TransportRoom 0

7/28/2019 TransportRoom 0

1/27

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APPEAL NO. 2012-1677

RAMBUS INC.,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

AND

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Intervenor,

AND

LSI CORPORATION AND SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC,Intervenor,

AND

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. AND STMICROELECTRONICS INC.Intervenor,

AND

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Intervenor,

AND

HGST, INC.,

Intervenor.

Case: 12-1677 Document: 88 Page: 1 Filed: 03/29/2013


2/27

2

On appeal from the United States International Trade

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-753.

OPPOSITION OF STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. ANDSTMICROELECTRONICS INC. TO APPELLANT RAMBUS INC.S

CORRECTED MOTION FOR A 45-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE

ITS OPENING BRIEF [PARTIALLY OPPOSED]



3/27

3

Intervenors STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.

(STMicro) respectfully submit this opposition to Appellant Rambus Inc.s

Corrected Motion for a further 45-Day Extension of Time to File Its Opening Brief

[Partially Opposed].1

Rambus's extension request should be denied because the

sole basis for its requesta claim that it will promote settlement with STMicrois

not correct.

This is the third time Rambus has sought an extension of time to file its

Opening Brief. STMicro previously agreed to an initial 60-day extension for

Rambus to file its Opening Brief. (Dkt. No. 74.) Rambus then sought and

obtained an additional 30-day extension prior to a then-scheduled mediation. (Dkt.

No. 83.) In connection with its second extension request, it argued that an

extension was warranted in light of the mediation that is scheduled for March 15,

2013. (Id. at 1.) Rambus's second extension request was granted one day after its

motion was filed and before STMicro was able to file an opposition. Rambus's

brief noted that STMicro opposed the extension. (Id. at 2.) As Rambus

acknowledges, the mediation that formed the principal basis for its second

extension request never took place. (Declaration of Michael Pattillo, Jr. at 7; Pak

Decl. at 7.) Rambus has already been given more than enough time to prepare its

1Attached hereto is the Declaration of Sean Pak in support of this

Opposition (Pak Decl.).



4/27

4

Opening Brief and engage in settlement talks and should now be required to move

forward with the appellate process which it started.

Rambus states in its Motion that a third extension until May 23, 2013 is

necessary to allow a reasonable time to pursue discussions with the Intervenors to

their conclusion before Rambuss opening brief is due. (Mot. at 3.) STMicro

submits that an extension will not promote a global settlement or aid the parties'

settlement talks. Rambus's conduct in the ongoing action in the Northern District of

California litigation,Rambus Inc. v. STMicroelectronics N.V. et al., Case No. 10-

5449 ("Northern District of California Action"),shows that Rambus is not

interested in slowing down all litigation with STMicro so the parties can resolve

their disputes. To the contrary, Rambus pushed aggressively for an early discovery

cut-off on all issues in the Northern District of California Action and opposed

STMicro's request for a phased discovery schedule. (Pak Decl., Ex. 1 at 4.)

Rambus is currently noticing and scheduling multiple depositions of STMicro

employees in that case, and Rambus has filed, and continues to pursue, multiple

motions to compel against STMicro. (Pak Decl.at 8.) Rambus's decision to

aggressively litigate the Northern District of California Action while asking for

additional time to delay the filing of its opening appellate brief reveals that it is

seeking an extension here to gain a tactical advantage.



5/27

5

Because an additional extension will substantively harm the possibility of

any possible settlement between Rambus and STMicro, and provide Rambus with a

further tactical advantage in connection with the parallel litigation in the Northern

District of California, Rambus's Motion should be denied. If Rambus wishes to

pursue an appeal and challenge the Commissions finding of no violation, it should

be required to proceed at this time as opposed to further delaying the disposition of

this matter.

Dated: March 29, 2013 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Sean Pak

Charles K. VerhoevenSean PakQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN LLP50 California Street, 22

ndFloor

San Francisco, CA 94111Telephone: (415) 875-6600Facsimile: (415) 875-6700

Kevin P.B. JohnsonVicki MaroulisQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN LLP555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560Redwood Shores, CA 94065Telephone: (650) 801-5000

Facsimile: (650) 801-5100



6/27

6

Thomas D. PeaseQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN LLP51 Madison Ave., 22

ndFloor

New York, NY 10010

Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100

Paul F. BrinkmanQUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN LLP1101 Pennsylvania Avenue, 6th FloorWashington, D.C. 20004Telephone: (202) 538-8000Facsimile: (202) 538-8100

Counsel for STMicroelectronics N.V.;STMicroelectronics Inc.



7/27

7

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APPEAL NO. 2012-1677

RAMBUS INC.,

Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Appellee,

AND

GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC.,

Intervenor,

AND

LSI CORPORATION AND SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY LLC,Intervenor,

AND

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. AND STMICROELECTRONICS INC.Intervenor,

AND

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,

Intervenor,

AND

HGST, INC.,

Intervenor.



8/27

8

On appeal from the United States International Trade

Commission in Investigation No. 337-TA-753.

DECLARATION OF SEAN PAK IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION OFSTMICROELECTRONICS N.V. AND STMICROELECTRONICS INC. TO

APPELLANT RAMBUS INC.S CORRECTED MOTION FOR A 45-DAY

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS OPENING BRIEF [PARTIALLY

OPPOSED]

I, Sean Pak, hereby declare:

1. I am a partner in the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,

LLP. I am over the age of 18 and have personal knowledge of the matters set forth

herein.

2. I submit this declaration in support of Intervenors STMicroelectronics

N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.s Opposition to Appellant Rambus Inc.s

Corrected Motion for a 45-day Extension of Time to File its Opening Brief

[Partially Opposed].

3. This is Rambus's third extension request and its second request that is

opposed. It has already obtained extensions totaling 90 days.

4. Rambus is simultaneously litigating an action in the United States

District Court for the Northern District of California against STMicroelectronics

N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc., titledRambus Inc. v. STMicroelectronics N.V. et

al., Case No. 10-5449 (the Northern District of California Action).



9/27

9

5. Rambus pushed for early discovery deadlines on all issues in the

Northern District of California Action and opposed STMicro's proposal for a

phased discovery schedule. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy

of the parties December 13, 2012 Joint Case Management Statement in the

Northern District of California Action.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is the district courts Scheduling Order in

the Northern District of California Action.

7. The mediation that formed the basis for Rambuss previous request for

an extension was cancelled.

8. Rambus has not made any efforts to slow down the Northern District

of California Action to allow the parties a cooling off period. Rambus is

currently noticing and scheduling multiple depositions of STMicro employees and

has filed, and continues to pursue, multiple motions to compel against STMicro in

the Northern District of California Action.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: March 29, 2013, in Washington, DC.

/s/ Sean Pak



10/27

EXHIBIT 1



11/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case Nos. 10-cv-05446 & 10-cv-05449 RS JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

(All parties and counsel listed on Signature Page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

LSI CORPORATION,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:10-cv-05446 RS

J OINT CASE MANAGEMENTSTATEMENT [Civil L.R. 16-9]

Date: December 20, 2012Time: 1:30 p.m.Judge: Hon. Richard Seeborg

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;STMICROELECTRONICS INC.,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:10-cv-05449 RS

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document126 Filed12/13/12 Page1 of 12Case: 12-1677 Document: 88 Page: 11 Filed: 03/29/2013


12/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Case Nos. 10-cv-05446 & 10-cv-05449 RS - 1 - JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT

Plaintiff Rambus Inc. (Rambus) and Defendants LSI Corporation (LSI) and

STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. (collectively, STMicro) hereby submit

this Joint Case Management Statement.

I. STATUS OF LITIGATIONA. Claim ConstructionThe Court held a claim construction hearing on August 29, 2012, and issued its claim

construction order on September 26, 2012.

B. Defendants' Motion to Limit the Number of Asserted ClaimsDefendants filed a joint Motion to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims on October 24,

2012. The Motion will be heard on December 20, 2012.

C. Written DiscoveryThe parties have been producing documents and proceeding with written discovery.

D. Plaintiffs Motion to Compel Discovery on Defendants Worldwide SalesOn June 6, 2012, Rambus moved to compel, inter alia, Defendants production of

worldwide sales of their respective accused products. After considering the papers submitted by

the parties, the Special Master ordered LSI and STMicro to present corporate witnesses to address

sales of their accused products. Rambus took the depositions of LSI's and STMicro's corporate

representatives on November 8 and November 14, 2012, respectively.

1. Rambuss PositionRambus contends that Defendants have thus far failed to produce information on

worldwide sales. Instead, they have produced information regarding only those sales of accused

products that theyhave identified, based on criteria oftheir choosing as U.S. sales. Rambus

should be afforded discovery allowing it to investigate what sales of accused products have a

sufficient U.S. nexus to be liable for direct patent infringement. Moreover, Defendants may be

liable for induced infringement due to sales of accused products outside the United States that are

subsequently imported into the United States by their customers. See 3Com Corp. v. D-Link

Systems, Inc., No. C 03-2177 VRW, 2007 WL 949596, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007).

Worldwide sales are also relevant to various other issues including the calculation of a reasonable



13/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


royalty and the secondary consideration of nonobviousness based on commercial success. See

id.; Boeing Co. v. United States, 86 Fed. Cl. 303, 319 (Fed. Ct. Cl. 2009). Although Judge

Walker held that Defendants corporate designees should address both sales in the United States

and worldwide, tr. (June 27, 2012) at 81:16-18, the witnesses produced by Defendants failed to

inform themselves on these topics and the depositions did not provide Rambus with the discovery

of worldwide sales information to which it is entitled. Rambus disagrees with Defendants

interpretation of Judge Walkers written order as set forth below. Indeed, as the language quoted

below by Defendants itself makes clear, Judge Walker imposed no geographic limitation on

information regarding products manufactured, sold or offered for sale by Defendants, while

indicating that, with respect to importation, they need only produce information regarding

products imported into the United States. Rambus intends to revisit this issue with Judge Walker

in the first instance.

2. Defendants Position

Defendants maintain their position that their non-U.S. sales are not relevant in this case

because Rambuss asserted U.S. Patents covered only activities (e.g., making, using, selling or

importing) that took place within the U.S. See35 U.S.C. 271(a). Additionally, Rambus

misrepresents Judge Walkers Order regarding Rambuss motion to compel the production of

worldwide sales information. Although, during oral argument, Judge Walker considered

requiring Defendants to produce worldwide sales information including documents, his final

written order was much narrower. Particularly, his Order directed Defendants to provide only

Rule 30(b)(6) testimony relating to, for example, the identity of the products manufactured, sold,

imported into the United States or offered for sale by the defendants that contain a DRAM

memory controller. June 28, 2012 Order, C.A. No. 3:10-cv-5446-RS (Dkt. No. 97 at 2).

Defendants Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses were prepared to testify regarding the subject matter

identified in Judge Walkers Order. Contrary to Rambuss assertions, Judge Walkers Order did

not open up unfettered discovery on Defendants worldwide sales. Id. Defendants are prepared

to oppose any renewed motion by Rambus that seeks worldwide sales information.



14/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


E. LSIs Motion to Strike Rambuss Infringement ContentionsOn October 4, 2011, Rambus served its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement

Contentions on each of the Defendants. On June 13, 2012, Rambus served an Amended

Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions on LSI that added additional

accused products. LSI did not oppose Rambuss motion to amend its infringement contentions.

On July 13, 2012 Defendant LSI moved to strike Rambuss infringement contentions for failure

to comply with Patent L.R. 3-1. That motion was heard by Judge Walker on September 14, 2012.

Although a hearing was conducted regarding LSIs motion and other motions, Judge Walker

never issued a ruling on LSIs motion. On November 19, 2012, Judge Walker informed the

parties that any motions regarding the adequacy of Rambuss infringement contentions would

have to be brought before Judge Seeborg.

If Rambus and LSI cannot reach agreement regarding the adequacy of Rambuss

infringement contentions, LSI intends to renew its motion before Judge Seeborg.

F. Production of Additional Privilege Piercing DocumentsOn December 7, 2011, the Court entered the Order Regarding the Production of Privileged

Documents Previously Ordered Produced, following the parties' joint submission stipulating to

entry of the order. That Order did not address documents that had been produced in priorlitigation by certain of Rambuss outside counsel and certain deposition transcripts of outside

counsel. Rambus has sought consent from the law firms at issue to produce their documents in

this litigation subject to an appropriate court order. Defendants do not believe that it is necessary

for Rambus to obtain consents from its own prior counsel. The parties have been meeting and

conferring on the scope of a supplemental stipulation and order. If the parties are unable to agree

on the scope of a supplemental stipulation and order, they intend to seek the assistance of the

Special Master on any areas of disagreement.

G. Alternative Dispute ResolutionRambus and LSI participated in a mediation before Judge Edward Infante of JAMS on

December 6, 2012. Rambus and STMicro participated in a mediation before Judge William

Cahill of JAMS on December 12, 2012. The mediations were not successful in resolving any of



15/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


the issues in this litigation. Should the Court have further questions regarding the mediations, he

parties will be prepared to address the status of settlement discussions at the case management

conference.

II . PROPOSED SCHEDULEA. Rambuss StatementRambus proposes the following schedule for further litigation events:

Close of fact discovery: April 26, 2013

Initial expert reports: May 10, 2013

Rebuttal expert reports: June 10, 2013

Close of expert discovery: July 12, 2013

File dispositive motions: July 26, 2013

Pretrial conference for unclean hands trial: August 15, 2013

Unclean hands trial: August 26-27, 2013

Pretrial conference for patent trial: October 10, 2013

Patent trial: October 28, 2013

B. Defendants' StatementAt the January 12, 2012 CMC, Defendants requested that the Court set a phased trial with

Defendants' unclean hands defense tried first. At the conference, the Court indicated that it was

premature to decide when and how the spoliation issue would be tried. Defendants respectfully

renew their request that the Court set a phased trial schedule with the unclean hands defense tried

first, and Rambus's response indicates that it agrees with this concept too. Because Defendants

unclean hands defense is likely to be dispositive of Rambus' claims with respect to the Farmwald-

Horowitz patents, Defendants believe that a phased trial is efficient and will conserve significant

party and Court resources.

A July 2012 decision in the ITC matter involving Rambus and Defendants LSI and

STMicro demonstrates that a trial of the unclean hands issue is likely to be dispositive of

Rambus's claims under the Farmwald-Horowitz patents, which are the only asserted patents not

subject to the Court's stay. On July 31, 2012, the ITC issued its Commission Opinion in Inv. No.



16/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


337-TA-753 (the "753 Investigation"). In the '753 Investigation, Administrative Law Judge

Essex found the asserted Rambus patents unenforceable due to Rambus's spoliation.1 The

International Trade Commission upheld the ALJ's March 2, 2012 Initial Determination. The

ALJ's Initial Determination followed an evidentiary hearing during which the ALJ heard

testimony from numerous witnesses on the spoliation issues. The ALJ's opinion analyzed the

evidence in light of the standard set forth by the Federal Circuit inMicron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus

Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Micron II"), andHynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,

645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Hynix II"). In light of the applicable standard set by the Federal

Circuit and based on the evidence submitted, the ALJ found that "Rambus' litigation campaign

clearly contemplated the wholesale destruction of documents and Rambus executed this

destruction in bad faith." ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-753, March 2, 2012 ID at 316. The ALJ also

found that "the degree of prejudice resulting from Rambus' spoliation is severe because the

Respondents are forced to rely on 'incomplete and spotty evidence.'" Id. at 316. Based on these

findings, the ALJ held that unenforceability was the most appropriate sanction for Rambus's

spoliation. Id. Although the Barth patents at issue in the ITC proceeding are currently stayed in

this proceeding, the underlying facts that resulted in the ALJ's finding of unenforceability

substantially overlap with the facts which Defendants intend to rely upon to support their unclean

hands defense with respect to the Farmwald-Horowitz patents.

As Rambus apparently concedes, holding a phased trial with spoliation to be tried first

makes good sense and is the only practical way to proceed. Other courts that have considered the

unclean hands defense have set a phased trial schedule too. InMicron Technology, Inc. v.

Rambus Inc. (Case No. 00-cv-792-SLR, D. Del.), andHynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.

(Case No. 00-20905 RMW, N.D. Cal.), the courts each ordered a phased trial schedule with the

unclean hands defense tried first. Defendants propose the following schedule, with respect to

discovery and trial on their unclean hands defense:

1 The Barth patents asserted both in this action and in Inv. No. 337-TA-753 are U.S. Patent Nos.6,470,405; 6,591,353; and 7,287,109.



17/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Close of fact discovery: March 13, 2013

Dispositive motion cut-off: April 12, 2013

Trial on unclean hands defense: May 20, 2013

This schedule will permit Defendants to file motions regarding the collateral estoppel effect of

other court's decisions regarding spoliation prior to the trial.

The principle scheduling dispute between the parties pertains to whether fact and expert

discovery regarding all aspects of the case should take place prior to the unclean hands trial or

whether the discovery should initially focus only on the unclean hands defense. Because the

unclean hands defense is case-dispositive with respect to the Farmwald-Horowitz patents, there is

no need for the Court to set additional dates for further litigation events. The only efficient

solution is to first focus discovery on the unclean hands trial because it may resolve the case.

And Defendants have proposed a May trial date to facilitate this. It is Rambus, not Defendants,

who is asking to push that date back based on scheduling conflicts. But the fact that Rambus has

scheduling conflicts with a May trial date is not a reason to force counsel to engage in discovery

and motion practice on aspects of the case that will become moot if the Court finds in

Defendants' favor on unclean hands. Rambus also asks to limit the trial to a couple of days and to

rely in large part on the prior trial record. This request should be rejected. As ALJ Essex found,

issues of credibility are critical to resolution of the unclean hands defense and assessing Rambus's

bad faith. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-753, March 2, 2012 ID at 266, 270-311 ("The ALJ notes the

presence of an additional, fifth factor that weighs in favor of a finding of bad faith: the lack of

credibility and dishonesty shown by many of Rambus' witnesses."). As a result, the Court should

hear live testimony so that it can assess the facts and the credibility of Rambus's witnesses.

Rambus's proposed duration of just a few days for the trial is inadequate too and is substantially

less time than other courts have allocated to trial of the unclean hands defense.2

2 The ITC hearing lasted eight days, during which the ALJ heard testimony from eight witnessesrelating to Rambus spoliation of documents. In addition, the Micron unclean hands trial was fivedays, and the Hynix unclean hands trial was nine days.



18/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Finally, even if the Court were inclined to schedule additional litigation deadlines,

Rambuss proposed schedule for aspects of the case other than unclean hands does not provide

sufficient time for the parties to complete fact and expert discovery and prepare dispositive

motions relating to all the claims and defenses at issue in this case.3

C. Rambuss ResponseDefendants argue that their unclean hands defense should be addressed in a separate, early

trial phase. Rambus agrees that this Court should take a fresh look at these issues and arrive at its

own conclusions. Even so, this will be an expedited proceeding and can be completed in no more

than a couple of days. These issues have been tried on several occasions, with differing results

each time, but the essential point is that the trial record has been fully developed. Indeed, the

Defendants themselves took extensive spoliation-related discovery during the ITC matter that

they cite above, and were able to try spoliation as just a small part of an eight-day trial focused on

infringement and validity of multiple patents, as well as a number of other issues. The parties for

this trial can start from that trial record and supplement it to whatever limited extent, if any, they

believe is appropriate given the issues in this case and the identity and roles of the parties. To the

extent that Defendants file motions for collateral estoppel on certain issues, as they indicate they

may do, and to whatever extent they are successful, their success would only serve to further

narrow the issues to be tried and the time required for trial.

Rambus agrees that it would be appropriate to set the unclean hands trial for as early a

date as possible. Given the prior trial commitments of Rambuss counsel, which conflict with the

date Defendants propose for this trial, Rambus suggests that this trial should be set for a couple of

days in late August or early September, consistent with the Courts schedule. That will allow the

Court sufficient time to decide the unclean hands issues and then to proceed to trial on patent

infringement issues on October 28, 2013, as Rambus suggests.

3 LSI further notes in response to Rambus's response below that LSI has asserted a defense ofunclean hands in this case and that defense encompasses Rambuss misconduct at JEDECincluding, for example, its failure to disclose its claimed intellectual property.



19/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Defendants assertion, relying on the ALJs opinion at the ITC, that such a trial is likely

to be dispositive of Rambuss claims with respect to the Farmwald-Horowitz patents, is

misplaced. To the contrary, even if the Court were to find that Rambus spoliated documents,

which Rambus believes it will not, it is highly unlikely that the Court would find that case-

dispositive sanctions were appropriate. As the Federal Circuit has made clear, upon a finding of

spoliation, [t]he district court must select the least onerous sanction corresponding to the

willfulness of the destructive act and the prejudice suffered by the victim. Micron Tech. Inc. v.

Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks and citation

omitted). In Micron, the Federal Circuit vacated the dismissal sanction the district court had

imposed and remanded for the district court to reconsider whether Rambus had acted in bad faith,

whether Micron was prejudiced, and the appropriate sanction (if any). (The issues have been

briefed, but the district court has not yet ruled.)

InHynix, the Federal Circuit held that Judge Whyte had applied an incorrect standard in

analyzing Hynixs spoliation defense after the first trial. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus

Inc., 645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011). On remand, Judge Whyte recently held that Rambus had

spoliated certain documents, while acknowledging the possibility that Rambus did not destroy

any evidence that would have been beneficial to Hynixs litigation position. Order on Remand,

Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., Case No. C-00-20905, Dkt. #4160 ( 9/21/12), at 64.

Judge Whyte further found that Hynix had only shown that it may have been prejudiced by

Rambuss alleged destruction of J EDEC-related documents and not by the destruction of any

other categories of documents. Id. at 61 (emphasis added). Hynix had raised Rambus alleged

nondisclosure at JEDEC of patent-related information relating to the SDRAM and DDR SDRAM

memory standards as a defense. Judge Whyte ruled that, in light of the fact that Rambuss

patents are otherwise valid and that Rambuss spoliation . . . did not involve intentional

destruction of particular damaging documents, an appropriate sanction was not to dismiss the

claims but to strike from the record any evidence supporting a royalty in excess of a reasonable

and non-discriminatory (RAND) rate. Id. at 64-65. The parties were directed to brief what a

RAND royalty would be, and that briefing recently concluded.



20/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


In this case, LSI has not even raised Rambuss alleged non-disclosure of patents to

JEDEC as a defense in its Answer. And, unlike Hynix, LSI and STMicro were not members of

the JEDEC committee that was standardizing the relevant memory devices and do not design or

manufacture the standardized memory devices. Even if Defendants could show that their

defenses were somehow prejudiced by Rambuss alleged spoliation in this case, it is difficult to

see how a case-dispositive sanction could be justified. In light of the unlikelihood of case-

dispositive sanctions, it would be inefficient for other aspects of this case to be put on hold as

Defendants request pending resolution of their unclean hands defense. Indeed, discovery on all

aspects of the case has been moving forward and there is no reason to change course now.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: December 13, 2012MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

By: /s/ Peter A. DetreGregory P. Stone (SBN 078329)[email protected] K. Huang (SBN 219798)[email protected] E. Gratzinger (SBN 228764)[email protected]

Keith R.D. Hamilton (SBN 252115)[email protected] H. Pennington (SBN 272238)[email protected], TOLLES & OLSON LLP355 South Grand Avenue, 35th FloorLos Angeles, CA 90071-1560Telephone: (213) 683-9100Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619)[email protected], TOLLES & OLSON LLP

560 Mission Street, 27th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105Telephone: (415) 512-4000Facsimile: (415) 512-4077

Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.



21/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

By: /s/ David. E. SipioraDavid E. Sipiora (SBN 124951)[email protected]

Daniel S. Young (pro hac vice)[email protected] D. Cadkin (pro hac vice)[email protected] Wewatta Street, Suite 600Denver, CO 80202Telephone: (303) 571-4000Facsimile: (303) 571-4321

Robert John Artuz (SBN 227789)[email protected] March Rd.

Menlo Park, CA 94025Telephone: (650) 326-2400Facsimile: (650) 326-2422

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim PlaintiffLSI CORPORATION

K&L GATES LLP

By: /s/ Michael J . BettingerMichael J . Bettinger (SBN 122196)[email protected] M. Everett (SBN 121619)[email protected] Holbreich (SBN 168053)[email protected] Y. Chow (SBN 194063)[email protected] M. Digrande (SBN 199766)[email protected] Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200San Francisco, CA 94111Tel: (415) 882-8200Fax: (415) 882-8220

Attorneys for STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. andSTMICROELECTRONICS, INC.



22/27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Filers Attestation

I, Peter A. Detre, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being

used to file thisJ OINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT. In compliance with General

Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that the above-named signatories concur in this filing.

DATED: December 13, 2012

/s/ Peter A. Detre



23/27

EXHIBIT 2



24/27

CASEMANAGEMENTSCHEDULINGORDER

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RAMBUS INC.,

Plaintiff,v.

STMICROELECTRONICS, N.V.,

Defendant.____________________________________/

No. C 10-05449RS

CASE MANAGEMENTSCHEDULING ORDER

Pursuant to Rule 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties attended a

Case Management Conference on December 20, 2012. After considering the Joint Case

Management Statement submitted by the parties and consulting with the attorneys of record for

the parties and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. DISCOVERY . On or before April 26, 2013 all non-expert discovery shall be

completed by the parties.

2. EXPERT WITNESSES. The disclosure and discovery of expert witnesses and

opinions shall proceed as follows:

A. On or before May 10, 2013, parties will make initial expert disclosures in

accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).



25/27


2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. On or before June 10, 2013, parties will designate their supplemental and rebuttal

experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

C. On or before July, 12, 2013, all discovery of expert witnesses pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) shall be completed.

3. DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS REGARDING UNCLEAN HANDS. All pretrial

motions must be filed and served pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. All pretrial motions shall be

heard no later thanJ uly 11, 2013 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States

Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

4. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE FOR SPOLIATION TRIAL. The spoliation pretrial

conference will be held onAugust 15, 2013 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United

States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Each party or lead

counsel who will try the case shall attend personally.

5. SPOLIATION/ UNCLEAN HANDS TRIAL DATE. The Spoliation/ Unclean

Hand Trial take place onAugust 26-27, 2013 (two day limit). Trial shall commenceat 9:00

a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San

Francisco, California.

6. PRETRIAL MOTIONS REGARDING PATENT TRIAL. All pretrial motions

regarding the patent trial must be filed and served pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7. All pretrial

motions shall be heard no later thanFebruary 20, 2014 at 1:30 p.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th

Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

7. PRETRIAL CONFERENCE. The final pretrial conference will be held on

March 27, 2014 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Each party or lead counsel who will try the

case shall attend personally.



26/27


3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. TRIAL DATE. Trial shall commence onApril 14, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., in

Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco,

California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 2/15/13

_______________________________

RICHARD SEEBORGUnited States District Judge



27/27

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on the 29th day of March, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing

OPPOSITION OF STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. AND

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC. TO APPELLANT RAMBUS INC.S MOTION

FOR A 45-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ITS OPENING BRIEF

[PARTIALLY OPPOSED] by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of

electronic filing to ECF registered participants. I also sent courtesy copies to counsel of record

via email.

/s/ Michael Kim

Michael Kim

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

50 California Street, 22nd

Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111
