentation materials that17 relate to any Accused STMicro Product, including but not limited to all sales brochures, promotional18 materials, trade show packets and documents, and internet postings.19 REQUEST NO. 32:20 All documents relating to the strategic positioning of the Accused STMicro Products,21 including without limitation any documents relating to market studies, customer studies, customer22 and end-user needs and preferences, the relative importance ofprice, quality, reliability, specific23 product features, product performance, product service, product support, and the advantages, if any,24 of the Accused STMicro Products over competitor products.25262728



7/29/2019 146-2

14/54

Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 8 -251558

STMicros Amended/Supplemental Responses to Request Nos. 3-11, 13-17, 21-22, 26-31, 41, 52, & 55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

All documents relating to the conception, design, development, implementation, testing, and

manufacturing ofAccused STMicro Products, including but not limited to, specifications,

schematics, block diagrams, data sheets, layouts, databases, depictions, photographs, simulations,

test protocols, test results, manuals, journals, notes, and notebooks.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

STMicro incorporates the entirety of its Preliminary Statement and General Objections as

though fully set forth herein. STMicro objects to this request to the extent that it calls for

information that is neither relevant to the issues in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. STMicro further objects to this request as overbroad and unduly

burdensome to the extent it requests [c]omplete design specifications for each and everyAccused

STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for information

protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, and

any other applicable privilege or immunity. STMicro further objects to this request as premature to

the extent it seeks information likely to be the subject of expert testimony. STMicro further objects

to this request to the extent it seeks the confidential information of third parties. Subject to and

without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and without conceding that any

STMicro product falls under Rambuss purported definition ofAccused STMicro Products or

practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro responds that it will produce once a

protective order is entered documents sufficient to identify the requested information to the extent

that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after

a reasonably diligent search.

AMENDED/SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4:

STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specific

objections stated in its previous response to this request.

Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce responsive, relevant,

non-privileged documents relating to the conception, design, development, implementation, testing,

and manufacturing of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that


7/29/2019 146-2

15/54

Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 9 -251558


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can be located after a

reasonably diligent search.


All documents relating to the standardization of the features, functions, or specifications of

the DRAM Memory Controllers of theAccused STMicro Products, including but not limited to,

documents related to decisions regarding what features, functions, or specifications to include in the

DRAM Memory Controllers of theAccused STMicro Products.



though fully set forth herein. STMicro objects to this request to the extent that it calls for

information that is neither relevant to the issues in this action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. STMicro further objects to this request as overbroad and unduly

burdensome to the extent it requests all documents. STMicro further objects to this request to the

extent it calls for information protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege, the attorney

work product doctrine, and any other applicable privilege or immunity. STMicro further objects to

this request as premature to the extent it seeks information likely to be the subject of expert

testimony. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks the confidential information

of third parties. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and

without conceding that any STMicro product falls under Rambuss purported definition of Accused

STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro responds

that it is willing to meet and confer with Rambus regarding the scope of this request.


STMicro incorporates by reference each of the General Objections above and the specificobjections stated in its previous response to this request.


non-privileged documents, if any, (a) sufficient to show whether the products identified in response

to Interrogatory No. 1 are compatible with DRAM memory devices that comply with one or more

JEDEC standards and (b) evidencing any decisions regarding what features, functions, or


7/29/2019 146-2

16/54

Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 10 -251558


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

specifications to include in the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent


a reasonably diligent search.


All documents relating to the theory of operation, method, or manner of operation, or

function of eachAccused STMicro Product.



though fully set forth herein. STMicro further objects to this request as overly broad, unduly

burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, including

that it calls for production of all documents. Moreover, many aspects of theAccused Products,

which contain many features beyond the accused memory controller portions of those products, are

irrelevant to the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents. STMicro further objects to this request as vague and

ambiguous, in particular with respect to the phrase theory of operation, method, or manner of

operation, or function. STMicro further objects to this request as it calls for a legal conclusion, in

particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this

request as it calls for expert opinions prior the beginning of expert discovery, in particular with

respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request as

compound. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents beyond

STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties. STMicro further objects to

this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and communications that may

be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or any other protection from

discovery. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, andwithout conceding that any STMicro product falls under Rambuss purported definition ofAccused

STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro responds

that it will produce once a protective order is entered documents sufficient to describe the operation

of the memory controllers of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent



7/29/2019 146-2

17/54

Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 13 -251558


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

further objects to this request as it calls for expert opinions prior the beginning of expert discovery,

in particular with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this

request as compound. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks documents

beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties. STMicro further

objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and communications

that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or any other

protection from discovery. Subject to and without waiving its Specific or General Objections, and

without conceding that any product meets Rambuss definition ofAccused STMicro Products or

practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, STMicro will conduct a reasonable search

and produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged technical documentation relating to products

responsive to Interrogatory No. 1 sufficient to describe the operation of the memory controllers of

those products.





non-privileged documents evidencing design meetings or discussions, if any, concerning the design

of the products identified in response to Interrogatory No. 1 that are alleged to practice the asserted

claims of the Asserted Patents to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession,

custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search.


Documents sufficient to identify third parties contacted, consulted, hired, and/or retained that

have worked with STMicro or with another third party on STMicros behalf on the conception,design, development, implementation, testing, marketing, manufacturing, or distribution of any

Accused STMicro Product.





7/29/2019 146-2

18/54

Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 7 -268192

STMicros Amended/Supplemental Responses to Requests for Production Nos. 14, 17, 29, 32, 37-38, & 52-55

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28




burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, includingthat it calls for production of all documents. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it

seeks documents beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties.

STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and

communications that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or

any other protection from discovery. Subject to and without waiving its Specific or General

Objections, counsel for STMicro is willing to meet and confer with counsel for Rambus regarding

the scope of this Request.

1ST





non-privileged documents, if any, referring to Rambuss DRAM memory controller technology to

the extent that any such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or control, and can

be located after a reasonably diligent search.

2ND





non-privileged documents, if any, referring to Rambus and Rambuss DRAM memory controller

technology to the extent that any such documents exist, are in STMicros possession, custody, or

control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search.


All documents relating to the circumstances under which STMicro first came into possession

or became aware of the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, including without limitation when, how, and


7/29/2019 146-2

19/54

Case No. C 10-05449 RS - 29 -251558


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

features beyond the accused memory controller portions of those products, are irrelevant to the

Farmwald/Horowitz Patents, which have all expired. STMicro further objects to this request as

vague and ambiguous, in particular with respect to the phrase marketing, promotional, sales, or

advertising documents or presentation materials. STMicro further objects to this request as

compound. STMicro further objects to this request as it calls for a legal conclusion, in particular

with respect to the term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request as it

calls for expert opinions prior the beginning of expert discovery, in particular with respect to the

term Accused STMicro Product. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks

documents beyond STMicros custody and control and/or in the possession of third parties.

STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it calls for production of documents, things, and

communications that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine and/or

any other protection from discovery. STMicro further objects to this request to the extent it seeks

documents subject to any confidentiality agreement with a third party. Subject to and without

waiving its Specific or General Objections, and without conceding that any product meets Rambuss

definition of Accused STMicro Products or practices any claim of the Farmwald/Horowitz

Patents, STMicro will conduct a reasonable search and produce responsive, relevant, non-privileged

information sufficient to determine volumes and amounts of any U.S. sales.




Subject to these general and specific objections, STMicro will produce marketing,

promotional, sales, advertising, and presentation materials, if any, for the products identified in

response to Interrogatory No. 1 to the extent that such documents exist, are in STMicros possession,custody, or control, and can be located after a reasonably diligent search.


Documents sufficient to describe STMicros methods of accounting for revenues, costs, and

profits.


7/29/2019 146-2

20/54

EXHIBIT D


7/29/2019 146-2

21/54


1 UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT2 NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A3 SAN FRANCI SCO DI VI SI ON4 - - - o0o- - -5 RAMBUS I NC. ,6 Pl ai nt i f f , No. 310- cv- 0546 RS7 vs.8 LSI CORPORATI ON,9 Def endant .____________________________/10 RAMBUS I NC. ,

11 Pl ai nt i f f ,vs.12 STM CROELECTRONI CS N. V. ,13 STM CROELECTRONI CS I NC. ,14 Def endant s.____________________________/15 HEARI NG BEFORE J UDGE16 VAUGHN R. WALKER17 Fr i day, Sept ember 14, 2012181920 REPORTED BY: DEBORAH FUQUA, CSR #129492122

NOGARA REPORTI NG SERVI CE23 5 Thi r d St r eet , Sui t e 415San Franci sco, Cal i f orni a 9410324 ( 415) 398- 188925



7/29/2019 146-2

22/54


1 t o be honest , your Honor , I mean, i f Rambus' s posi t i on2 i s, i f you pr act i ce t he J EDEC st andar d, you i nf r i nge3 t he pat ent , t hen t hey have t he i nf or mat i on t hey need t o4 pr ove t hei r i nf r i ngement case, whi ch i s we' ve5 i dent i f i ed t he DDR - - t he J EDEC DDR SDRAM and DRAM6 st andards t hat our accused cont rol l ers compl y wi t h.7 So ver si on of t he ci r cui t r y or t he ci r cui t r y8 par t number , t o t he ext ent t hat st uf f even exi st s, i t ' s9 goi ng t o be on t he t echni cal document s we pr ovi ded.

10 And t hat ' s as easi l y avai l abl e t o Rambus as i t i s t o11 ST.12 J UDGE WALKER: Al l r i ght . Let ' s move on t o t he13 r equest s.14 I bel i eve you' ve gr ouped 4, 5, 8 and 31 i n t he15 same cat egor y. And as I under s t and ST' s r esponse, you16 wi l l have subst ant i al l y compl et e pr oduct i on on t he 28t h17 of Sept ember . I must say t hat use of "subst ant i al l y"18 i s r at her om nous, but we' l l over l ook t hat f or t he19 moment .20 MS. CHOW Your Honor , t hat ' s what Rambus asked us21 t o - - t hat ' s t he r epr esent at i on Rambus - - t hat ' s22 Rambus' s l anguage. That ' s t he represent at i on t hey23 asked us t o make.24 J UDGE WALKER: Al l r i ght . Wel l , f ai r enough.25 Okay. Why shoul d we deal wi t h t hi s i ssue now,



7/29/2019 146-2

23/54


1 Mr . Penni ngt on?2 MR. PENNI NGTON: Wel l , I guess t he r eason we3 shoul d deal wi t h t hi s - - t hat ' s f i ne. I f t hey' r e goi ng4 t o make a subst ant i al l y compl et e pr oduct i on i n r esponse5 t o each of t hese r equest s by Sept ember 28t h, t hat ' s i n6 pr i nci pl e f i ne.7 I j ust want t o r ai se a coupl e i ssues whi ch8 came up i n t hei r opposi t i on t o our mot i on. And goi ng9 back f or a moment , t hi s t i es back t o what we wer e j ust

10 sayi ng about I nt er r ogat ory 14.11 I t i s Rambus' s posi t i on t hat i t ' s suf f i ci ent12 t o pr ove i nf r i ngement t o show compl i ance wi t h t he13 J EDEC' s st andar d. But j ust t o be cl ear , t hat ' s not ST14 or LSI ' s posi t i on. And shoul d we l ose t hat bat t l e at a15 l at er dat e, we ar e ent i t l ed t o br oad t echni cal16 di scover y t o r ef ut e t hat - - you know, t o r ef ut e t hat17 posi t i on. And i t - - so t hat ' s one poi nt why we need18 t hi s di scovery.19 And t he ot her i ssue wi t h t hese r equest s i s20 t her e' s al so a suggest i on, I t hi nk, i n ST' s opposi t i on21 t hat t hey m ght not be wi l l i ng t o pr oduce e- mai l . ST22 has pr oduced al most no e- mai l so f ar . And we j ust want23 t o be cl ear , t he opposi t i on suggest s t hat maybe t he24 Model - E di scover y or der i s a j ust i f i cat i on f or not25 pr oduci ng e- mai l .



7/29/2019 146-2

24/54


1 But we di d not ent er t hat or der i n t hi s case.2 Rambus di d not agr ee t o ent er i t . I n f act , par t of t he3 r eason t hat we di d not agr ee t o ent er i t was because we4 had pr oduced and i nt ended t o pr oduce a l ar ge quant i t y5 of e- mai l . And we expect ST t o do t he same.6 So i f we coul d - - i f ST wi l l st i pul at e t hat7 t hey' l l make a compl et e pr oduct i on i n r esponse t o t hese8 request s by Sept ember 28t h and t hat t hat product i on9 wi l l i ncl ude e- mai l , we' d be sat i sf i ed wi t h t hat .

10 J UDGE WALKER: Why don' t we j ust wai t unt i l t he11 28t h of Sept ember and see what i t t ur ns up?12 MR. PENNI NGTON: Wel l , your Honor , because t hese13 r equest s have been pendi ng f or over a year . We' ve been14 t hr ough mul t i pl e r ounds of meet and conf er and15 meet - and- conf er l et t ers on t hese i ssues.16 And t hi s pr om se t o pr oduce ever yt hi ng by17 Sept ember 28t h was made t wo days bef or e t hi s mot i on was18 t o be f i l ed. So we woul d j ust f eel mor e com or t abl e19 get t i ng an or der t o compel t hi s pr oduct i on and get t i ng20 i t on t he r ecor d exact l y what i s goi ng t o be pr oduced.21 J UDGE WALKER: Wel l , t her e we go agai n,22 Mr . Penni ngt on. Com or t i s not t he i dea her e. Let ' s23 j ust wai t t o see what happens on t he 28t h. And i f t hat24 doesn' t sat i sf y you, we can t ake t hat up.25 What about 14 and 15?



7/29/2019 146-2

25/54


1 MR. PENNI NGTON: Sur e. So I can addr ess 14 and 152 br i ef l y.3 So 14 asks f or t wo t hi ngs. I t asks f or al l4 document s r ef er r i ng t o Rambus and al l - - r ef er r i ng t o5 Rambus or t o Rambus' s DRAM memor y cont r ol l er6 t echnol ogy. And so ST, i n August , amended t hi s7 r esponse t o say t hat t hey woul d pr oduce al l document s8 r ef er r i ng t o Rambus and Rambus' s DRAM memor y cont r ol l er9 t echnol ogy, whi ch, t o my r eadi ng, means t hat t hey di d

10 not i nt end t o pr oduce al l document s r ef er r i ng t o Rambus11 unl ess t hey al so r ef er t o Rambus ' s DRAM memor y12 cont r ol l er t echnol ogy.13 And we' ve t r i ed t o cl ar i f y t hat i ssue t hr ough14 mul t i pl e r ounds of l et t er s. And I have one f r om ST15 wher e t hey seem t o agr ee t o pr oduce bot h of t hose16 cat egor i es of t hi ngs.17 They say, " ST has i ndi cat ed i t s wi l l i ngness t o18 produce document s ref er r i ng t o Rambus as wel l as t hose19 r ef er r i ng t o Rambus' s DRAM memor y cont r ol l er20 t echnol ogy. " Thi s i s t hei r l et t er of August 24t h.21 And i f t hat ' s what t hey' r e r eal l y goi ng t o22 pr oduce, we' r e f i ne wi t h t hat . But t hei r opposi t i on, I23 t hi nk, l eaves i t uncl ear whet her t hat ' s r eal l y goi ng t o24 happen or not . So i f we coul d j ust get cl ar i t y on t hat25 i ssue, we woul d be sat i sf i ed wi t h t hei r r esponse t o



7/29/2019 146-2

26/54


1 our RP 14.2 J UDGE WALKER: I ' m sor r y. What cl ar i t y do you3 want ?4 MR. PENNI NGTON: We j ust want i t t o be cl ear t hat5 t hey' r e goi ng t o pr oduce al l document s r ef er r i ng t o6 Rambus i n addi t i on t o al l document s r ef er r i ng t o7 Rambus' s DRAM memor y cont r ol l er t echnol ogy.8 J UDGE WALKER: Ms. Chow?9 MS. CHOW Your Honor , I ' m a l i t t l e conf used as t o

10 why Rambus i s cl ai m ng t hey don' t under s t and our11 response. We' ve produced - - we' ve made an addi t i onal12 product i on of 15, 000 pages . That i ncl udes document s13 t hat r ef er onl y t o Rambus. I t has not hi ng t o do wi t h14 t he case, not hi ng t o do wi t h t he accused t echnol ogy.15 And we' ve al so r ef er r ed t o - - we' ve al so16 produced, t o t he ext ent we have any, document s17 r ef er r i ng t o Rambus' s SDRAM memor y cont r ol l er18 t echnol ogy. So I ' m not sur e what t he i ssue i s.19 J UDGE WALKER: Wel l , must I conf ess, I ' m a l i t t l e20 puzzl ed as wel l .21 MR. PENNI NGTON: I f ST i s st i pul at i ng t hat t hey22 have pr oduced al l document s i n r esponse t o t hi s r equest23 r ef er r i ng t o Rambus, I guess t hat ' s f i ne.24 J UDGE WALKER: No. 14 speci f i cal l y st at es, " Al l25 document s r ef er r i ng t o Rambus or Rambus' s DRAM memor y



7/29/2019 146-2

27/54

EXHIBIT E


7/29/2019 146-2

28/54

269733

August 31, 2012

BY EL ECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLYHon. Vaughn R. WalkerUnited States District Judge, Ret.50 Fremont StreetSan Francisco, California 94105

Re: Rambus v. STMicroelectronics et al., Case No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)

Dear J udge Walker:

STMicroelectronics, Inc. and STMicroelectronics N.V. (collectively, STMicro)respectfully submit this letter in opposition to Rambuss motion to compel dated August 24,2012 (Motion). STMicro has substantially complied with its discovery obligations and hasbeen meeting and conferring with Rambus to define the appropriate scope of discovery.Before Rambus served the Motion, STMicro had not only supplemented its written responsesbut had also informed Rambus that its production was substantially complete for tworequests at issue in this Motion (Request Nos. 15 and certain categories of No. 31).1

STMicro had also informed Rambus that it would be substantially complete as to otherdocument requests (Request Nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, and the rest of No. 31) by September 28, 2012,even though Judge Seeborg has not set any deadline for the close of fact discovery in thiscase, much less a trial date. (Id.) As for the other requests and interrogatories raised in theMotion, either no such documents exist (Request No. 34) or STMicro has furthersupplemented its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 14. As explained in greaterdetail below, Rambuss motion therefore should be denied.

As an initial matter, Rambuss demand for broad technical discovery is a red herring.Rambus has consistently maintained both in this litigation and in the prior ITC investigationsthat any product that complies with the JEDEC SDRAM2 standard infringes the asserted

patents and that a data brief for an accused product that identifies the JEDEC SDRAMstandard is sufficient to prove infringement. For example, Rambuss preliminaryinfringement contentions cited extensively to the JEDEC SDRAM standards, but not to anySTMicro documents describing the accused STMicro products. The JEDEC SDRAMstandard that each accused STMicro product complies with is provided not only inSTMicros interrogatory responses, but is also stated in each data brief for each accusedSTMicro product. Therefore, many of Rambuss interrogatories and document requests, suchas Interrogatory No. 14 and Request Nos. 4, 5 and 8, seek broad categories of technical

1 See letter dated August 22, 2012, a copy of which is attached as Exh. 12 JEDEC SDRAM standards include SDRAM, DDR, DDR2 and DDR3, etc.

Elaine Y. Chow

tel (415) 882-8008

fax(415) 882-8220

[email protected]


7/29/2019 146-2

29/54

Rambus v. STMicroLetter to Hon. Vaughn R. Walker31 August 2012Page 2 of 4

269733

information that Rambus admits is not relevant to proving infringement. Furthermore, it is

apparent from the Motion that Rambus has failed to review even the technical documents thatSTMicro has produced, given its demand for STMicro to review, compile and synthesize theinformation in those documents in response to Interrogatory No. 14.

Rambuss Demand for a Narrative Response to Interrogatory No. 14 IsInappropriate When the Information It Seeks Is in the Document Production.Interrogatory No. 14 asks for extensive and detailed technical and sales information about the51 accused STMicro products, including:

the circuitry part numbers of other designations associated with that circuitry or anypart thereof;

the supplier of the circuitry or

any associated technology or IP, such as a PHY or reference design,

and, if more than one version of such circuitry was used in an accused product, Rambus asksSTMicro to provide for each version,

sales data by date and customer.

STMicro has already identified the memory controller circuitry and its source for allof the accused STMicro products in Appendix A to its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and2.3 But Interrogatory No. 14 goes well beyond the relevant memory controller and demandsinformation about irrelevant circuitry. Many of the memory controllers in the accusedSTMicro products were provided by a third party. For those memory controllers, STMicroeither does not have the type of detail that Rambus seeks or the information is limited at best.To the extent that this information does exist, it is in STMicros technical documentproduction, specifically in the product data briefs and application notes. In responding toInterrogatory No. 14, STMicro identified the relevant documents by their beginning andending Bates ranges as permitted by Rule 33(d). (Mtn. Exh. R.) In its recentsupplementation on August 31, 2012, STMicro not only provided a more specific Batesrange but also identified the general type of document (i.e., the product data briefs). Rambusnow asks that STMicro be ordered not only to provide a narrative response with the circuitry

component part numbers, the part suppliers, the associated technology, and sales data, butalso to insert this data into an organized table, such as Appendix A. (Mtn. 14:1-16).

Rambuss demand goes far beyond what is required by Rule 33(d). Appendix A isnotan STMicro document kept in the ordinary course of business or even a document thatcan be created by STMicro internally. Furthermore, STMicro does not have the data thatRambus asks for in a readily-available condensed form (i.e., by entering a query in a databaseand generating a spreadsheet compilation) such that the data can be merely plunked into an

3 SeeAppendix A to STMicros July 30, 2012 supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, a copy ofwhich is attached as Exh. 2.


7/29/2019 146-2

30/54


269733

organized table or even a narrative response. Reviewing STMicros technical documents to

identify the circuitry part number and any associated technology or IP, then organizingthem into table form for Rambuss convenience, is well beyond what a responding party isrequired by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The burden of locating this information isthe same for Rambus as it is for STMicro.

STMicros Response to Request No. 14 Will Be Substantially Complete bySeptember 28, 2012. Given the breadth of Request No. 14, it is not a simple task (asRambus suggests) to search for and produce the universe of potentially responsivedocuments. STMicro served its 2nd Amended/Supplemental Response to Request No. 14 onAugust 2, 2012, in which it agreed to produce documents referring to RambusandRambuss DRAM memory controller technology. (Emphasis added.) (SeeMtn. Exh. H at

7:22-25.) Furthermore, STMicro informed Rambus on August 24, 2012 that its documentproduction in response to this request would be substantially complete by September 28,2012.4 Indeed, since serving the 2nd Amended/Supplemental Response to Request No. 14,STMicro has made two supplemental productions totaling more than 13,000 pages, includingdocuments responsive to Request No. 14. Nevertheless, prior to serving the Motion, Rambusfailed to articulate with any specificity what further issues it had with STMicros 2nd

Amended/Supplemental Response.5

Rambus Failed to Meet and Confer with STMicro on Request No. 15 BeforeSubmitting the Motion to Compel. As for Request No. 15, Rambus claims that it was thesubject of the parties last meet and confer discussions on July 30.6 However, in the e-mailsummary sent by Mr. Gratzinger immediately following, there is no mention of Request No.15 being among the discovery responses still in dispute.7 Instead, Mr. Gratzinger listed therequests allegedly at impasse as including only Rambus RFPs 4, 5, 8, 14, 17, 29, 33, 34, and35, and Interrogatories 5 and 6. (Id.) In any event, STMicro informed Rambus on August24, 2012, that its document production in response this request was substantially complete.(SeeST Exh. 4.)

STMicros Responses to Request for Production Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 31 Will BeSubstantially Complete by September 28, 2012. STMicro committed in writing in itsAugust 24, 2012 letter to substantially complete its production of documents responsive tothese requests by September 28, 2012. Thus, any dispute regarding these requests ispremature.

Rambuss complaint about the dearth of emails in STMicros production in responseto Request Nos. 4, 5, 8, and 31 is unwarranted. The current model e-discovery rules do not

4 See August 24, 2012 letter from STMicro attached as Exh. 3.5 Seeattached as Exh. 4 the August 23, 2012 email from Peter Gratzinger explaining, in response to STMicrosAugust 22 letter, the grounds for Rambuss motion regarding responses to Request Nos. 14 and 15. Rambus didnot include this correspondence in the exhibits to the Motion.6 SeeExh. 4, Peter Gratzingers August 23, 2012 email.7 Seeattached as Exh. 5, Mr. Gratzingers July 30, 2012 email summarizing the parties meet-and-conferdiscussions earlier that day. This correspondence is also not included as an exhibit to Rambuss Motion.


7/29/2019 146-2

31/54


269733

contemplate the kind of broad, company-wide e-mail search that Rambus demands. Early on

in this litigation, the Defendants proposed that the parties adopt Judge Raders Model e-Discovery Order, but Rambus refused. STMicros search for responsive emails has beenhindered by the fact that STMicro is a multinational company with nearly 51,000 employeesworldwide who do not necessarily communicate in English. Nonetheless, STMicro hasproduced responsive emails, and will continue to look for and produce additional responsiveemails to the extent they exist.

STMicro Does Not Have Any Documents Responsive to Request Nos. 34 andRambuss Motion as to Request No. 35 is Premature. STMicro does not have anydocuments responsive to Request No. 34. With respect to Request No. 35, STMicromaintains that the parties are still meeting and conferring as to this request, which seeks the

same information from STMicro as requests from STMicro to Rambus. Rambus has thus farfailed to produce any documents in response to STMicros request, and it is unreasonable forRambus to seek an order compelling STMicro to produce documents when Rambus hasfailed to provide the same.8

STMicro Supplemented its Responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5 and 6. STMicroserved supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 3, 5 and 6 on August 31, 2012 thatprovide the detail that Rambus has demanded. STMicros response to Interrogatory No. 3has been supplemented to identify individuals who worked on the accused products and theirroles. STMicro supplemented its response to Interrogatory No. 5 to include reference byBates number to both Rambuss and STMicros document production relating to STMicrosawareness of the asserted patents. Finally, STMicro supplemented its response toInterrogatory No. 6 to identify by Bates number the responsive document. Therefore,Rambuss issues with STMicros responses to these interrogatories are also premature.

Sincerely,

K&L GATESLLP

Elaine Y. ChowElaine Y. Chow

Attachs. as stated.

cc: Munger, Tolles & Olson

8 Defendants LSI and STMicro intend to bring before Your Honor their joint issues regarding Rambuss refusalto produce licensing-related documents if the parties are unable to reach an amicable compromise.


7/29/2019 146-2

32/54

EXHIBIT F


7/29/2019 146-2

33/54

269509

August 24, 2012

BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION ONLY

Peter E. Gratzinger, Esq.MUNGER,TOLLES& OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue, 35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Re: Rambus v. STMicroelectronics et al., Case No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Peter:

We disagree with your statement that STMicros production of is woefullyincomplete. Despite not having a discovery cut-off date in this matter, STMicrosproduction of documents responsive to Request Nos. 15, 31 (as it pertains to documents othersales, promotional, and advertising materials), 37, 38, and 52-55 is substantially complete.We are continuing to look for additional, non-privileged documents that may be responsiveto Request Nos. 4, 5, 8, 14, 31 (as it pertains to other categories), and 32 and will produceany responsive documents that we may locate. We expect to have a substantially completeproduction for these requests by September 28, 2012. I remind you once again that STMicro

is a large, multinational group of companies and the search for documents in this action hasincluded several its European and Asian offices, in addition to STMicroelectronics Inc.sCupertino office.

As for Request No. 14, you have not satisfied the obligation to meet and conferbefore bringing the matter to the Special Masters attention. Your last communication wason July 30. STMicros served an amended response to Request No. 14, among otherrequests, on August 2. STMicro amended its response to Request No. 14 to remove therestriction about which you complained and indicated its willingness to produce documentsreferring to Rambus as well as those referring to Rambuss DRAM memory controllertechnology. If you had any further complaints about Request No. 14, you did notcommunicate them orally or in writing to me or any one else from my office.

Regarding STMicros responses to Rambuss Request Nos. 33-35, I reiterate what hasbeen made clear during each meet and confer discussion between the parties since the firstteleconference on December 1, namely that if Rambus refuses to produce its proposedbusiness plans and strategy documents relating to the accused products and its licensingpolicies (which are relevant to at least STMicros inequitable conduct, unclean hands, andlicense defenses), then it cannot legitimately expect STMicro to produce documents in thesesame categories. In addition to the December 1 call, this topic was also discussed during theall parties meet and confer on May 3 and the meet and confer in which you participated onMay 8. Since this matter also concerns LSI discovery requests and responses, I request on

Deirdre M. Digrande

tel (415) 882-8238

fax(415) 882-8220

[email protected]


7/29/2019 146-2

34/54

Rambus v. STMicro

Letter to Peter Gratzinger, Esq.24 August 2012Page 2 of 2

269509

behalf of both Defendants that the knowledgeable persons from your office be available for a

conference call on Monday, August 27, subject to counsel for LSIs availability. Defendantsare open to reconsidering their position in the event Rambus is willing to compromise aswell. Defendants have made a series of concessions and compromises, and providedamended and supplemental discovery responses (nine sets as of Aug. 2 for STMicro). Todate, Rambus has served only one amended discovery response, in which it changed 27 of itsoriginal answers to ST and LSIs documents requests from indicating its willingness toproduce responsive documents to complete refusals to produce anything.

Regarding Interrogatory No. 3 (identification of persons who participated in thedesign or development of the accused controllers and their responsibilities), we will considerwhether a narrative response is warranted to the extent that the information is not available in

the deposition transcripts. A CD with Mr. Ravaglias deposition transcript and Exhibits 1-4,7-15, and 17 to his deposition, as well as Exhibits 1-5 to Ms. Dions deposition, was sent toyour SF office on August 8. Please let us know as soon as possible if you have not yetlocated it.

Yours sincerely,

K&L GATESLLP

Deirdre M. Digrande


7/29/2019 146-2

35/54

EXHIBIT G


7/29/2019 146-2

36/54


1 I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT2 FOR THE NORTHERN DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A3 - - - o0o- - -4 RAMBUS, I NC. ,5 Pl ai nt i f f ,6 vs. No. C 10- 5437 RS7 BROADCOM,8 Def endant . San Fr anci sco, Cal i f or ni a_________________________ / Wednesday9 J anuary 23, 2013RAMBUS, I NC. , 1: 04 o' cl ock p. m10 Pl ai nt i f f ,11 vs. No. C 10- 5445 RS12 FREESCALE SEM CONDUCTOR,13 Def endant .14 __________________________/

15 RAMBUS, I NC. ,16 Pl ai nt i f f ,17 vs. No. C 10- 5446 RS18 LSI CORPORATI ON,19 Def endant s.__________________________/20212223 NOGARA REPORTI NG SERVI CE5 Thi r d St r eet , Sui t e 41524 San Franci sco, Cal i f orni a 94103( 415) 398- 188925



7/29/2019 146-2

37/54


1 t hose ar e bet ween STM cr o and Rambus.2 J UDGE WALKER: I ' m sor r y. How many di d you say,3 Mr . Gr at z i nger ?4 MR. GRATZI NGER: Fewer t han 100.5 J UDGE WALKER: Fewer t han 100. Okay.6 MR. GRATZI NGER: I n t er ms of i nt er nal e- mai l s,7 i t ' s maybe a coupl e of dozen.8 J UDGE WALKER: Al l r i ght . And what do you make of9 that?

10 MR. GRATZI NGER: Ar e you aski ng me, your Honor ?11 J UDGE WALKER: I am12 MR. GRATZI NGER: What I make of t hat i s t hat13 STM cr o has not done what i s compl et el y st andar d t o do,14 at l east f or t he l ast decade or so, maybe l onger , i n a15 di scover y, whi ch i s t o go ar ound t o t he r el evant16 cust odi ans' comput er s, i mage t hose comput er s t o make17 sur e t hat al l document s ar e bei ng pr oduced, t ur n t hose18 i mages over t o a vendor who can run keyword searc hes19 and ot her f i l t er s, and t hen r evi ew and pr oduce20 el ect roni c document s , i ncl udi ng e- mai l s .21 Based on my exper i ence wi t h ot her def endant s22 i n t hi s case and j ust gener al l y wi t h l i t i gat i ng pat ent23 cases, ei t her STM cr o doesn' t send e- mai l s, whi ch woul d24 make i t uni que i n t he wor l d as f ar as I know, or t hey25 haven' t proper l y col l ect ed and pr eser ved and pr oduced



7/29/2019 146-2

38/54


1 t hem2 J UDGE WALKER: Ms. Chow, Ms. Di gr ande, I must say3 t hat as Mr . Gr at zi nger has descr i bed i t i s t he way t hat4 i t does appear t o me as wel l .5 MS. CHOW Wel l , your Honor , we di d sear ch6 i ndi vi dual comput er s wi t h keywor d sear ches. I ' m not7 sur e - - you know, we sear ched wi t h keywor d sear ches on8 i ndi vi dual comput er s . We pr oduced what we f ound.9 J UDGE WALKER: Wel l , t her e i s one way t o deal wi t h

10 t hi s. And t hat i s t o have a cor por at e of f i cer subm t11 and counsel subm t decl ar at i ons t hat an appr opr i at e12 sear c h was made and t o r epr esent t hat t he pr oduct i on13 consi st ed of t he ent i r et y of what was di scover ed i n14 maki ng t hat sear ch and t hat t her e i s no addi t i onal15 i nf or mat i on whi ch coul d be pr oduced.16 Woul d you been pr epar ed on behal f of your17 cl i ent t o subm t such a decl ar at i on, Ms. Chow, under18 penal t y of per j ur y?19 MS. CHOW Your Honor , I t hi nk t her e woul d be20 someone at ST who coul d do t hat .21 J UDGE WALKER: I wasn' t aski ng ST. I was aski ng22 you.23 MS. CHOW I ' d t o have check, your Honor .24 MS. DI GRANDE: I ' m s or r y, your Honor . Ar e you25 aski ng f or someone at ST?



7/29/2019 146-2

39/54


1 J UDGE WALKER: And counsel .2 MS. DI GRANDE: And counsel ?3 J UDGE WALKER: That counsel has adequat el y assur ed4 i t sel f t hat t he cl i ent has conduct ed a sear ch i n good5 f ai t h and has come up wi t h j ust t he number of document s6 t hat Mr . Gr at zi nger has descr i bed and t hat t her e i s no7 mor e.8 I must say i t ' s - - i f Mr . Gr at zi nger ' s number s9 ar e cor r ect , i t i s sur pr i si ng t hat t her e woul d be such

10 a smal l number of r espons i ve document s , r espons i ve11 e- mai l s.12 MS. CHOW What i s t hat , your Honor ?13 J UDGE WALKER: I sai d i t ' s qui t e sur pr i si ng t hat14 t he number of respons i ve document s and e- mai l s woul d be15 as smal l as Mr . Gr at z i nger has r epr esent ed.16 MS. CHOW Your Honor , we pr oduced t he t echni cal17 document s t hey asked f or . We produced what t hey need18 t o pr ove t hei r case. We pr ovi ded t hem wi t h sal es19 i nf or mat i on.20 Qui t e honest l y, I t hi nk ever yt hi ng el se - -21 " Document s r ef er r i ng t o Rambus, " t hat i s a r ed her r i ng.22 J UDGE WALKER: Red her r i ng or no - -23 MS. CHOW We' ve gi ven t hem what t hey need t o24 pr ove t hei r case.25 J UDGE WALKER: That ' s not t he poi nt , Ms. Chow.



7/29/2019 146-2

40/54


1 The poi nt i s t hat i t appear s, bot h f r om what2 Mr . Gr at z i nger has repr esent ed and i ndeed t he stat ement3 i n your own l et t er , t hat t her e has been an i nadequat e4 sear ch f or document s r esponsi ve t o t hese document5 cal l s.6 Per haps i t behooves STM cr o and i t s counsel t o7 go back and t ake anot her l ook t o see whet her t her e8 ar en' t addi t i onal document s t hat ar e r esponsi ve and t o9 pr ovi de some assur ance t o Rambus and t o me t hat a

10 di l i gent sear c h has been conduct ed, out l i ni ng exact l y11 what t hat sear ch has consi st ed of and exact l y what i t12 has pr oduced.13 MS. CHOW That ' s f i ne, your Honor .14 J UDGE WALKER: When can you subm t t hat ?15 MS. CHOW I ' d have t o check wi t h t he cl i ent . I16 don' t know.17 J UDGE WALKER: Wel l , can we have an answer by next18 Wednesday, when we have t hat pr oposed or der ?19 MS. CHOW I wi l l do my best t o meet t he Wednesday20 deadl i ne. I cannot make assur ances now. I f i t does - -21 i f Wednesday does not wor k, I wi l l l et your Honor know.22 J UDGE WALKER: Al l r i ght , ver y wel l .23 Anyt hi ng f ur t her Mr . Grat z i nger?24 MR. GRATZI NGER: That ' s al l , your Honor .25 J UDGE WALKER: Mr . Ar t uz?



7/29/2019 146-2

41/54

EXHIBIT H


7/29/2019 146-2

42/54

19938325.1

WRITERS DIRECT LINE(213) 683-9513

(213) 683-4013 [email protected]

RONALD L. OLSONROBERT E. DENHAMJEFFREY I. WEINBERGERCARY B. LERMANCHARLES D. SIEGALRONALD K. MEYERGREGORY P. STONEBRAD D. BRIANBRADLEY S. PHILLIPSGEORGE M. GARVEYWILLIAM D. TEMKOROBERT B. KNAUSSSTEPHEN M. KRISTOVICHJOHN W. SPIEGELTERRY E. SANCHEZSTEVEN M. PERRYMARK B. HELMJOSEPH D. LEEMICHAEL R. DOYENMICHAEL E. SOLOFFGREGORY D. PHILLIPSLAWRENCE C. BARTHKATHLEEN M. MCDOWELLGLENN D. POMERANTZTHOMAS B. WALPERRONALD C. HAUSMANNPATRICK J. CAFFERTY, JR.JAY M. FUJITANIO'MALLEY M. MILLERSANDRA A. SEVILLE-JONESMARK H. EPSTEINHENRY WEISSMANNKEVIN S. ALLREDBART H. WILLIAMSJEFFREY A. HEINTZJUDITH T. KITANOKRISTIN LINSLEY MYLESMARC T.G. DWORSKYJEROME C. ROTHSTEPHEN D. ROSEGARTH T. VINCENTTED DANESTUART N. SENATORA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION

MARTIN D. BERNDANIEL P. COLLINSRICHARD E. DROOYANROBERT L. DELL ANGELOBRUCE A. ABBOTTJONATHAN E. ALTMANMARY ANN TODDMICHAEL J. O'SULLIVANKELLY M. KLAUSDAVID B. GOLDMANKEVIN S. MASUDAHOJOON HWANGDAVID C. DINIELLIPETER A. DETREPAUL J. WATFORDDANA S. TREISTERCARL H. MOORDAVID H. FRYLISA J. DEMSKYMALCOLM A. HEINICKEGREGORY J. WEINGARTTAMERLIN J. GODLEYJAMES C. RUTTENJ. MARTIN WILLHITERICHARD ST. JOHNROHIT K. SINGLALUIS LICAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKEC. DAVID LEEMARK H. KIMBRETT J. RODDASEAN ESKOVITZFRED A. ROWLEY, JR.KATHERINE M. FORSTERBLANCA FROMM YOUNGRANDALL G. SOMMERMARIA SEFERIANMANUEL F. CACHNROSEMARIE T. RINGJOSEPH J. YBARRAKATHERINE K. HUANGMICHELLE T. FRIEDLANDTODD J. ROSEN

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 SOU TH GRAND AVENUE

T H I R T Y - F I F T H F L OO R

LOS ANGELES , CAL I FORN I A 90071- 1560

T E L E PH ONE ( 213) 6 83 - 9100

FACS IM I L E (213 ) 687 - 3702

5 6 0 M I S S I O N S T R E E T

S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 10 5 - 2 9 0 7

T E L E P H O N E ( 415) 512- 4 0 0 0

FAC S I M I L E (415 ) 512 -4 077

TRUC T. DOMELINDA EADES LeMOINESETH GOLDMANSUSAN R. SZABOLINDSAY D. MCCASKILLBRIAN R. HOCHLEUTNERGRANT A. DAVIS-DENNYJONATHAN H. BLAVINKAREN J. EPHRAIMLIKA C. MIYAKEANDREW W. SONGVICTORIA L. BOESCHHAILYN J. CHENBRAD SCHNEIDERMIRIAM KIMMISTY M. SANFORDAIMEE FEINBERGKATHERINE KUKIMBERLY A. CHISHOSHANA E. BANNETTDEREK J. KAUFMANMARCUS J. SPIEGELBETHANY W. KRISTOVICHWILLIAM E. CANOHENRY E. ORRENBENJAMIN W. HOWELLJACOB S. KREILKAMPERIC P. TUTTLEHEATHER E. TAKAHASHIKEITH R.D. HAMILTON, IISORAYA C. KELLYPATRICK ANDERSONJEFFREY Y. WUMARK R. CONRADL. ASHLEY AULLM. LANCE JASPERALISSA BRANHAMADAM R. LAWTONRACHEL L. STEINAVI BRAZDAVID C. LACHMANJENNY H. HONGAARON SEIJI LOWENSTEIN

LAURA D. SMOLOWSARALA V. NAGALALEO GOLDBARDMATTHEW A. MACDONALCAROLYN V. ZABRYCKMARGARET G. ZIEGLEESTHER H. SUNMIRIAM SEIFTEBENJAMIN J. MARORENEE DELPHIN-RODRIGUEMICHAEL J. MONGAKATHRYN A. EIDMANNJOEL M. PURLEKYLE A. CASAZZRICHARD C. CHENAARON GREENE LEIDERMAERIN J. COCLAIRE YADAVID H. PENNINGTOBRAM ALDEMARK R. SAYSONJOHN M. RAPPAPORDAVID C. THOMPSONANNE HENRY LEMATTHEW M. STEINBERCHRISTIAN K. WREDPETER E. GRATZINGE-OF COUNSE

RICHARD D. ESBENSHADEROBERT K. JOHNSONALAN V. FRIEDMANRICHARD S. VOLPERALLISON B. STEISUSAN E. NASALLEN M. KATWILLIANA CHANG-

E. LEROY TOLLE(1922-2008

February 11, 2013

BY E-MAIL

The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker50 Fremont StreetSan Francisco, CA 94105-2228

Re: Rambus Inc. v. STMicroelectronics N.V., Case No. 3:10-05449-RS

Dear Judge Walker:

With Rambuss proposed date for the close of fact discovery fast approaching,STMicros letter of February 4, 2013 attempting to justify its meager document productionunderscores Rambuss urgent need for relief. STMicros letter confirms Rambuss suspicion thatSTMicro has failed to conduct a reasonably diligent search for responsive documents. Rambustherefore respectfully seeks an order compelling further production, as set forth below.

At a telephonic hearing on January 23, 2013, Your Honor agreed with Rambusthat it appears from STMicros document production that STMicro has not properly preserved,collected, and produced responsive documents. Tr. at 53:12-54:4. Your Honor held: there is

one way to deal with this. And that is to have a corporate officer submit and counsel submitdeclarations that an appropriate search was made and to represent that the production consistedof the entirety of what was discovered in making that search and that there is no additionalinformation which could be produced. Id. at 54:9-15. Your Honor continued, Perhaps itbehooves STMicro and its counsel to go back and take another look to see whether there aren'tadditional documents that are responsive and to provide some assurance to Rambus and to methat a diligent search has been conducted, outlining exactly what that search has consisted of andexactly what it has produced. Id. at 56:6-12.


7/29/2019 146-2

43/54

Hon. Vaughn R. WalkerFebruary 11, 2013Page 2

19938325.1

MUNGER,TOLLES &OLSON LLP

Two weeks later, STMicro has not supplied a declaration from anyone. Instead,STMicro has provided an argumentative letter disclosing three very narrow queries that it claims

to have run on the emails of 19 individuals. STMicro has given no indication that it intends tosupplement its deficient production.

The search disclosed in STMicros letter is deficient in at least the followingrespects:

The search terms are inadequate.

Most of the accused products have been unilaterally omitted fromSTMicros queries, apparently based on STMicros contention thatSTMicro did not itself ship those products into the United States.However, as Your Honor has already held, so long as Rambussinducement allegations are in the case, STMicro has no right tounilaterally withhold discovery on that basis.

STMicros three queries are extremely narrow. They will only returndocuments that explicitly mention one of the accused products by name,AND explicitly mention the DRAM controller inside that product.Rambuss document requests, however, are not limited to documents thatexplicitly discuss the DRAM controller. STMicro has already agreed toproduce all documents relating to the design, development, marketing, andsale of theaccused products, not the DRAM controller inside thoseproducts. It has thus waived any argument that it should be permitted to

limit its production to only those documents explicitly mentioning aDRAM controller. Moreover, many of the critical documents (e.g.,communications with customers evidencing STMicros inducement ofinfringement, business plans, etc.) would not necessarily containdiscussion of components of the accused product such as the DRAMcontroller.

STMicro has failed to search for Rambus. This is a critical omissionbecause STMicros knowledge of Rambus and its technology is one of thekey issues in the case. Moreover, STMicro has already agreedto produceall documents relating to Rambus. A search for Rambus would not be

burdensome because, unlike a search for, say, Apple, it would be highlyunlikely to yield any false positives.

STMicros list of terms associated with its DRAM controllers is highlydeficient: it omits numerous memory types (e.g., DDR2, DD3, LPDDR),it omits the companies from whom STMicro has licensed DRAMtechnology, and it omits any internal names or part numbers forSTMicros DRAM controller cores.


7/29/2019 146-2

44/54


19938325.1


The list of custodians is inadequate. STMicro merely provides a list ofemployee names with no titles or relevant areas of knowledge, and states that the custodians

include technical, finance, sales, and marketing personnel. There is no declaration or otherrepresentation that the custodians are sufficient to provide the responsive technical, finance,sales, and marketing documents for all of the accused products. STMicros custodian listtherefore does not come close to Your Honors instruction that STMicro provide assurances thatthere is no additional information which could be produced.

Indeed, every indication is that the custodian list is not adequate. STMicroscustodian list omits over a dozen of the technical personnel that STMicro itself has identified inits interrogatory responses as the most knowledgeable about the accused products (nor doesSTMicro make any representation that the technical documentation in the possession of thosepersons is cumulative). STMicro also fails to list the only two sales personnel (Bob Krysiak and

Penny McChesney) identified by STMicros 30(b)(6) witness on topics related to U.S. sales.And, of course, the proof is in the pudding: STMicro has produced only a tiny handful ofresponsive documents from the custodians on its list.

The scope of the search is inadequate. STMicros letter only addresses its emailproduction. Rambuss motion, and Your Honors order, were not so limited. STMicro has failedto describe any search effort with respect to other elementary components of a diligent search,including paper files and electronic documents other than emails (e.g., files stored on hard drivesand in relevant shared server locations). STMicro has also failed to provide any details about itssearch of email to demonstrate that it was reasonably diligent (e.g., whether it included sent mail,mail archived on custodians hard drives, mail stored on the mail server, etc.).

Given its extremely narrow search, it is no surprise that STMicro has producedfewer than 3000 documents (over half of which are invoices and only a handful of which areemails), while Rambus has produced over 1.3 million documents, including multitudes of emails.

STMicro devotes much of its letter to arguments about a Model Order withcertain procedures for email discovery. That Model Order has no relevance here. It has notbeen adopted by Judge Seeborg. Indeed, in the last two years, no party has so much as proposedit to the Court. Nor has STMicro felt bound by the Model Order in its discovery requests toRambus. Rambus has complied, at great expense, with STMicros broad discovery requests thatsought All Documents and Things Relating To a multitude of topics, and that definedDocuments as any item, whether in electronic or tangible form, upon which any expression or

communication has been recorded by any means. STMicros effort to change the rules of thegame now, for its benefit only, is not well taken.

STMicro has been engaging in dilatory tactics for months: agreeing in itsdiscovery responses to produce documents but then conducting extremely limited searches,telling Rambus and Your Honor that a complete production is coming in September but thenproducing nothing. Time for such gamesmanship is running short. Rambus has proposed a factdiscovery cutoff in April. Accordingly, Rambus respectfully requests that Your Honor order


7/29/2019 146-2

45/54


19938325.1


STMicro to conduct a reasonably diligent search and provide a complete production responsiveto Rambuss outstanding document requests by the end of this month. While Rambus cannot

know what the full parameters of that search would entail, it wouldat leastaddress thedeficiencies outlined in this letter.

Rambus also respectfully requests that the completed production is accompaniedby a signed declaration setting forth the scope of the search and production. The declarationshould also address STMicros preservation of documents. Counsel for STMicro represented atthe hearing that it issued a litigation hold in December 2009, but as Your Honor noted, suchholds are not self-executing. Id. at 50:2-3. For example, sending a notice to employees doesnot ensure that the documents of departing employees are preserved. See also, e.g., Apple Inc. v.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., --- F. Supp. 2d. ---, 2012 WL 3627731, at * 11 (N.D. Cal. 2012)(litigation hold notice insufficient where party failed to suspend automated email deletion).

Given the gross deficiencies in STMicros collection and production of documents to date,Rambus is deeply concerned that responsive documents have not been adequately preserved.Thus, document preservation should also be addressed in STMicros declaration as well.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Peter E. Gratzinger

Peter E. Gratzinger


7/29/2019 146-2

46/54

EXHIBIT I


7/29/2019 146-2

47/54

1

Pennington, David

From: Gratzinger, Peter

Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:21 PM

To: 'Lillian Tom'; Chow, Elaine

Cc: RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; '[email protected]'; STMicroNDCA_

5449; QE-RambusNDCal

Subject: RE: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21

Lillian,I have copied LSI counsel, as well as additional counsel from STMicro. I am available tomorrow at any time except10:30am-11:00am and 2:00pm-2:30pm. If those happen to be the only times that are convenient for STMicro and JudgeWalker, I can probably move those meetings as well.Thank you,Peter

From: Lillian Tom [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 3:38 PMTo: Gratzinger, Peter; Chow, ElaineSubject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21

Importance: HighDear Counsel:

Vaughn Walker would like to set up a conference call tomorrow. Can you both please give me time ranges for your

availability?

Also, Judge Walker would like one of you to contact LSI to see if they wish to be included in the call.

Regards,

Lillian Tom

Lillian Tom

Assistant to Vaughn R Walker

Four Embarcadero Center, Ste 2200

San Francisco, CA 94111-2228

T: (415) 871-2995

F: (415) 871-2890

E: [email protected]


7/29/2019 146-2

48/54

1

Pennington, David

From: Lillian Tom


To: 'Chow, Elaine'; Gratzinger, Peter


Judge Walker will be at a conference out of the office for most of Friday. This weekend he will be out of the country for

almost two weeks.

Regards,

Lillian Tom

Lillian Tom




T: (415) 871-2995

F: (415) 871-2890


From: Chow, Elaine [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 4:59 PMTo: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21

Dear Ms. Tom:

Unfortunately, there is not. Is there a time on Friday when Judge Walker is available? Or Monday morning? Thanks, ESent from BlackBerryFrom: Lillian Tom [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Chow, Elaine; [email protected]


Dear Ms. Chow:

Unfortunately Judge Walker is unavailable during the time slot you indicated on Friday. He would like to know whether

there is someone else who can participate in the teleconference for ST?

Regards,

Lillian Tom

Lillian Tom





7/29/2019 146-2

49/54

2

T: (415) 871-2995

F: (415) 871-2890




To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'

Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21

Dear Ms. Tom:

Counsel for ST is traveling tomorrow and unfortunately not available tomorrow. ST is available Friday between 10 and 1

pm if that works for Judge Walker. Regards, Elaine

Sent from BlackBerryFrom: Lillian Tom [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 06:38 PMTo: 'Gratzinger, Peter' ; Chow, ElaineSubject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - setting up a teleconference tomorrow, 2/21

Dear Counsel:


availability?


Regards,

Lillian Tom

Lillian TomAssistant to Vaughn R Walker



T: (415) 871-2995

F: (415) 871-2890


ThiselectronicmessagecontainsinformationfromthelawfirmofK&LGatesLLP.Thecontentsmaybeprivilegedandconfidentialandareintendedfortheuseoftheintendedaddressee(s)only.Ifyouarenotanintendedaddressee,notethatanydisclosure,copying,distribution,oruseofthecontentsofthismessageisprohibited.Ifyouhavereceivedthise-mailinerror,[email protected].


7/29/2019 146-2

50/54

1

Pennington, David

From: Chow, Elaine


To: '[email protected]'; RAMBUS_CONTROLLER;

'[email protected]'; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-

[email protected]'

Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference

Dear Ms. Tom,

At this hour, I have been unsuccessful in locating anyone on the ST team who might be available tomorrow. If things

change I will let you know immediately but I am hoping we can schedule the call when Judge Walker returns given that

Friday does not work. Regards, Elaine

Sent from BlackBerry

----- Original Message -----

From: Lillian Tom [mailto:[email protected]]


To: 'RAMBUS_CONTROLLER' ; [email protected]

; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal'

Subject: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference

Hello: Im following up on my email below. To nail down a tentative time for tomorrows teleconference, Im sending

this Outlook invite. Thanks, Lillian

==================================================================================================

==================

Dear Counsel:


availability?


Regards,

Lillian Tom

Lillian Tom




T: (415) 871-2995

F: (415) 871-2890



7/29/2019 146-2

51/54

2

This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and

confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note

that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this

e-mail in error, please contact me at [email protected].


7/29/2019 146-2

52/54

1

Pennington, David

From: Gratzinger, Peter

Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 8:00 AM

To: 'Chow, Elaine'; '[email protected]'; RAMBUS_CONTROLLER;

'[email protected]'; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-

[email protected]'

Subject: RE: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference

Dear Ms. Tom:

The Court has entered a fact discovery deadline of April 26. Thus, the issues pending before Judge Walker are a matter

of urgency for Rambus. Rambus does not understand why not even one the dozen lawyers from two large law firms

who have appeared for STMicro in this action can find the time to be available today, especially given Judge Walkers

flexibility in proposing alternative times for the hearing. We suggest that the hearing proceed and have every

expectation that STMicros counsel will appear. If they do not, we can and should proceed in their absence.

Alternatively, if Judge Walker prefers, Rambus is willing to submit the pending issues to Judge Walker based on our

letter of February 11, 2013, as well as the prior briefing and hearings on the underlying motion to compel (See motion

dated August 24, 2012, hearing of September 14, 2012, renewed motion of January 15, 2013, and hearing of January 23

2013). We are also happy to promptly answer any questions Judge Walker may have in writing.

Thank you for your assistance.

Peter Gratzinger

-----Original Message-----



To: '[email protected]'; RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; '[email protected]'; STMicroNDCA_5449;

'[email protected]'Subject: Re: Rambus Inc v STMicroelectronics NV - Teleconference

Dear Ms. Tom,

At this hour, I have been unsuccessful in locating anyone on the ST team who might be available tomorrow. If things

change I will let you know immediately but I am hoping we can schedule the call when Judge Walker returns given that

Friday does not work. Regards, Elaine

Sent from BlackBerry

----- Original Message -----

From: Lillian Tom [mailto:[email protected]]Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 08:32 PM

To: 'RAMBUS_CONTROLLER' ; [email protected]

; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal'


Hello: Im following up on my email below. To nail down a tentative time for tomorrows teleconference, Im sending

this Outlook invite. Thanks, Lillian


7/29/2019 146-2

53/54

2

==================================================================================================

==================

Dear Counsel:


availability?


Regards,

Lillian Tom

Lillian Tom




T: (415) 871-2995

F: (415) 871-2890


This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and

confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note

that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this

e-mail in error, please contact me at [email protected].


7/29/2019 146-2

54/54

Pennington, David


Location: Via teleconference (Dial-in info: Tele: (800) 864-4296, Code 5372483 #)

Start: Thu 2/21/2013 10:00 AM

End: Thu 2/21/2013 11:00 AM

Show Time As: Tentative

Recurrence: (none)

Organizer: Lillian Tom

Counsel:This confirms the teleconference at 10:00 am this morning. Please use the dial-in info as follows:T