Exhibit 23

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page1 of 60
EXHIBIT 19
Page 1 of 3 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page2 of 60 Gratzinger, Peter

From: Sent: To: Cc: Gratzinger, Peter Friday, April 12, 2013 5:49 PM 'Chow, Elaine' RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal'
Subject: RE: Rambus v. STMicro Elaine, please focus on the questions in my email: 1. In what document did STMicro "provide[] the worldwide sales for all DRAM memory controller products sold by STMicro from December 2004 to September 2011." 2. In what document did STMicro "previously provide[] all U.S. sales for the relevant time period for DRAM memory controller products." 3. Has STMicro completed its identification of all products made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. between December 2004 and September 2011 that include a DRAM memory controller? 4. Has STMicro provided STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.'s worldwide sales of the products in #3? Please answer these questions today. Regards, Peter
From: Chow, Elaine [mailto:elaine.chow@klgates.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:38 PM To: Gratzinger, Peter Cc: RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal' Subject: RE: Rambus v. STMicro Peter, As we have stated previously, STMicroelectronics, Inc. and STMicroelectronics N.V. ("STMicro") have identified the products containing DRAM memory controllers that were sold by STMicro and provided the U.S. and worldwide sales by STMicro for those products. If this continues to be unclear to you, please let me know. Regards, Elaine From: Gratzinger, Peter [mailto:peter.gratzinger@mto.com] Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 5:01 PM To: Chow, Elaine Cc: RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal' Subject: RE: Rambus v. STMicro Elaine, despite our telephone conversation this morning in which I reiterated my request that you answer these questions, I still have not heard from you. We will bring your unwillingness to answer these simple questions to the attention of Judge Walker when we submit our responsive letter. Regards,
4/15/2013
Page 2 of 3 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page3 of 60
Peter
From: Gratzinger, Peter Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:34 AM To: 'Chow, Elaine' Cc: RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal' Subject: RE: Rambus v. STMicro Elaine, Your letter to Judge Walker states, "STMicro has provided the worldwide sales for all DRAM memory controller products sold by STMicro from December 2004 to September 2011." In a footnote, it continues, "STMicro had previously provided all U.S. sales for the relevant time period for DRAM memory controller products." Neither statement provides a citation. In order to accurately address STMicro's arguments in our responsive brief in a way that is helpful to Judge Walker, we need to know exactly what interrogatory response or other disclosure you are referring to in the first sentence, and similarly, what you are referring to in the footnote. We would also like to know the answer to the question that I asked in my March 22 letter, and on several subsequent occasions, and that you told me you would answer by April 1. Is it the case that: 1) STMicro has completed its identification of all products made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. between December 2004 and September 2011 that include a DRAM memory controller, and 2) Provided STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.'s worldwide sales of those products. Given the short amount of time that Rambus has for its responsive letter, I would appreciate an answer to these questions today. Regards, Peter
From: Brooks, Perry [mailto:perry.brooks@klgates.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 7:32 PM To: 'vrw@judgewalker.com'; 'Lillian Tom' Cc: RAMBUS_CONTROLLER; STMicroNDCA_5449; 'QE-RambusNDCal' Subject: Rambus v. STMicro Please see attached letter to Judge Walker along with exhibits A - C. Thank You, Perry C. Brooks
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 perry.brooks@klgates.com.
4/15/2013
Page 3 of 3 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page4 of 60
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 elaine.chow@klgates.com.
4/15/2013
EXHIBIT 20
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

RONALD L. OLSON ROBERT E. DENHAM JEFFREY I. WEINBERGER CARY B. LERMAN CHARLES D. SIEGAL RONALD K. MEYER GREGORY P. STONE BRAD D. BRIAN BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS GEORGE M. GARVEY WILLIAM D. TEMKO ROBERT B. KNAUSS STEPHEN M. KRISTOVICH JOHN W. SPIEGEL TERRY E. SANCHEZ STEVEN M. PERRY MARK B. HELM JOSEPH D. LEE MICHAEL R. DOYEN MICHAEL E. SOLOFF GREGORY D. PHILLIPS LAWRENCE C. BARTH KATHLEEN M. M C DOWELL GLENN D. POMERANTZ THOMAS B. WALPER RONALD C. HAUSMANN PATRICK J. CAFFERTY, JR. JAY M. FUJITANI O'MALLEY M. MILLER SANDRA A. SEVILLE-JONES MARK H. EPSTEIN HENRY WEISSMANN KEVIN S. ALLRED BART H. WILLIAMS JEFFREY A. HEINTZ JUDITH T. KITANO KRISTIN LINSLEY MYLES MARC T.G. DWORSKY JEROME C. ROTH STEPHEN D. ROSE GARTH T. VINCENT TED DANE STUART N. SENATOR

MARTIN D. BERN DANIEL P. COLLINS RICHARD E. DROOYAN ROBERT L. DELL ANGELO BRUCE A. ABBOTT JONATHAN E. ALTMAN MARY ANN TODD MICHAEL J. O'SULLIVAN KELLY M. KLAUS DAVID B. GOLDMAN KEVIN S. MASUDA HOJOON HWANG DAVID C. DINIELLI PETER A. DETRE PAUL J. WATFORD DANA S. TREISTER CARL H. MOOR DAVID H. FRY LISA J. DEMSKY MALCOLM A. HEINICKE GREGORY J. WEINGART TAMERLIN J. GODLEY JAMES C. RUTTEN J. MARTIN WILLHITE RICHARD ST. JOHN ROHIT K. SINGLA LUIS LI CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE C. DAVID LEE MARK H. KIM BRETT J. RODDA SEAN ESKOVITZ FRED A. ROWLEY, JR. KATHERINE M. FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG RANDALL G. SOMMER MARIA SEFERIAN MANUEL F. CACHN ROSEMARIE T. RING JOSEPH J. YBARRA KATHERINE K. HUANG MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TODD J. ROSEN
355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2
560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7
April 5, 2013
TRUC T. DO MELINDA EADES LeMOINE SETH GOLDMAN SUSAN R. SZABO LINDSAY D. M C CASKILL BRIAN R. HOCHLEUTNER GRANT A. DAVIS-DENNY JONATHAN H. BLAVIN KAREN J. EPHRAIM LIKA C. MIYAKE ANDREW W. SONG VICTORIA L. BOESCH HAILYN J. CHEN BRAD SCHNEIDER MIRIAM KIM MISTY M. SANFORD AIMEE FEINBERG KATHERINE KU KIMBERLY A. CHI SHOSHANA E. BANNETT DEREK J. KAUFMAN MARCUS J. SPIEGEL BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH WILLIAM E. CANO HENRY E. ORREN BENJAMIN W. HOWELL JACOB S. KREILKAMP ERIC P. TUTTLE HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI KEITH R.D. HAMILTON, II SORAYA C. KELLY PATRICK ANDERSON JEFFREY Y. WU MARK R. CONRAD L. ASHLEY AULL M. LANCE JASPER ALISSA BRANHAM ADAM R. LAWTON RACHEL L. STEIN AVI BRAZ DAVID C. LACHMAN JENNY H. HONG AARON SEIJI LOWENSTEIN
LAURA D. SMOLOWE SARALA V. NAGALA LEO GOLDBARD MATTHEW A. MACDONALD CAROLYN V. ZABRYCKI MARGARET G. ZIEGLER ESTHER H. SUNG MIRIAM SEIFTER BENJAMIN J. MARO RENEE DELPHIN-RODRIGUEZ MICHAEL J. MONGAN KATHRYN A. EIDMANN JOEL M. PURLES KYLE A. CASAZZA RICHARD C. CHEN AARON GREENE LEIDERMAN ERIN J. COX CLAIRE YAN DAVID H. PENNINGTON BRAM ALDEN MARK R. SAYSON JOHN M. RAPPAPORT DAVID C. THOMPSON ANNE HENRY LEE MATTHEW M. STEINBERG CHRISTIAN K. WREDE PETER E. GRATZINGER - OF COUNSEL RICHARD D. ESBENSHADE ROBERT K. JOHNSON ALAN V. FRIEDMAN RICHARD S. VOLPERT ALLISON B. STEIN SUSAN E. NASH ALLEN M. KATZ WILLIANA CHANG E. LEROY TOLLES (1 922-2008)
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WRITERS DIRECT LINE
VIA EMAIL The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2228 Re: Dear Judge Walker:
(213) 683-9513 (213) 683-4013 FAX Peter.Gratzinger@mto.com
Rambus, Inc. v. STMicro Electronics N.V.; STMicro Electronics Inc., No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)
On three occasions over the last ten months, STMicros identification of all of its DRAM controller products (wherever sold), and its production of worldwide sales data for those products, has been raised and argued before Your Honor. On each occasion, Your Honor has ordered STMicro to provide further discovery, or STMicro has mooted the motion by promising to produce. Yet STMicro still has not produced the first nickel of its worldwide sales information, or identified the first part number beyond the ones STMicro admits were sold in the U.S. STMicros delay tactics, which have included outright disregard for Your Honors Orders, have held up significant further discovery that requires, as the first step, the requested product identification and sales information. Now, relying on a specious premise, STMicro seeks a fourth hearing on issues that Your Honor decided months ago. Enough. In this letter, Rambus respectfully requests a recommendation to Judge Seeborg to extend the April 26, 2013 fact discovery deadline for the limited purpose of allowing Rambus to take follow-up discovery with respect to information that STMicro has been dilatory in providing, including the worldwide sales and product information that STMicro has already been ordered to and agreed to provide. Rambus also proposes deadlines for STMicro to provide that information. Rambus also respectfully requests that STMicro be ordered to provide a detailed
20530130.2
Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page7 of 60 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP April 5, 2013 Page 2
explanation of what it has done to date to comply with Your Honors Orders of February 13, 2013 and March 18, 2013, and if STMicros explanation for having produced nothing to date is inadequate, to enter appropriate sanctions. Background: Prior Orders Regarding Worldwide Products and Sales Last June, STMicro was ordered to provide a 30(b)(6) witness knowledgeable about its worldwide sales. See Tr. (June 27, 2012) at 80:21-81:18 (ordering a 30(b)(6) deposition regarding the significant sales of STMicros products, including worldwide sales); see also Dkt. 94. (Discovery Order) (ordering 30(b)(6) on identity and sales of STMicro products, not limited to U.S. sales). On the latest possible date, STMicro produced an accountant who had not so much as looked at STMicros worldwide sales data, and who was unprepared to testify on any topic noticed by Rambus. See Rambuss December 21, 2012 Letter to Your Honor. When Rambus reported STMicros blatant defiance of Your Honors Order, Your Honor again ordered STMicro to identify products and provide sales data on a worldwide basis, this time in spreadsheet form. See February 13, 2013 Order (Defendants will complete a reasonably diligent search, and make a substantially complete production of identification and worldwide sales information for all Accused Products no later than March 15, 2013). LSI (no longer a Defendant) promptly complied with the order. STMicro again produced nothing. When it emerged that STMicro was interpreting the February 13, 2013 Order to exclude subsidiaries of defendant STMicroelectronics NV (an interpretation Rambus disputes), Rambus moved to compel for a third time. Prior to and at the hearing on that motion, STMicro waived its objections and agreed in unambiguous terms to provide all of its worldwide product and sales data for DRAM controller products. That agreement is memorialized in the Order itself. See March 18, 2013 Order at 2 (STMicro has agreed to provide worldwide sales data for all products that include a DRAM controller sold by STMicro and/or its subsidiaries (including those set forth in Exhibit A) between December 2004 and September 2011. STMicro shall provide an update to Rambus on the status of the collection and production of that information no later than March 15, 2013.). Rambus was optimistic that this issue had finally been put to bed, and that substantial fact discovery that Rambus needs to prepare for trial could finally begin. Unfortunately, a month after STMicro agreed to finally provide this information (which, Your Honor may recall, prior defendant LSI admitted that it could compile within ten minutes for a much larger number of accused products), Rambus has still received nothing. When Rambus told STMicro that it would seek a deadline from Your Honor, STMicro responded that it would like to schedule a fourth hearing on the discoverability of worldwide sales data. STMicro claims that a new Federal Circuit case shows that the information is not relevant, and that it can somehow reverse the waiver of its objections as a result. STMicro is wrong. STMicro Must Honor Its Agreement To Produce Worldwide Sales and Product Information
20530130.2
On April 3, 2013, counsel for STMicro wrote to counsel for Rambus that its request for worldwide sales information is improper in light of a new Federal Circuit holding, Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l Inc. A copy of the letter, and the case, are attached as Exhibits A and B. That claim is without merit. Power Integrations holds that an award of lost profits cannot be based on a theory that infringement in the United States would foreseeably result in lost foreign sales. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intl., Inc., Nos. 2011-1218, 2012-1238, 2013 WL 1200270 at *19 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2013). Rambus, however, is not seeking lost profits, let alone damages for lost foreign sales caused by domestic infringement. The central holding of Power Integrations is therefore completely irrelevant to this case. The Plaintiff in Power Integrations also claimed that Defendant Fairchild was inducing its customer, Samsung, to import infringing products into the United States. See Power Integrations, 2013 WL 1200270 at *21-*22. Rambus does have an analogous theory of infringement that STMicro induces its customers to import infringing products into the United States. The Federal Circuit, however, did not suggest that such a theory of induced infringement is in any way improper. Instead, it simply held that there was insufficient evidence at trial of the number of Samsung phones imported into the United States that contained the infringing component. See id. at *19-*23. This completely unremarkable holding about the insufficiency of evidence in a particular case does not signal a sudden reversal in Federal Circuit law. If anything, Power Integrations underscores Rambuss need for STMicro to identify its worldwide sales and worldwide customers, as the first step to allowing Rambus to gather the evidence that it needs (from STMicro and/or third parties) to prove its inducement case. Moreover, the relevance of the information sought by Rambus has already been litigated three times over the course of ten months. All things must come to an end. At the last hearing, STMicro waived its objections and agreed to make a complete production. Although STMicro indicates in its April 3 letter that it intends to ask Your Honor for reconsideration of the March 18, 2013 order, there is nothing for Your Honor to reconsider. The March 18, 2013 order simply memorialized STMicros waiver of objections and agreement to finally produce worldwide sales data. Providing STMicro relief from its waiver would prejudice Rambus. Had STMicro not waived, Your Honor would have ruled, STMicro (or Rambus) would have had a period to appeal, and the Order would have become final. STMicro should not be permitted to deprive Rambus of finality, and to drag this issue out even further, by rescinding its waiver. STMicro Must Confirm Its Compliance With The February 13, 2013 Order In addition to attempting to back out of the waiver memorialized in the March 18 Order, STMicro has simply ignored Rambuss multiple, pointed requests to confirm or deny whether it has complied with the February 13 Order. The February 13 Order required STMicro to produce at least the following information by March 15, 2013: The identity of all products made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. between
20530130.2
December 2004 and September 2011 that include a DRAM memory controller. STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.s worldwide sales of those products.1
STMicro produced nothing on or since March 15. It is possible (though quite unlikely) that all of STMicroelectronics NVs sales of DRAM controller products were in the United States, and thus previously disclosed. Rambus cannot know, because STMicro has refused to confirm or deny its compliance with the Order. Rambus is concerned that STMicro has simply decided to ignore the deadline in the Order. As stated above, Rambus respectfully requests that STMicro be ordered to provide a detailed explanation of what it has done to date to comply with Your Honors Orders of February 13, 2013 and March 18, 2013, and if STMicros explanation for having produced nothing to date is inadequate, to enter appropriate sanctions. Rambuss Proposed Discovery Plan At the March 8, 2013 hearing, Your Honor suggested a road map for completion of fact discovery: first, identify all of the accused products and worldwide sales information, then revisit issues regarding STMicros deficient document production, as well as addressing further discovery related to worldwide sales. See Tr. (Mar. 8, 2013) at 27:8-31:6; 81:16-84:2. Your Honor stated that, if necessary, you would recommend that Judge Seeborg grant relief from the fact discovery deadline. See id. at 30:4-13. Rambus now seeks that relief. Rambuss proposed schedule for the completion of fact discovery is below. Rambus sought to meet and confer with STMicro to come to an agreed proposed schedule. Unfortunately, after promising to provide Rambus with a counterproposal, counsel for STMicro decided instead to send the letter reneging on its commitment to provide worldwide sales data in light of the Power Integrations case, and declaring that all further discovery is therefore unnecessary. Thus, Rambus submits this proposed schedule without the benefit of a counterproposal from STMicro. April 12, 2013: Disclosure of steps undertaken by STMicro to identify DRAM controller products Pursuant to the March 18 Order, STMicro has disclosed a number of names of persons responsible for identifying DRAM controller products. As Your Honor indicated at the March 8 hearing, the disclosure of names is a first step towards a disclosure of how STMicro conducted its self-described anecdotal search for DRAM controller products. See Tr. (Mar. 8, 2013) at
STMicro contends that the February 13 Order is narrower than the March 18 Order in that it does not apply to subsidiaries of STMicroelectronics NV. Rambus disagrees with that interpretation. There is no dispute, however, that at least the information for STMicroelectronics NV and STMicroelectronics Inc. was due on March 15, 2013.
1
20530130.2
24:9-25:1. Rambus proposes that the disclosure consist of a declaration from one person in each STMicro product group describing what witnesses and records within that product group were consulted, and attesting that there are no additional witnesses who are likely to have nonduplicative knowledge and no other records that could reasonably be searched. To the extent a search was conducted outside of STMicros current product groups (e.g., in relation to historical products), STMicro should provide a similar declaration relating to that search as well. April 12, 2013: Complete disclosure of DRAM controller products and worldwide sales As discussed at length above, a month after agreeing to provide all product identifications and worldwide sales data, STMicro has produced nothing, and is now attempting to renege on its agreement. Rambus therefore respectfully requests that Your Honor set a firm deadline for the production that STMicro agreed to in the March 18 Order. April 19, 2013: Remedy deficient production, and produce all documents and information withheld based on improper worldwide sales objection As Your Honor has previously recognized, STMicros document production is grossly deficient. Your Honor ordered STMicro to provide a declaration detailing its search for responsive documents and attesting to its completeness, see February 21, 2013 Order, but then withdrew that Order. See March 18 Order. Thus, despite Your Honors recognition that Rambuss complaints have merit, Rambus has received no relief to date with respect to STMicros deficient document production. Rambus proposes this date as the deadline for STMicro to complete a search and production that would remedy at least the deficiencies set forth in Rambuss letter of February 11, 2013 to Your Honor. STMicro has also improperly refused to provide any documents or any information in response to interrogatories pertaining to products that STMicro claims were not sold in the U.S. Rambus proposes this date as the deadline to produce all documents and all information in response to interrogatories that STMicro has previously withheld based on this improper objection. April 26, 2013: Amended Infringement Contentions Rambus will supplement its infringement contentions, and expects to include the small number of additional DRAM controller products STMicro has identified to date, as well as any further infringing products that STMicro identifies on April 12, 2013. Rambus does not anticipate disclosing any new theory of infringement, but rather, updating the list of accused part numbers in the contentions. June 14, 2013: End of Fact Discovery For Rambus Only
20530130.2
Rambus respectfully requests relief from the discovery schedule to conduct further discovery as needed, based upon the additional documents and information produced by STMicro. Rambus anticipates that this discovery will consist at least of several depositions regarding inducement issues, potential depositions on technical issues, and potential third party discovery. Because Rambus has been timely in its discovery responses and STMicro has been the sole source of delay, Rambus respectfully requests that the fact discovery deadline be extended for Rambus only. Sincerely,
Peter E. Gratzinger
20530130.2
EXHIBIT 21

RONALD L. OLSON ROBERT E. DENHAM JEFFREY I. WEINBERGER CARY B. LERMAN CHARLES D. SIEGAL RONALD K. MEYER GREGORY P. STONE BRAD D. BRIAN BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS GEORGE M. GARVEY WILLIAM D. TEMKO ROBERT B. KNAUSS STEPHEN M. KRISTOVICH JOHN W. SPIEGEL TERRY E. SANCHEZ STEVEN M. PERRY MARK B. HELM JOSEPH D. LEE MICHAEL R. DOYEN MICHAEL E. SOLOFF GREGORY D. PHILLIPS LAWRENCE C. BARTH KATHLEEN M. M C DOWELL GLENN D. POMERANTZ THOMAS B. WALPER RONALD C. HAUSMANN PATRICK J. CAFFERTY, JR. JAY M. FUJITANI O'MALLEY M. MILLER SANDRA A. SEVILLE-JONES MARK H. EPSTEIN HENRY WEISSMANN KEVIN S. ALLRED BART H. WILLIAMS JEFFREY A. HEINTZ JUDITH T. KITANO KRISTIN LINSLEY MYLES MARC T.G. DWORSKY JEROME C. ROTH STEPHEN D. ROSE GARTH T. VINCENT TED DANE STUART N. SENATOR

MARTIN D. BERN DANIEL P. COLLINS RICHARD E. DROOYAN ROBERT L. DELL ANGELO BRUCE A. ABBOTT JONATHAN E. ALTMAN MARY ANN TODD MICHAEL J. O'SULLIVAN KELLY M. KLAUS DAVID B. GOLDMAN KEVIN S. MASUDA HOJOON HWANG DAVID C. DINIELLI PETER A. DETRE PAUL J. WATFORD DANA S. TREISTER CARL H. MOOR DAVID H. FRY LISA J. DEMSKY MALCOLM A. HEINICKE GREGORY J. WEINGART TAMERLIN J. GODLEY JAMES C. RUTTEN J. MARTIN WILLHITE RICHARD ST. JOHN ROHIT K. SINGLA LUIS LI CAROLYN HOECKER LUEDTKE C. DAVID LEE MARK H. KIM BRETT J. RODDA SEAN ESKOVITZ FRED A. ROWLEY, JR. KATHERINE M. FORSTER BLANCA FROMM YOUNG RANDALL G. SOMMER MARIA SEFERIAN MANUEL F. CACHN ROSEMARIE T. RING JOSEPH J. YBARRA KATHERINE K. HUANG MICHELLE T. FRIEDLAND TODD J. ROSEN
355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2
560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7
April 15, 2013
TRUC T. DO MELINDA EADES LeMOINE SETH GOLDMAN SUSAN R. SZABO LINDSAY D. M C CASKILL BRIAN R. HOCHLEUTNER GRANT A. DAVIS-DENNY JONATHAN H. BLAVIN KAREN J. EPHRAIM LIKA C. MIYAKE ANDREW W. SONG VICTORIA L. BOESCH HAILYN J. CHEN BRAD SCHNEIDER MIRIAM KIM MISTY M. SANFORD AIMEE FEINBERG KATHERINE KU KIMBERLY A. CHI SHOSHANA E. BANNETT DEREK J. KAUFMAN MARCUS J. SPIEGEL BETHANY W. KRISTOVICH WILLIAM E. CANO HENRY E. ORREN BENJAMIN W. HOWELL JACOB S. KREILKAMP ERIC P. TUTTLE HEATHER E. TAKAHASHI KEITH R.D. HAMILTON, II SORAYA C. KELLY PATRICK ANDERSON JEFFREY Y. WU MARK R. CONRAD L. ASHLEY AULL M. LANCE JASPER ALISSA BRANHAM ADAM R. LAWTON RACHEL L. STEIN AVI BRAZ DAVID C. LACHMAN JENNY H. HONG AARON SEIJI LOWENSTEIN
LAURA D. SMOLOWE SARALA V. NAGALA LEO GOLDBARD MATTHEW A. MACDONALD CAROLYN V. ZABRYCKI MARGARET G. ZIEGLER ESTHER H. SUNG MIRIAM SEIFTER BENJAMIN J. MARO RENEE DELPHIN-RODRIGUEZ MICHAEL J. MONGAN KATHRYN A. EIDMANN JOEL M. PURLES KYLE A. CASAZZA RICHARD C. CHEN AARON GREENE LEIDERMAN ERIN J. COX CLAIRE YAN DAVID H. PENNINGTON BRAM ALDEN MARK R. SAYSON JOHN M. RAPPAPORT DAVID C. THOMPSON ANNE HENRY LEE MATTHEW M. STEINBERG CHRISTIAN K. WREDE PETER E. GRATZINGER - OF COUNSEL RICHARD D. ESBENSHADE ROBERT K. JOHNSON ALAN V. FRIEDMAN RICHARD S. VOLPERT ALLISON B. STEIN SUSAN E. NASH ALLEN M. KATZ WILLIANA CHANG E. LEROY TOLLES (1 922-2008)
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WRITERS DIRECT LINE
VIA EMAIL The Honorable Vaughn R. Walker 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2228 Re: Dear Judge Walker:
(213) 683-9513 (213) 683-4013 FAX Peter.Gratzinger@mto.com
Rambus, Inc. v. STMicro Electronics N.V.; STMicro Electronics Inc., No. 10-cv-05449 RS (N.D. Cal.)
STMicros April 10, 2013 motion for reconsideration is improper, as it fails to point out any new facts or change of law. The motion is nothing more than a further attempt to run out the clock on discovery while ignoring Your Honors orders. Your Honor should grant Rambuss request in its April 5, 2013 letter to set strict deadlines for STMicro to finally comply with its discovery obligations, to recommend an extension for Rambus to complete fact discovery, and to order STMicro to show cause why it should not be sanctioned. Power Integrations Is Not A Change Of Law Under Northern District of California Local Rule 7-9(b), a motion for reconsideration must be based on a material difference in facts or law that were unknown despite reasonable diligence, new material facts or a change of law, or a manifest failure by the Court. A motion for reconsideration that merely covers old ground is subject to sanctions. See L.R. 7-9(c). In this fourth round of briefing on worldwide sales, STMicro raises no new facts, and its discussion of Power Integrations does not even attempt to point out a change of law.
20593758.2
According to STMicro, Power Integrations reinforces the rule that U.S. patent laws do not operate extraterritorially. STMicro 4/10/2013 letter at 2. So it does. That rule was the same last June, when STMicro violated Your Honors order to provide a 30(b)(6) witness on worldwide sales; in February of this year, when STMicro was again ordered to produce worldwide sales information but produced nothing; and in March, when STMicro revealed that it was withholding sales data of its foreign sales subsidiaries, but waived its objections to producing that data when Rambus moved to compel for a third time. Rambus is not seeking and has never sought to apply U.S. patent laws extraterritorially. Its theory of liability is not remotely similar to the one rejected in Power Integrations (but not even discussed in STMicros brief), where the plaintiff tried to argue that domestic infringement caused it to lose profits abroad. See Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intl., Inc., 2013 WL 1200270 at *19 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 26, 2013). Rambus is not seeking lost profits, let alone lost profits abroad. Rambus is seeking reasonable royalty damages based on a well-recognized claim of a defendants inducement of foreign third parties to import the defendants infringing products into the United States. See, e.g., MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Power Integrations does nothing to change the law of inducement, and STMicro does not even attempt to argue otherwise. STMicro admits that all that happened in Power Integrations with respect to inducement is that the Federal Circuit rejected plaintiffs claim for insufficiency of evidence. STMicro 4/10/2013 letter at 2. That is not a change of law negating Rambuss entitlement to discovery. To the contrary, it underscores the urgent need for STMicro to start complying with Your Honors orders, so that STMicro cannot achieve that same outcome merely by stonewalling discovery. The law is the same now as it was before Power Integrations: worldwide sales relate to [the plaintiffs] claim of inducing infringement.[A plaintiff] is not required to prove its inducing infringement theory to be entitled to discovery of such information. 3Com Corp. v. D-Link Systems, Inc., No. C 03-2177 VRW, 2007 WL 949596, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2007). Finally, STMicro styles its letter as a request for Your Honor to reconsider the March 18, 2013 Order, even though, as Rambus already pointed out and STMicro simply ignores in its letter, the March 18 Order states that STMicro waived its objections and agreed to provide sales data from its foreign subsidiaries. STMicro fails to explain why or how Your Honor should reconsider STMicros waiver. STMicro Has Ignored February 13, 2013 and March 18, 2013 Orders It has been six weeks since the March 8, 2013 hearing in which Your Honor made the rulings set forth in the March 18 Order, and STMicro has produced nothing. STMicro does not explain why it believes it was entitled to ignore Your Honors order for weeks, then give itself a further extension as it attempts to reargue the issue.
20593758.2
STMicro also appears to have violated the February 13, 2013 Order, even under STMicros narrow reading of that order that excludes non-party subsidiaries. The February 13 Order required STMicro to produce, no later than March 15, 2013, at least: The identity of all products made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale by STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc. between December 2004 and September 2011 that include a DRAM memory controller. STMicroelectronics N.V. and STMicroelectronics Inc.s worldwide sales of those products.1
Counsel for Rambus has asked, in multiple letters, emails, and phone calls, whether STMicro has provided this information. Counsel for STMicro has responded only with evasiveness. See Ex. A to D (Relevant portions highlighted. As of this letter, Rambus has received no response to the last email in Exhibit D). Rambus therefore respectfully reiterates its request that STMicro be ordered to provide a detailed explanation of what it has done to date to comply with Your Honors Orders of February 13, 2013 and March 18, 2013, and if STMicros explanation for having produced nothing to date is inadequate, to enter appropriate sanctions. STMicro Ignores Other Remaining Discovery Deficiencies, Including Those Unrelated To Worldwide Sales Even if Your Honor grants the motion for reconsideration and does not set a deadline for STMicro to comply with the March 18, 2013 Order (an outcome that Rambus obviously opposes), Your Honor should nonetheless recommend an extension for Rambus to take discovery, and set the remaining deadlines proposed in Rambuss April 5, 2013 letter. Product Identification: Whether on a worldwide basis or not, STMicro should provide Rambus with additional information regarding its anecdotal search for DRAM controller products. See Tr. (Mar. 8, 2013) at 24:9-25:1. Rambus respectfully requests that STMicro be ordered to promptly provide the declarations specified in Rambuss April 5, 2013 letter. Deficient document production: Your Honor has previously recognized that STMicros document production is deficient, even with respect to the products and sales STMicro has already disclosed. Since Your Honor withdrew the February 21, 2013 Order, Rambus has been
STMicro states in its April 10, 2013 letter to Your Honor that it has provided the worldwide sales for all DRAM memory controller products sold by [the two defendant STMicro entities] from December 2004 to September 2011. Even if that is true (Rambus remains skeptical of STMicros anecdotal effort to identify DRAM controller products, among other things), it is less than what the February 13 Order required. For example, the February 13 Order required identification and worldwide sales of all products that were made by STMicroelectronincs NV and/or offered for sale by STMicroelectronics Inc., but then sold by a foreign subsidiary of STMicro.
1
20593758.2
without a remedy. Regardless of what further product and sales information STMicro is ordered to produce, Rambus is entitled to a remedy for STMicros deficient production regarding the products and sales it has already disclosed, as well as other topics, such as knowledge of Rambus. Amended Infringement Contentions: Based on STMicros representation on March 8, 2013 that it would be searching for and identifying additional DRAM controller products, Rambus has held off updating the list of accused products in its Amended Infringement Contentions. Even if Your Honor now allows STMicro to back out of its prior commitment, Your Honor should grant leave and set a date for Rambus to update its contentions with the small handful of additional DRAM controller products STMicro has identified to date. Additional Fact Discovery For Rambus: Rambus has been postponing discovery relating to nexus, inducement, and other issues, based on Your Honors plan to stage discovery, starting with complete product and sales information, then addressing STMicros deficient document production, with an extension to the fact discovery deadline to accommodate that staged discovery if necessary. See March 8, 2013 Tr. at 26:22-28:15; id at 80:4-14. Rambus has sought to avoid the inefficiency of taking discovery related to the sales and customers disclosed to date, such as depositions or subpoenas to third parties, without knowing all of the relevant products, or knowing which have the highest sales. Should Your Honor grant the motion for reconsideration, Rambus should nonetheless be provided extra time to complete the discovery that it had been postponing while it waited for STMicro to comply with the March 18 Order. For the foregoing reasons, STMicros motion for reconsideration should be denied, and the relief sought in Rambuss April 5, 2013 letter should be granted. Sincerely,
Peter E. Gratzinger
20593758.2
EXHIBIT 22
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 04/17/2013
RAMBUS, INC. vs. STMICROELECTRONICS
CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT AND CONCORDANCE

PREPARED BY:
NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE 5 Third Street, Suite 415 San Francisco, CA 94103 Phone: (415) 398-1889 FAX: (415) 398-0611
BSA
TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 04/17/2013 RAMBUS, INC. vs. STMICROELECTRONICS Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page19
of 60
XMAX(1/1)
Page 1
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) RAMBUS, INC., (6) Plaintiff, No. C-10-5449 RS (7) vs. (8) STMICROELECTRONICS, N.V., et al., (9) Defendants. (10) ____________________________/ Telephonic Hearing (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) REPORTED BY: (21) (22) (23) NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE (24) 5 Third Street, Suite 415 San Francisco, California 94903 (25) (415)398-1889 DEBORAH FUQUA, CSR #12948 Hon. Vaughn R. Walker Wednesday, April 17, 2013 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ---o0o---
Page 3
(1) Wednesday, April 17, 2013 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
10:09 o'clock a.m.
---o0o--PROCEEDINGS JUDGE WALKER: We'll go on the record. Let's have appearances first. MR. HOLBREICH: Good morning, your Honor. Curt Holbreich at K&L Gates for defendants STMicro. JUDGE WALKER: Very well. Good morning. MR. BECHER: Good morning, your Honor. Rob Becher from Quinn Emanuel, also for defendants STMicro. JUDGE WALKER: Mr. Becher. MR. GRATZINGER: I'm not sure if we were on the record when I said it the first time. This is Peter Gratzinger of Munger Tolles for Rambus. MR. WU: This is Jeff Wu of Munger Tolles, also for Rambus. JUDGE WALKER: Well, the first order of business would be STMicro's motion based upon the Power Integrations case. And so why don't I turn to STMicro to address that first. And Mr. Becher, are you going to be addressing that, or is your colleague going to be addressing it? MR. BECHER: My colleague is going to be addressing it. JUDGE WALKER: All right.
Page 4
Page 2
A P P E A R A N C E S (1) (2) BEFORE VAUGHN R. WALKER United States District Chief Judge - Retired (3) Four Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 (4) (5) Appearances of counsel via telephone: (6) For the Plaintiff Rambus MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor (7) San Francisco, California 94105 415/512-4000 (8) By: PETER GRATZINGER, Attorney at Law JEFFREY Y. WU, Attorney at Law (9) (10) For Defendant STMicro K&L GATES LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 (11) San Francisco, California 94111 415/882-8200 (12) By: CURT HOLBREICH, Attorney at Law (13) -and(14) QUINN, EMANUEL, URQUARDT & SULLIVAN LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor (15) Los Angeles, California 90017 213/443-3000 (16) By: ROBERT BECHER, Attorney at Law (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(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)
MR. HOLBREICH: It's Mr. Holbreich, your Honor. JUDGE WALKER: Yes, Mr. Holbreich, go ahead. MR. HOLBREICH: Thank you. This motion is based on the recent decision the Federal Circuit issued in the Power Integrations case which we provided your Honor with, a copy with. Our position on the case is that it further restricts the notion that -- activity that -JUDGE WALKER: Mr. Holbreich, we're losing you. You're fading in and fading out. MR. HOLBREICH: My apologies, your Honor. Let me try to speak more directly to the microphone. JUDGE WALKER: Very well. MR. HOLBREICH: This motion is based on the recent decision by the Federal Circuit in the Power Integrations case which we provided your Honor with a copy of. The case further restricts the notion that any extraterritorial activity can have an impact and bases for liability on the patent laws. In this case, the worldwide sales that are being sought through the discovery requests pertain exclusively to sales, to the extent there are, between non-party ST subsidiaries or other entities and other foreign third non-parties. And we believe that the case that was recently
Page 1 to Page 4
NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(2/2)
Page 5
(1) decided by the Federal Circuit clearly reinforces and (2) expands upon the idea that such activity is not (3) actionable under the patent laws. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
Page 7
(1) how does the Power Integrations decision affect or (2) alter the view that Rambus has put forward, that, in (3) essence, the defendants have induced infringement and (4) that that infringement has led to sales of competing (5) product in the United States in violation of the (6) patent? (7)
And then secondly, which the case makes clear, is that the type of proof that you would need to prove any such theory that Rambus may present in here requires a certain level of proof and discovery which Rambus is -- with a week or so left before the close of discovery has not undertaken, not indicated that they are pursuing with any vigor and, we think, further undercuts the idea that any of this has any relevance to the issues in the cases pled. JUDGE WALKER: Well, does the Power Integrations case do more than essentially restate the limitation with respect to the recovery of patent damages? MR. HOLBREICH: Well, we think that -- short answer to that would be no, your Honor, because we think, in the context of what was decided in Power Integrations, the court there looked at activity that -- sales that occurred entirely abroad and determined that those kind of sales were not actionable under the patent laws, and that's exactly what is being sought here in terms of the discovery that Rambus is seeking. So it indicates that -- that's clear, and it
Page 6
MR. HOLBREICH: Well, we think that the difference
(8) here is that the sales that were -- that the subject of (9) the pending discovery are sales that are by nonparty (10) entities to other nonparty entities and that those (11) types of sales are outside the basis under which there (12) could be any liability for induced infringement as (13) Rambus has perceived. (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: Let me ask a question this way. Assume that I agree with your theory that Rambus can obtain no recovery for these extra territorial sales. What is the prejudice to STMicro in disclosing those extraterritorial sales, particularly given that Rambus is proceeding on an inducement theory? MR. HOLBREICH: Well, I guess maybe what the question would be -- if we're talking about kind of on the scale of what's discoverable, what's reasonably discoverable and the burdens on discovery and the like, then, you know, kind of the farther you get away from
Page 8
(1) fits with what's being sought here. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(1) what's relevant or ultimately can be actionable, (2) probably the -- and as the burden of applying that (3) information increases, the less likelihood or less (4) reasonableness there is in requiring it. (5)
JUDGE WALKER: You kind of elided from not actionable to not discoverable. And that is a bit of a -- I'll say waltzing over what I think is the distinction between what may be the learning from the Power Integrations case, and that is that there is a limitation on the recovery of damages. But that does not automatically translate into a limitation on the scope of discovery. MR. HOLBREICH: I understand the distinction, your Honor. I think here's -- we read the case that we recognize that there was a discussion with respect to damages and the use of expert opinion in that regard, which we think also kind of undercuts the approach that Rambus is taking here. But the first part of -- the first part of the discussion in the case on the point of extraterritorial sales we think makes clear that strictly extraterritorial sales are not actionable. And I guess we'd say, if they're not actionable, then there's going to be little relevance in obtaining any discovery with respect to those sales. So that's the way we've perceived the case. JUDGE WALKER: Well, Rambus's theory here is one of inducement with respect to these foreign sales. And
And here, we're talking this is at the
(6) margins, at best, of what may be relevant to the case. (7) And I think that, based on prior hearings, that I can (8) reiterate this, that the task for STMicro in trying to (9) obtain this information and obtain it in the form that (10) Rambus is requesting is a large and vast task given the (11) far-flung nature of the operation. (12)
And given what honestly kind of surprised us
(13) was Rambus's insistence and request that this (14) information be provided not just for the current active (15) ST entities, of which there are I roughly think 90 or (16) so, but an additional 60 or so -- and, please, your (17) Honor, don't hold me to the exact number, but I'm (18) saying roughly 150, in total, entities around the world (19) that go back, you know, through the damages period, (20) this is a large and monumental task. (21)
So if we're talking about the burden of trying
(22) to obtain this information in the time available versus (23) the small, if any, relevance to the case, we think that (24) weighs very heavily against not being required to (25) provide it, putting aside whether there would be any
(415) 398-1889
Page 5 to Page 8
BSA
of 60
XMAX(3/3)
Page 9
(1) prejudice in terms of liability, increased liability or (2) the like, by providing the information. (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (2) about extraterritoriality. (3)
Page 11
(1) sales information. It really doesn't say much new
JUDGE WALKER: Can you put a little sharper point to your burden argument? How long is it going to take to gather this information? MR. HOLBREICH: Well, I know that this issue is -I don't know -- the short answer is, your Honor, is I don't know the exact answer to that question. That is something that is kind of in the purview of the client. I know the client has been working and endeavoring through this period of time to amass this information because I think that your Honor's order that we're discussing here today is several weeks old, and I know that that activity has been ongoing. But, your Honor, I'm not prepared today to tell you when it would be completed. JUDGE WALKER: Well, I'm heartened to know that your client is attempting to comply with the order. MR. HOLBREICH: Well, obviously, your Honor, we have been, and we've been continuing to do so. We thought that the -- pardon me, your Honor -- that the recent decision was something that we thought appropriate to bring to your Honor's attention and to file this motion in the context of looking at this issue further in light of that Federal Circuit
Page 10
The theory in Power Integrations -- and I
(4) don't think we have regular page numbers here, but I'm (5) at Star 18 -- Power Integrations argued that it was (6) foreseeable that Fairchild infringement the United (7) States would cause Power Integrations to lose sales in (8) foreign markets. (9)
That is a fairly exotic theory. I don't think
(10) it's one that I've ever seen before. And it's one that (11) the Federal Circuit rejected. It has nothing to do (12) with anything that Rambus is pursuing in this case, and (13) it doesn't really say anything new or pertinent about (14) the application of patent law outside of the United (15) States. (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
None of the arguments that I've heard from STMicro this morning are things that they couldn't have raised months ago. When we -- when Rambus moved to compel on this very same issue, STMicro waived its argument, agreed to produce all this information, and then subsequently has given us nothing at all. I am heartened to hear that ST is working on this. I'm a bit surprised to hear that they still have no idea how long it will take because, if I can refer you back to the order from March 18th, it actually
Page 12
(1) decision. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(1) required a status report within two weeks of the order. (2) And one would think that, within two weeks, STMicro (3) would at least be able to evaluate the scope of the (4) task and tell us what they've done so far and provide a (5) timeline for completion. But they've done none of (6) that. (7)
JUDGE WALKER: Well, it's an interesting decision; that's certainly true. Anything further before I turn to Mr. Gratzinger? MR. HOLBREICH: Nothing, unless you have further questions from me, your Honor. JUDGE WALKER: Very well. Mr. Gratzinger? MR. GRATZINGER: Well, your Honor, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that this case doesn't say anything new about the discoverability of the information that Rambus is seeking. JUDGE WALKER: Well, that was my question to your opponent. That doesn't necessarily -MR. GRATZINGER: Well, let me answer it. It doesn't say anything new. JUDGE WALKER: It doesn't necessarily mean that I believe that. MR. GRATZINGER: Understood, your Honor. I apologize if I put words in your mouth. I'll just speak for myself. The Power Integrations case says absolutely nothing new about the law of inducement. It says nothing new about the discoverability of worldwide
So it's not -- while I'm heartened to hear
(8) that they're working on it, it's not clear to us that (9) they've complied with this order at all. (10)
Now, the other thing I was surprised to hear
(11) ST's counsel say this morning is that Rambus is not (12) pursuing discovery with any vigor. (13)
We've been moving to compel this information
(14) for about a year, almost a year. This is the fourth (15) time it's been before your Honor. And I don't think (16) it's too hard to understand why this information is a (17) threshold or a gateway to the other discovery that (18) Rambus needs to take. If ST doesn't tell us what the (19) products are and they don't tell us who they're selling (20) it to and they don't tell us how much they're selling (21) so that we can figure out which of the products are (22) important, it's very difficult, if not impossible, for (23) Rambus to take the remaining discovery in any efficient (24) or intelligent manner. (25)
And so that segues me to the second portion of

Page 9 to Page 12
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(4/4)
Page 13
(1) the relief that Rambus is asking for that we raised in (2) our letter from April 5th and somewheres began in our (3) reply on April 15th, which is there's -- beyond the (4) deadline for producing this worldwide sales (5) information, we're seeking a deadline to produce other (6) pending discovery. (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
Page 15
(1) discussion of whether they should provide declarations (2) or some other form of discovery as to how that (3) anecdotal search was conducted. (4)
We also have this outstanding request for
(5) relief from ST's deficient document production. This (6) is another thing that Rambus has brought to your (7) Honor's attention on a couple of occasions. (8)
And we're seeking a recommendation from your Honor to push out the fact discovery deadline so that Rambus may complete the discovery that's been essentially held up by ST's very lengthy delay in providing this basic information. JUDGE WALKER: And how long do you think a discovery extension is going to -- how long do you think that extension should be? MR. GRATZINGER: Well, it's a little bit difficult to say, your Honor, because ST has still been unable to tell us when they can provide the data, which is kind of the starting point. Our proposal was fairly modest, perhaps six weeks from the time that ST produces the data. That will give us a little bit of time to analyze it, notice some depositions, perhaps serve some third party subpoenas. We will act expeditiously. But I can't -it's difficult for me to ask for a date this morning
Page 14
Your Honor granted relief and ordered ST to
(9) basically provide declarations explaining why they've (10) produced almost no e-mail and very few documents in (11) this case. Your Honor then withdrew that order, and it (12) was our understanding from the March 8th hearing that (13) what your Honor had in mind was sort of the staged (14) discovery process where we would get this basic data, (15) the product identification of sales; we'd get some (16) further information from ST on how it identified its (17) products so that everyone would be comfortable that the (18) universe of products was complete; and then we would (19) revisit this issue of ST's incomplete document (20) productions. (21)
So I can go through the sort of stages and
(22) deadlines that we're looking for one by one. I don't (23) know how far ahead your Honor wants to schedule these (24) things, and I don't want to get beyond the issues that (25) your Honor wants to deal with today. So I'll take your
Page 16
(1) guidance on that. (2)
(1) simply because ST hasn't given us a date as to when (2) they can provide the information. (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: Well, it does seem to me, frankly,
Just to put this whole thing in context, your Honor may be aware of the deadlines in the case, but just to lay them out, the current fact discovery close is this month on the 26th. And then -JUDGE WALKER: 26th of April? MR. GRATZINGER: Correct. And damages reports are due on May 10th. And so, you know, this obviously creates another significant problem for us. If we can get this data expeditiously, we think we can provide our damages report and then potentially supplement it. If we can't get the data expeditiously, you know, we can't give our expert a pile of data on May 8th and expect it to incorporate it into their report on May 10th. So those are the time frames that we're working with, your Honor. JUDGE WALKER: Anything further, Mr. Gratzinger? MR. GRATZINGER: Well, there are special items that we asked for deadlines for. Beyond the worldwide sales information, we asked for a deadline to provide further information regarding how ST identified its DRAM controller products. That was something we discussed at the last hearing, if you recall -- ST's anecdotal search and the
(3) that we've reached a point in the litigation in which (4) some pretty firm deadlines need to be imposed. (5)
You are correct, Mr. Gratzinger, it was my
(6) anticipation and hope that the universe of products (7) could be identified and that that identification would (8) then allow the remaining discovery to proceed in an (9) orderly fashion. (10)
You're also correct -- or at least it's my
(11) impression -- that your characterization of STMicro's (12) failure to abide by any of these discovery directives (13) has been pretty apparent, and there simply does not (14) appear to have been any serious effort on STMicro's (15) behalf to comply with an orderly scheduling discovery. (16) And I find that troubling. (17)
I don't know if we've reached the point at
(18) which sterner measures ought to be imposed, but I think (19) we may be approaching that point pretty quickly. (20)
So what would be helpful, I think, is a
(21) suggestion with respect to a discovery program that (22) would be complete and allow the parties to wrap up all (23) fact discovery and damages discovery in a relatively (24) short period of time. And if that imposes some burdens (25) upon the parties, it will simply have to be the case
(415) 398-1889
Page 13 to Page 16
BSA
of 60
XMAX(5/5)
Page 17
(1) that those burdens are imposed. (2)
Page 19
(1) want to shoot ourselves in the foot by asking for such (2) a tight deadline for ST to provide those documents that (3) we then end up not getting an adequate production. (4)
I don't think it's practical to think that we
(3) can meet an April 26th fact discovery cut-off or a May (4) 10 damages report. I agree with you as far as that is (5) concerned. But it would be helpful if you were to make (6) a suggestion about some new cut-off dates, and then we (7) could hear from STMicro to see whether or not those (8) dates are practical and, if not, what alternative dates (9) might be practical. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
But, you know, perhaps three weeks from today,
(5) four weeks from today? If it's any more than that, I (6) think that the fact discovery deadline we're asking for (7) would also have to be extended. (8)
And one other date that we're looking for,
(9) your Honor, is a date for Rambus to amend its (10) infringement contentions. And Rambus doesn't (11) anticipate that there would be any substantive change (12) in the -- in its allegations in the manner in which ST (13) is infringing, but Rambus may have to add newly (14) identified products to its contentions. (15)
MR. GRATZINGER: Certainly, your Honor. So the first deadline that we're looking for is a deadline to produce the product identification and worldwide sales information that we've been -- well, essentially that ST was already ordered to produce in the March 18th order because a lot will hinge on that. I would suggest that ST be ordered to produce it in a week or less. They've had a month to figure out how long it's going to take them. They could have come here and asked for additional time. But instead what they've done is asked to get out of the order. So, you know, if we set that deadline for say a week from today, April 24th, then Rambus would propose pushing fact discovery out perhaps six weeks from that date. I also want to be clear, your Honor, when
Page 18
And we would be willing to provide that
(16) within, say, two weeks of ST's final identification, (17) basically ST's compliance with the March 18th, order. (18) (20) (22) (23)
JUDGE WALKER: Is that within two weeks of MR. GRATZINGER: Right. So that would be May 8th,
(19) April 24? (21) I guess. I'm looking at my calendar here.
JUDGE WALKER: May 8th. Okay. Let me hear from STMicro. (24) MR. HOLBREICH: Thank you, your Honor. First, (25) your Honor, of course, we do not -- we understand
Page 20
(1) your Honor's statements with respect to the compliance (2) of the order. While we certainly disagree with (3) anything that Mr. Gratzinger said with respect to ST's (4) conduct in connection with complying with the orders -(5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(1) we're asking for an extension in a period to conduct (2) fact discovery, we think that that should be discovery (3) by Rambus only, flowing out of these issues that arise (4) from the production that has been withheld to date. We (5) don't think it's fair that ST, given its behavior, (6) would get a chance to continue taking discovery of (7) Rambus past the previously set fact discovery deadline, (8) simply because they have caused all of this delay in (9) producing the information. Rambus has produced vastly (10) more information than ST has, and they did it many, (11) many months ago. (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
So in between the deadlines for producing the worldwide -- essentially producing the information that's already been ordered in the March 18th order and the new close of fact discovery, the other deadlines we would be looking for are a deadline to provide declarations describing how STMicro went about identifying the DRAM controller products. And perhaps that could be on the same day. Perhaps that could also be on April 24th. We would need to set a deadline for ST to produce documents that are commensurate with the scope of the products they've identified. And that's a little bit difficult because it takes some time to do a document search and production correctly. And I don't
JUDGE WALKER: We're losing you again, Counsel. Mr. HOLBREICH: I'm sorry. We disagree with much of what Mr. Gratzinger said with regard to ST's compliance with your Honor's orders and its general compliance with its discovery obligations in the case. We understand that your Honor is interested in moving forward in a productive way and so are we. I just don't want -- so I will not address all of what Mr. Gratzinger said point by point, but I don't want it lost or assumed that we necessarily agree with that. But as I said, I think at this point we understand your Honor's interest is in moving forward and coming up with a productive way to go forward. JUDGE WALKER: Well, you're correct. There's no reason to engage in any form of punishment if we can conclude discovery that needs to be concluded and get the case ready for trial. And I'm afraid that, if we veer off into a sanction exercise, that's simply going to delay matters further. But I will tell you that my very clear impression is that STMicro has not taken seriously its
Page 17 to Page 20
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(6/6)
Page 21
(1) discovery obligations and has not cooperated with (2) opposing counsel and has not made what appears to be a (3) good faith effort to comply with the orders of the (4) Special Master. (5) (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)
Page 23
So you're not in a particularly happy
(6) circumstance. But it is more important, seems to me, (7) to try the wrap up the discovery than it is to engage (8) in any finger pointing about the conduct of any party (9) or any counsel. (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
So, Mr. Gratzinger has done a good job of outlining in general terms a schedule. And what would be helpful, I think, is if you could tell me when the deadlines that he's outlined could, from your point of view, be met and then a commitment from you and your client that you will make every good faith effort to meet those deadlines. MR. HOLBREICH: I understand that, your Honor. And again -JUDGE WALKER: The first deadline he mentioned was to produce product identification and worldwide sales information. And he proposed April 24. MR. HOLBREICH: Which is a week from today, your Honor. JUDGE WALKER: That's correct. MR. HOLBREICH: I -- within the context of -- of
Page 22
JUDGE WALKER: Well, I am sympathetic to you, but sympathy only goes so far under these circumstances. MR. HOLBREICH: I understand, your Honor. I guess what I'm trying to see is if there is a way where the parties can, in short order, attempt to reach consensus on these deadlines or, in the alternative, present you with alternatives if we're unable to do so, which would give me at least some opportunity, hopefully, to reach Ms. Chow and get a sense of what it is that we would be comfortable with as being realistic. But -- as opposed to trying to set those dates today here on the telephone. But I understand that, you know, time is of the essence in terms of where your Honor is. And we're not looking to delay that any further. I'm just concerned about my ability here to make a good representation about what is achievable in the time that we'd be discussing that these matters be taken care of. MR. GRATZINGER: May I make a suggestion, your Honor? JUDGE WALKER: Hold on. I'd be a little more sympathetic to your situation if I had before me some real evidence of a good faith effort on STMicro's part to comply with its
Page 24
(1) your Honor's -- of your Honor's instructions and (2) concerns, I'm hesitant to say what I need to say, but I (3) do feel I need to say it in that I am -- as you (4) recognize, your Honor, this is -- Ms. Chow, who (5) normally occupies this chair and handles these matters (6) with your Honor, is actually in Europe defending (7) depositions of ST witnesses in this case that Rambus is (8) taking by video conference. (9)
(1) discovery obligations, but I don't have that. (2)
And in the absence of that, what I'm inclined
(3) to suggest is that we adopt Mr. Gratzinger's deadlines (4) and then, in the event that you can work out with (5) Mr. Gratzinger and his colleagues some slight (6) modifications that are mutually agreeable, that, (7) obviously, would be fine with me. (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
So, honestly, Ms. Chow is the person closest
(10) to these issues in terms of where we stand in our (11) ability to meet these deadlines. (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
So I -- as you can appreciate, but I understand you may -- I hope are somewhat sympathetic but at least understanding of my somewhat limitations here in feeling that I'd feel with a high degree of confidence that I can commit to certain dates where I know that certain things can be done. I know Ms. Chow is not scheduled to get back to this country until this weekend. With all of that in mind, my sense would be that the 24th may be ambitious simply because of availability issues. But I just don't have solid information, I'm sorry to say, your Honor, that I can tell you with any certainty whether that date causes a problem or is achievable.
But failing your ability to step up to the plate and give me some specific dates, I'm -- my sympathy is kind of worn out at this point. MR. HOLBREICH: Well, your Honor, there may be some of these matters dates for which I probably can have a better level of confidence or they're far enough into the future -- I don't mean the far future; I mean we're talking about a few weeks -- that either we could see if that's achievable or we could resolve it, you know, resolve it as you've suggested between our office and Mr. Gratzinger. I think what I'm concerned most about is that the deadlines for the items that would be set in very short order, for example, those items for the 24th -because with Ms. Chow out of the country through the weekend, I just don't know what our ability is to meet those kinds of deadlines, particularly with respect to the worldwide sales.
Page 21 to Page 24
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(7/7)
Page 25
(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)
Page 27
(1) that's a different matter. (2)
And I think, then, the other item that Mr. Gratzinger mentioned was the declarations, which I know there was some discussion, your Honor, regarding the declarations at the last hearing -- or I guess it was the March 8th hearing. And Ms. Chow represented the fact that depositions are being taken of the witnesses and that that information could be asked of the witnesses. That process is ongoing. One of the depositions was -- depending on how you look at it -it was today. And it was today in England; it was the wee hours here this morning. And I'm sure that Rambus had an opportunity to ask that witness those questions with respect to the document search and the identification of products. And that opportunity will exist for the other ST witnesses who are going to be deposed. We've always thought that that is the best and most efficient way to get that information. We're not so sure honestly, your Honor, given the far-flung nature of these witnesses -- they are scattered across the world -- our ability to obtain declarations from them for two reasons. One is that they are not ST, Inc. nor ST N.V. employees. They're not technically under control of the defendants. And their agreement to appear for deposition was strictly
Page 26
MR. GRATZINGER: No, your Honor. I would -- I
(3) don't necessarily agree with the -- with counsel's (4) comments on the declarations, but I think that your (5) proposal to enter the schedule that I set out is a good (6) one. And we're certainly willing to subsequently meet (7) and confer in good faith with ST to make those (8) adjustments to the schedule that we can agree on and (9) that we think are appropriate. (10) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: Well, those deadlines would be the By not later than April 24, STMicro will produce product identification information and worldwide sales information to Rambus. Not later than six weeks after April 24 -- and we will pin that down to a date which presumably would be in maybe early June -- fact discovery cut-off will be imposed. That not later than April 24, STMicro will produce declarations of the means by which it has identified DRAM controller product information and sales information. And not later than May 8th, Rambus will file it's amended infringement contentions. Is that clear enough for everybody?
Page 28
(11) following.
(1) voluntary. And whether we can get them to sign (2) declarations is an open question. (3)
(1) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
MR. GRATZINGER: I do have a couple of questions, JUDGE WALKER: Okay. MR. GRATZINGER: First of all, with respect to the extension of fact discovery cutoff, is your Honor granting the request that that be for Rambus's discovery only? JUDGE WALKER: Why should that not be fact discovery across the board for all, both parties? MR. HOLBREICH: Yes, your Honor, if I may be heard on this. In fact, while we do not agree or are not agreeable to the idea that the fact discovery should be extended in the way proposed by Rambus, there's certainly -- we have outstanding discovery, including a deposition notice out for a 30(b)(6) witness on licensing topics for which we have been endeavoring to get a date for the deposition, have not been offered one yet. We've been looking for a date for that. We're certainly agreeable to have that take place after the close of discovery, if that's what's needed. But we don't think that any discovery cutoff should be unilateral. And I also note that, with respect to expert reports, that, if we're going to be extending the
Page 25 to Page 28
(2) your Honor.
And certainly I can say that I think it would
(4) be a monumental task to expect us to be able to achieve (5) that by next Wednesday, given the far-flung nature of (6) where these individuals work, our ability to locate (7) them in that period of time and get their agreement and (8) complete that task. (9)
So that -- of the things that have been
(10) discussed, it is the declarations that certainly are (11) the most concerning to me, both in terms of whether (12) there is a need to do so and secondly, whether, even if (13) there was a need to do so, that it could be achieved in (14) the time frame Mr. Gratzinger has suggested. (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: Mr. Gratzinger, you had a suggestion that you were prepared to offer, and I kind of cut you off from doing so. MR. GRATZINGER: No, your Honor. I think that -I think we've passed that point. But I do have a reaction to the declarations issue, if you'd like to hear that. JUDGE WALKER: I'll be happy to hear your reaction, if it's going to be helpful in moving this matter toward some sort of a conclusion. If you're simply going to respond to counsel's comments, why,
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(8/8)
Page 29
(1) discovery, that all the expert reports should be (2) accordingly -- the dates for those should be moved as (3) well would be our suggestion if we're going to go down (4) this route. (5) (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)
Page 31
JUDGE WALKER: The expert reports would be some
(6) period of time after the close of fact discovery, I (7) assume. (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
MR. HOLBREICH: I can't recall, your Honor. My apologies if Mr. Gratzinger had a particular proposal with respect to expert reports. I know he raised the issue that a deadline was upon us. If we were going to, again, approach the schedule this way, we would want to have the expert reports set at an appropriate time beyond the close of fact discovery. MR. GRATZINGER: So, if -- your Honor, if I may respond to your question, the reason that Rambus is asking for the extension to apply to Rambus only is that Rambus is envisioning this to not be just a further discovery free-for-all but to be a period of time for Rambus to take the discovery that it endeavored to take but could not take during the discovery period because of the lack of cooperation and delays caused by ST. We don't think it would be fair, based on ST's
Page 30
MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor, principally the discovery that Rambus would need would go to inducement in the Nexus issues. So it would be depositions potentially of sales personnel, potentially 30(b)(6) depositions directed to the acts of inducement that we're alleging. But it may also include third party discovery directed to ST's major customers who are the ones that are doing the direct infringing. We haven't been able to find out who those are because ST has been withholding this threshold information. So there's a fair amount of discovery that Rambus actually would still need to do flowing out of the new information that ST would provide. There may also be some technical discovery based on the new products that ST identifies. We think that's less likely. But I don't want to foreclose that possibility. It's basically additional discovery that Rambus needs that flows out of this information that ST has improperly withheld for so long. MR. HOLBREICH: Your Honor, this is Curt Holbreich for ST. May be I be heard for a moment? JUDGE WALKER: Yes. MR. HOLBREICH: I think that one of the things
Page 32
(1) delays, for ST to now get a chance to start noticing (2) new depositions, serving new interrogatories or (3) whatever it is they want to do. That would be (4) basically punishing Rambus for ST's delays. And we (5) don't think that makes any sense. (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(1) that concerns us is the premise on which much of this (2) request for discovery is built, on the idea that, (3) absent this worldwide sales information, putting aside (4) the relevance and all that, that Rambus has been (5) stymied or unable to proceed with discovery, awaiting (6) that information. And we just don't think that's true. (7)
JUDGE WALKER: What if we had an understanding, Mr. Gratzinger, that, except as may be provided in this order, the parties will not take new discovery but simply wrap up the outstanding discovery? MR. GRATZINGER: Well, your Honor, I'm not -maybe I wasn't sufficiently clear about that. But getting the worldwide sales information and product identification alone is not sufficient for Rambus to prepare its case for trial. Rambus has been waiting for that information in order to notice additional depositions, perhaps serve third party subpoenas and to otherwise take the discovery that's been hinging on that information. So what we had contemplated was in fact Rambus taking some additional new discovery to follow up on the information that we asked for many, many months ago and simply haven't been able to get until now. JUDGE WALKER: What additional discovery would you take, armed with the information about worldwide sales and product identification?
ST has provided information with regard to its
(8) customers, with regard to sales in the United States, (9) with regard to sales by its United States entity. (10) Rambus has been free for some time to take discovery (11) with respect to those customers. (12)
Now, I think what Rambus is saying is, "Well,
(13) we may not have known every product. If you sold the (14) products, additional products that were part of this (15) discovery that we have not received yet, we don't have (16) that information." But that is not a reason to not (17) take any discovery whatsoever with respect to the (18) entities that they are aware of. (19)
And, you know, every party approaches how they
(20) do a case in their own way. But we don't think that (21) their discovery has been held hostage by the lack of (22) this information. And the thing that concerns us is (23) that we don't understand why they haven't pursued these (24) theories. They certainly could have. (25)
Even in the absence -- and you see this all

Page 29 to Page 32
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(9/9)
Page 33
(1) the time in cases. Even in the absence of having known (2) identification of every product that they believe may (3) have been sold to one of our customers, they still were (4) free to subpoena that party, seek information with (5) respect to the products they have identified and any (6) other products that that entity may have bought from (7) one of the ST entities. I'll tell you, I'm on the (8) receiving end of that kind of discovery all the time. (9) (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)
Page 35
So we just -- you know, we're mindful of the
(10) notion that -- of your Honor's concerns about where (11) things are with discovery, but we think that this (12) notion that there's been kind of no ability to move (13) forward on behalf -- by Rambus, waiting for this (14) information just really isn't a realistic way to (15) approach the case and certainly not one that we now (16) should kind of bear the brunt of. (17)
So I just want to be clear that we strenuously
(18) disagree with the idea that Rambus somehow has been (19) marching in time and unable to do anything whatsoever (20) absent this information. (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: Well, fair enough. Your arguments in that regard, Mr. Holbreich, will be preserved, will they not, in the event that Rambus attempts to initiate this new discovery. You can certainly respond that that discovery
Page 34
If somehow it was stymied by us, rightly or wrongly it may feel -- that happens in litigation all the time. You run up against what you think is a roadblock -- it may be legitimate roadblock; it may be an illegitimate roadblock -- you go around it and you try to find another way. And we don't think that now, having them just kind of sat on everything, that the whole case should get shifted because they were sitting around waiting for this information which we think, in the end, is of marginal value to begin with. MR. GRATZINGER: May I respond, your Honor? JUDGE WALKER: Very well. MR. GRATZINGER: So I won't give an exhaustive set of examples of why this discovery has been a roadblock. But I think just one might be helpful. You know, generally a party gets one shot at third party discovery in a litigation. If there's a particular customer where ST has produced $1 million of sales, that might not be worthwhile to take discovery from that customer probably. If it turns out that their world-wide sales are a hundred times that, it would make sense to do so. But there was no way for us to pick which third party discovery makes sense until we got the full picture of which products are actually
Page 36
(1) is out of time, particularly if it is bumping up (2) against deadlines which are going to be fast (3) approaching. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(1) important and which customers are actually important. (2)
So that's one example of the way in which ST's
(3) roadblock has absolutely held up this significant (4) portion of discovery relating to Nexus and inducement (5) issues. And that's why, your Honor, we believe it (6) would only be fair for the discovery extension to be (7) basically an extension for Rambus to take discovery (8) flowing out of the additional information that ST (9) is now ordered to produce. (10)
MR. HOLBREICH: Yes, your Honor. As I said, I think we've -- through the crux of this call, we've kind of, given the approach your Honor has set forth and the way we've tried to approach the call, I think we've tried not to get into a back and forth of correcting -- neither Mr. Gratzinger correcting me nor me correcting Mr. Gratzinger on everything that we may disagree with. We just thought it was important that, at least in context of your Honor trying to decide what's an appropriate way to move forward here, that we at least make the point that we don't believe that the -to the extent that these worldwide sales figures have not been produced, that it really is the thing which is holding up the case in total because we just don't think it is. And we think that anything that goes forward, any adjustments that are made need to be mindful of the fact that it -- the situation, to some degree, if not in large measure, is one of Rambus's own makings because there were alternative ways to seek the information that it wants.
We're not asking for carte blanche. We've
(11) been doing other discovery. As Mr. Holbreich (12) mentioned, we have the technical deposition that was (13) going on yesterday. Nonetheless, this fact discovery (14) extension should permit Rambus to follow up on the (15) information that ST should have produced earlier but (16) didn't. (17)
JUDGE WALKER: Well, I'm not sure we need to make
(18) any definitive ruling with respect to that issue at (19) this time. And in any event, it would be helpful (20) before making a ruling with regard to the scope of any (21) additional discovery that STMicro may be able to take (22) to do so in the context of STMicro's compliance with (23) the terms of the March 8 order and the production of (24) the product identification and worldwide sales (25) information.
(415) 398-1889
Page 33 to Page 36
BSA
of 60
XMAX(10/10)
Page 37
(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)
Page 39
(1) needs to be either a deadline set now or perhaps a (2) further hearing. I don't know what the solution is. (3) But we need ST's documents. (4)
Counsel, can I put you on hold for just about 30 seconds? MR. GRATZINGER: Yes, your Honor. (Brief recess) JUDGE WALKER: All right. Thank you, Counsel. MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor, if I may, there is one other deadline I proposed that you didn't address when you stepped through the deadlines that you were prepared to order. JUDGE WALKER: Yes? MR. GRATZINGER: And that was a deadline for ST to supplement its document production to reflect the expanded scope of discovery that includes information about products sold worldwide. JUDGE WALKER: Would that not be included within the production to be made on the 24th of April? MR. GRATZINGER: Well, your Honor, on the 24th, my understanding was that your Honor was ordering the spreadsheets effectively -JUDGE WALKER: Yep. MR. GRATZINGER: -- with the sales information, the product identifications and then the declarations explaining how ST went about searching for products and attesting to the fact that they -- that there are no more to be found.
Page 38
JUDGE WALKER: I think that is a matter that will
(5) be clarified by the production of the product (6) identification and sales information. (7)
MR. GRATZINGER: Fair enough, your Honor. In that
(8) case, we will look at that additional information, and (9) we'll submit something to your Honor setting forth (10) where we think the continued gaps are in ST's document (11) production. And then maybe we can address that soon (12) after the April 24th production. (13)
JUDGE WALKER: All right. Well, I think we're
(14) reaching the point where we can draw this hearing to a (15) close. (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
And let me just review what I believe we've decided today. And we can incorporate that in the form of an order. First, with respect to STMicro's motion for reconsideration of the March 18 order based upon the Federal Circuit's decision on the 26th of March in the Power Integrations versus Fairchild Semiconductor International case, that motion will be denied. The case, as I read it, relates essentially to the recovery of damages insofar as it bears on the
Page 40
(1)
But to the extent that they identify more
(1) issues that are involved in the present proceedings and (2) suggests very little with respect to the appropriate (3) scope of discovery in a case such as this. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(2) products, and I expect that they will, Rambus is going (3) to need a document production relating to those (4) products, you know, the data sheets and so forth. (5)
In addition, there is this issue that
(6) shouldn't fall through cracks, which is ST's completely (7) deficient document production to date. It's an issue (8) that we've moved on multiple times in the past. (9)
Your Honor granted relief and said that they
(10) had to produce these declarations. And you went (11) through that, pending the identification of products (12) and sales. But now that they're going to identify (13) those products and produce those sales, we need to (14) revisit those deficiencies in ST's production. (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
They've produced about 5,000 documents. Rambus has produced over a million. They've produced in fact almost no e-mail, basically a small handful of e-mails. They haven't adequately searched. They've told us how they did their search. It's inadequate. There's significant problems with how ST has complied with their document production obligations in this case. It's not terribly different from their lack of cooperation and refusal to comply with this worldwide sales information. And that issue needs to be addressed. There
And in any event, what Rambus's theory is is one that is predicated on a notion of inducement of infringement. And as to that, worldwide sales, worldwide sales information is relevant to whether or not infringement has been induced, and that infringement then has led to sales in the United States. So I don't believe that the Power Integrations case forecloses any of the discovery that has been deemed to be appropriate in this case so far or that is deemed to be appropriate under the March 18 order. As I said, I am concerned about the pace of discovery. I have concerns about the compliance that STMicro has made with respect to the discovery orders in this case. But rather than try to deal with that issue in the context of sanctioned motions and so forth, I believe it is more appropriate to attempt to move discovery forward so that it can be concluded in a reasonably orderly fashion, more or less in compliance with the spirit of the case management order that Judge Seeborg imposed here. In light of the pace of discovery, however, it is apparent that the deadlines set in the outstanding
Page 37 to Page 40
(415) 398-1889
BSA
of 60
XMAX(11/11)
Page 41
(1) pretrial order or case management schedule that (2) Judge Seaborg has entered is really impractical and (3) some modification is necessary. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) (2) that we be able to have the same reciprocal (3) opportunity. (4)
Page 43
(1) undertake with respect to subject matter, et cetera,
To that end, I will report and recommend to the Court a modification of the deadlines that have been imposed to date follows: On or before the 24th of April, STMicro will produce its product identification and worldwide sales information in compliance with the prior orders in this case and, in particular, the March 18 order. I will recommend to Judge Seeborg that, at the same time as that product identification and worldwide sales information be produced, that STMicro also produce its declarations with respect to how it was that it identified DRAM controller product identification and worldwide sales information; that the fact discovery deadline in the case be moved from the present cutoff date to June 5; that Rambus be allowed to amend its infringement contentions in this case by May 8; and that the expert discovery cutoff in the case be set at a date approximately six weeks after the close of fact discovery. That will be the order. I'll write it up briefly for counsel to have before them and to take whatever action counsel believe appropriate in
Page 42
And I did mention that there was one
(5) outstanding deposition notice with respect to licensing (6) topics which we have not given notice of a witness yet. (7) And we would like to have -- we obviously want to take (8) that deposition. We're not disagreeable to the idea of (9) having it occur outside the current discovery cutoff if (10) that's appropriate. (11)
I just did want to make clear that, from ST's
(12) position, it wasn't requesting nor did it understand (13) Rambus to be requesting a general extension of the (14) discovery cutoff. (15) (17)
JUDGE WALKER: Very well. I think your position MR. HOLBREICH: Thank you, your Honor. And I
(16) is clear, Mr. Holbreich. (18) appreciate you indulging me and letting me say what yet (19) it was. (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: All right. Very well, Mr. Gratzinger. MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor, I'm going to hand this off to -- I think we should start with the JEDEC issues. I have one interrogatory issue that -- why don't we do mine first because I can address it quite
Page 44
(1) response. (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
(1) briefly. (2)
Anything further? MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor, yes. Rambus had also moved to compel on some deposition and interrogatory issues. If we've exhausted your Honor's time or patience today, we're happy to set that for hearing at your earliest ability, or otherwise we're prepared to address it now. JUDGE WALKER: Well, let's see if we can address it now, Mr. Gratzinger. MR. HOLBREICH: Your Honor, I'm sorry. This is Curt Holbreich. Before we move on to that next issue, I just did want to address or clarify one thing with respect to the schedule your Honor set forth. JUDGE WALKER: All right. That's fine, sir. Mr. Holbreich? MR. HOLBREICH: I'm sorry. I did want to make clear that ST is not advocating that there be a wholesale reopening or a wholesale extension of discovery to that date. We understand that Rambus asked for some limited discovery but was requesting that it be essentially unilateral. We're not asking that there be a general extension of the discovery cutoff, but certainly that any discovery that would be permissible for Rambus to
Rambus submitted a letter moving to compel
(3) responses on four interrogatories. Since that time, ST (4) has supplemented. They did that, I think, yesterday or (5) perhaps the day before. I'm not prepared to say that (6) it resolves our issues, but on three of them, it (7) resolved our issues sufficiently so that I think it's (8) appropriate for the parties to meet and confer before (9) Rambus brings that issue back to your Honor. (10)
There is one of those interrogatories on which
(11) we moved to compel, however, where the supplementation (12) was basically non-substantive. And so we would like to (13) address that motion to compel on that interrogatory (14) today. (15) (17)
JUDGE WALKER: Do I have any papers on this, MR. GRATZINGER: I would hope so. Your Honor, we
(16) Mr. Gratzinger? (18) submitted a letter on April 10th, and ST responded on (19) April -(20)
JUDGE WALKER: I may not have that before me at
(21) the present. I asked for everything to be printed out, (22) and I don't believe I have your April 10 letter. (23)
MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor, both of the remaining
(24) issues we'd like to raise are contained in that April (25) 10th letter. If it would be better to address those at
(415) 398-1889
Page 41 to Page 44
BSA
of 60
XMAX(12/12)
Page 45
(1) a hearing set sometime in the near future, that would (2) be okay with counsel as well. (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
Page 47
(1) only issue would be to the extent that Rambus, for (2) example, was intending to submit an expert report in (3) connection with the spoliation trial -- which they have (4) done on some occasions but not on other (5) occasions -- then while I believe it would still be (6) possible to continue the existing schedule with the new (7) date that your Honor has set, I don't believe that (8) there would be any impact on any expert report related (9) to spoliation based upon the information that is the (10) subject of today's call. (11)
JUDGE WALKER: I have K&L Gates' April 10 letter. Perhaps -- but that addresses the Power Integrations matter. No, I'm afraid I do not have in the materials that are before me at the present time your April 10 letter, Mr. Gratzinger. Why don't I -- go ahead. MR. GRATZINGER: I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. JUDGE WALKER: Why don't I track that down and be in touch with you and whoever should be addressing the matter on the other side, and we'll deal with the issue. I'm sorry. I just did not have that presented to me this morning. MR. GRATZINGER: Okay. That would be fine. Thank you, your Honor. JUDGE WALKER: All right. Anything further then? MR. HOLBREICH: Your Honor, this is Curt Holbreich. Sorry to revisit this scheduling issue yet again. One thing I did want to note for your Honor is that there has been a bifurcation of issues here in
Page 46
So as a consequence, to the extent that, for
(12) example, Rambus was intending to submit an expert (13) report regarding duty to preserve or document retention (14) practices or something of that nature, I would submit (15) that the deadline for such a report does not need to (16) move, at least in terms of accommodating the additional (17) discovery that is the subject of today's call. (18)
JUDGE WALKER: Would it not be sufficient simply
(19) to provide that none of the case management schedule (20) changes that we discussed today were intended to affect (21) or modify any of the schedule related to the (22) proceedings regarding spoliation?
MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor -MR. BECHER: Yes, your Honor. This is Rob Becher. (25) I believe that that would be sufficient.
(23) (24)
Page 48
(1)
(1) that there is a spoliation trial, a trial limited to (2) the spoliation issues which is set to occur this (3) summer. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
MR. GRATZINGER: Your Honor, this is Peter
(2) Gratzinger. And I think that we can preserve the (3) schedule to an even greater degree. I think that the (4) infringement and invalidity reports can also stay on (5) track, and potentially the infringement report might (6) need to be supplemented but possibly not. (7)
I don't think it was -- it's not something that we were advocating nor I believe anything Rambus was advocating to have any of these dates affect the schedule that's been set for the spoliation trial, both in terms of experts and other deadlines. So I did want to note that. And I don't know if it figures into the way your Honor would phrase his order. But I don't -- I didn't take Rambus to be requesting and certainly we would not be agreeable to any extensions here that would impact that separate... JUDGE WALKER: I did not understand that what we were talking about today affected the spoliation proceedings. MR. HOLBREICH: What I'm -- with respect to expert discovery cutoff, to the extent there are expert reports and the like. And my apologies, your Honor. I am not as close to that issue as maybe Mr. Becher is. And maybe Mr. Becher could address, if he can -- I hate to put him on the spot -- how this would need to be structured or made clear so that it didn't impact those dates. MR. BECHER: Yes, this is Mr. Becher. I think the
I think the only -- really, the only expert
(8) report that would need to move would be the damages (9) report. And, you know, that would be the best way to (10) limit the impact on the existing schedule. (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
JUDGE WALKER: All right, fair enough. Very well. Thank you very much, Counsel. MR. GRATZINGER: Thank you, your Honor. (Whereupon, the proceedings concluded at 11:21 o'clock a.m.)
(415) 398-1889
Page 45 to Page 48
BSA
of 60
XMAX(13/13)
Page 49
(1) STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) (2) COUNTY OF MARIN (3) ) ss.
I, DEBORAH FUQUA, a Certified Shorthand
(4) Reporter of the State of California, duly authorized to (5) administer oaths pursuant to Section 8211 of the (6) California Code of Civil Procedure, do hereby certify (7) that the foregoing proceedings were reported by me, a (8) disinterested person, and thereafter transcribed under (9) my direction into typewriting and is a true and correct (10) transcription of said proceedings. (11) I further certify that I am not of counsel or
(12) attorney for either or any of the parties in the (13) foregoing proceeding and caption named, nor in any way (14) interested in the outcome of the cause named in said (15) caption. (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) DEBORAH FUQUA CSR NO. 12948 (21) (22) (23) (24) (25) Dated the 25th day of April, 2013.
(415) 398-1889
Page 49 to Page 49
EXHIBIT 23
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
GREGORY P. STONE (SBN 078329) gregory.stone@mto.com PETER E. GRATZINGER (SBN 228764) peter.gratzinger@mto.com JEFFREY Y. WU (SBN 248784) jeffrey.wu@mto.com KEITH R.D. HAMILTON (SBN 252115) keith.hamilton@mto.com DAVID H. PENNINGTON (SBN 272238) david.pennington@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsimile: (213) 687-3702 PETER A. DETRE (State Bar No. 182619) peter.detre@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-2907 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants.
CASE NO. C 10-05449 RS RAMBUS INC.S AMENDED DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (PATENT L.R. 3-1)
20759932.2
RAMBUSS AMENDED DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS TO STMICRO
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
Plaintiff Rambus Inc. hereby makes the following amended infringement disclosures under the Patent Local Rules with respect to U.S. Patent No. 6,034,918 (the 918 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,038,195 (the 195 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,260,097 (the 097 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,304,937 (the 937 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,426,916 (the 916 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,564,281 (the 281 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,584,037 (the 037 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,715,020 (the 020 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,751,696 (the 696 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 7,209,997 (the 997 Patent) (collectively the Asserted Farmwald/Horowitz Patents).1 Rambuss investigation and discovery in this case are ongoing. Accordingly, these disclosures are based on information available to Rambus at this time. Rambus reserves the right to seek to supplement this disclosure after further discovery from STMicro, particularly documents and other discovery regarding STMicros accused devices. Rambus also reserves the right to seek to assert additional claims of the Rambus patents, accuse different products and/or devices, or find alternative literal and/or equivalent infringing elements in STMicros devices. I. DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND PRELIMINARY INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-1 A. Asserted claims
Pursuant to the Courts Order Granting Defendants Motion to Limit the Number of Asserted Claims, dated December 28, 2012, and without prejudice to subsequent assertion of claims not asserted at this time, Rambus has elected to proceed with the following asserted claims against STMicros products that consist of or contain a controller for controlling SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, LPDDR SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, LPDDR2 SDRAM, and/or DDR3 SDRAM memory devices: Claim 8 of the 918 Patent; Claims 24 and 32 of the 195 Patent; STMicro is also accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,470,405 (the 405 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,591,353 (the 353 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,287,109 (the 109 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 6,542,555 (the 555 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,099,404 (the 404 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,580,474 (the 474 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,602,857 (the 857 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,602,858 (the 858 Patent), and U.S. Patent No. 7,715,494 (the 494 Patent), as set forth in Rambuss Complaint in this action. In view of the stay entered by the Court on June 13, 2011, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 1659, these patents are not addressed further herein. Rambus reserves all rights to seek to supplement these contentions as and when appropriate.
20759932.2 1
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
2
Claims 20, and 25 of the 916 Patent; Claims 38, 40, and 46 of the 281 Patent; Claim 38 of the 020 Patent; and Claims 3, 19,and 31 of the 997 Patent. In addition, Rambus asserts the following claims against STMicros products that consist of or contain a controller for controlling DDR SDRAM, LPDDR SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, LPDDR2 SDRAM, and/or DDR3 SDRAM memory devices: Claim 6 of the 097 Patent; Claims 5, 24,and 29 of the 937 Patent; and Claims 14 and 49 of the 020 Patent. In addition, Rambus asserts the following claims against STMicros products that consist of or contain a controller for controlling DDR2 SDRAM, LPDDR2 SDRAM, and/or DDR3 SDRAM memory devices: Claims 27 and 28 of the 037 Patent. Each of the above listed claims is asserted pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 271 (a), (b), and (c). 2 Rambuss investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, these disclosures are based on information available to Rambus at this time. Rambus reserves the right to seek leave of court to add, delete, or otherwise amend this list of asserted claims should further discovery or other circumstances so merit. B. Accused Devices and Methods
Rambus is currently aware of the accused device product numbers listed in Table B-1 below, which are the products/devices/apparatuses that include the accused instrumentalities that are known to Rambus by name and model number at this time based on information available to Rambus according to Patent L.R. 3-1(b) (Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality (Accused Instrumentality) of each
28
Rambus reserves the right to supplement its contentions regarding STMicros indirect infringement under 35 U.S.C. 271(f) as discovery progresses. 3
20759932.2
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
opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model number, if known.). Rambus is accusing all versions of each of the products numbers listed in Table B-1. The accused devices are products containing memory controllers capable of interfacing with and/or controlling any SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, LPDDR SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, LPDDR2 SDRAM, or DDR3 SDRAM memory device. Table B-1 identifies the memory controller type(s) associated with each accused product. Table B-2 below identifies the accused products associated with each memory controller type and the claims Rambus alleges to be infringed by the accused products associated with that memory controller type. Rambuss investigation and discovery in this case are ongoing. Accordingly, these disclosures are based on information available to Rambus at this time and Rambus reserves the right to seek to supplement this disclosure after further discovery from STMicro. Table B-1 Accused Product 1825-0354 590-00045-00 590-00045-01 590-00045-11 FLI10610H FLI10620H FLI10636H FLI2300 FLI2301 FLI2310 FLI2310-LF-CF FLI2510 FLI2515 FLI2520 FLI30336 FLI30336-AC FLI30436 FLI30436-AC FLI32626H-AE
20759932.2
Memory Controller Type(s) DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM DDR3 DDR2, DDR3 DDR2, DDR3 DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR, DDR2 4
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
20759932.2
FLI32626H-BG FLI32652H-AE FLI32652H-BG FLI32656H-AE FLI32656H-BG FLI5962H FLI5962H-LF-AA FLI5968H FLI5968H-LF-AA FLI7510 FLI7512 FLI7515 FLI7525 FLI7540 FLI8531 FLI8538 FLI8541H FLI8548H FLI8548H-LF-BE FLI8638 FLI8668 FLI8668-LF-BC GM5862H GM5868H GV60131 QAMi5107 QAMi5516 QAMI5516AUA SPEAr BASIC SPEAr Head Digital Engine SPEAr09B042 SPEAR-09-H022 SPEAR-09-H022EP SPEAr-09-H042 SPEAR-09-H122N SPEAr1300 SPEAr1310 SPEAR1310-2 5
DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM DDR2, DDR3 DDR2, DDR3 DDR2, DDR3 DDR2, DDR3 DDR2, DDR3 DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR SDRAM SDRAM DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM SDRAM DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR3 DDR3 DDR3
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
20759932.2
SPEAr1340 SPEAr300 SPEAR300-2 SPEAr310 SPEAR310-2 SPEAr320 SPEAR320-2 SPEAr600 SPEAR600-2 ST-6126 ST-7104 ST-9126 ST-9150 ST-9160 ST-9170 ST-9176 STA2059 STA2062 STA2062A STA2064 STA2064N STA2065 STA2065N STA260 STA260ATR STA264 STA264APTR STA280 STA280TR STA680 STA680Q STD5700 STD5700AUC STD5700AUD STD5700HUD STD5700HUE STd8010 STDP8021 6
DDR3 DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 SDRAM, DDR DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 SDRAM SDRAM, LPDDR SDRAM, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR DDR2, LPDDR SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM SDRAM DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR2
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
20759932.2
STDP8028 STDP8028-AB STe5588 STi1000 STi1010 STi5100 STI5100CUC STi5105 STi5107 STI5107AYA STi5118 STi5162 STi5167 STI5188 STi5189 STI5189-KBCT STi5197 STi5197L STi5200 STi5202 STI5202DUD STi5205 STi5206 STi5211 STi5262 STi5267 STi5289 STi5300 STI5300FUB STI5300FUBT STI5300GUB STI5300MUB STI5300NUBT STi5514 STI5514AWC STi5516 STi5517 STI5517PWAL 7
DDR2 DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 DDR2 DDR DDR DDR SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR DDR DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM SDRAM
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
20759932.2
STi5528 STI5528GWB STI5528GWBL STI5528GWBLT STI5528GWC STI5528GWCT STi7100 STI7100ZWC STi7101 STI7101B-CWD STI7101B-IWD STI7101BWC STI7101BWD STI7101DWC STI7101DWD STI7101HWC STI7101HWCT STI7101KWC STI7101KWD STI7101LWD STi7105 STI7105ZUD STi7106 STi7108 STi7109 STI7109B-CWD STI7109BWC STI7109BWD STI7109DWD STI7109KWC STI7109KWD STI7109MWB STI7109VED STI7109VEDP STI7109WECP STI7109WED STI7109YWC STI7109YWD 8
DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR2 DDR2, DDR3 SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR
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
STI7109ZWC STI7109ZWD STi7110FTA STi7111 STI7111BHUCT STI7111BSUC STi7141 STi7162 STi7167 STi7197 STi7200 STI7200AWC STI7707NUD STI7707WUDP STi7710 STI7710HUD STiH251 STLS2E02 STLS2F01 STLS2F02 STLS2F02-LP STm7710 STM7710ZUC STM7710ZUC STV0498
SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR, DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 DDR DDR DDR DDR DDR2 DDR DDR2 DDR2 DDR2 SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR SDRAM, DDR Table B-2
Memory Controller Type Model Number SDRAM FLI2300 FLI2301 FLI2310 FLI2310-LF-CF FLI5962H FLI5962H-LF-AAFLI5968H FLI5968H-LF-AA GM5862H GM5868H QAMi5107
20759932.2
Asserted Claims Claim 8 of the 918 Patent; Claims 24 and 32 of the 195 Patent; Claims 20, and 25 of the 916 Patent; Claims 38, 40, and 46 of the 281 Patent; Claim 38 of the 020 Patent; and Claims 3, 19,and 31 of the 997 Patent.
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
Memory Controller Type
Model Number QAMi5516 QAMI5516AUA ST-6126 STA260 STA260ATR STA264 STA264APTR STA280TR STA680 STA680Q STA2059 STA2062 STA2062A STe5588 STi5107 STI5107AYA STi5118 STi5162 STi5167 STI5188 STi5189 STI5189-KBCT STi5197 STi5202 STI5202DUD STi5514 STI5514AWC STi5516 STi5517 STI5517PWAL STi7101 STI7101B-CWD STI7101B-IWD STI7101BWC STI7101BWD STI7101DWC STI7101DWD STI7101HWC STI7101HWCT STI7101KWC STI7101KWD STI7101LWD STi7109 STI7109B-CWD STI7109BWC STI7109BWD 10
Asserted Claims
20759932.2
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
DDR
Model Number STI7109DWD STI7109KWC STI7109KWD STI7109MWB STI7109VED STI7109VEDP STI7109WECP STI7109WED STI7109YWC STI7109YWD STI7109ZWC STI7109ZWD STm7710 STM7710ZUC STM7710ZUC STV0498 1825-0354 590-00045-00 590-00045-01 590-00045-11 FLI8531 FLI8538 FLI8541H FLI8548H FLI8548H-LF-BE FLI8638 FLI8668 FLI8668-LF-BC FLI30336 FLI30336-ACFLI30436 FLI30436-AC FLI32626H-AE FLI32626H-BG FLI32652H-AE FLI32652H-BG FLI32656H-AE FLI32656H-BG GV60131 QAMi5107 SPEAR-09-H022 SPEAR-09-H022EP SPEAr-09-H042 SPEAR-09-H122N SPEAr600 SPEAR600-2 11
Asserted Claims
Claim 8 of the 918 Patent; Claims 24 and 32 of the 195 Patent; Claims 20, and 25 of the 916 Patent; Claims 38, 40, and 46 of the 281 Patent; Claims 14, 38, and 49 of the 020 Patent; Claims 3, 19,and 31 of the 997 Patent. Claim 6 of the 097 Patent; and Claims 5, 24,and 29 of the 937 Patent.
20759932.2
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
Model Number ST-6126 ST-7104 ST-9126 ST-9150 STA280 STA280TR STD5700 STD5700AUC STD5700AUD STD5700HUD STD5700HUE STd8010 STi5100 STI5100CUC STi5105 STi5162 STi5167 STi5189 STI5189-KBCT STi5197 STi5197L STi5200 STi5202 STI5202DUD STi5205 STi5206 STi5262 STi5267 STi5289 STi5300STI5300FUB STI5300FUBT STI5300GUB STI5300MUB STI5300NUBT STi5528 STI5528GWB STI5528GWBL STI5528GWBLT STI5528GWC STI5528GWCT STi7100 STI7100ZWC STi7101 STI7101B-CWD STI7101B-IWD 12
Asserted Claims
20759932.2
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
DDR2
Model Number STI7101BWC STI7101BWD STI7101DWC STI7101DWD STI7101HWC STI7101HWCT STI7101KWC STI7101KWD STI7101LWD STi7105 STI7105ZUD STi7109 STI7109B-CWD STI7109BWC STI7109BWD STI7109DWD STI7109KWC STI7109KWD STI7109MWB STI7109VED STI7109VEDP STI7109WECP STI7109WED STI7109YWC STI7109YWD STI7109ZWC STI7109ZWD STi7162 STi7167 STi7197 STI7707NUD STI7707WUDP STi7710 STI7710HUDSTLS2E02 STm7710 STM7710ZUC STM7710ZUC STV0498 FLI10610H FLI10620H FLI10636H FLI2515 FLI2520 FLI32626H-AE FLI32626H-BG 13
Asserted Claims
Claim 8 of the 918 Patent; Claims 24 and 32 of the 195 Patent; Claims 20, and 25 of the 916 Patent; Claims 38, 40, and 46 of the 281 Patent; Claims 14, 38, and 49 of the 020 Patent; Claims 3, 19,and 31 of the 997 Patent. Claim 6 of the 097 Patent;
20759932.2
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
Model Number FLI32652H-AE FLI32652H-BG FLI32656H-AE FLI32656H-BG FLI7510 FLI7512 FLI7515 FLI7525 FLI7540 SPEAr 300 SPEAr BASIC SPEAr Head Digital Engine SPEAr09B042 SPEAr300 SPEAR300-2 SPEAr310 SPEAR310-2 SPEAr320 SPEAR320-2 SPEAr600 SPEAR600-2 ST-7104 ST-9126 ST-9150 ST-9160 ST-9170 ST-9176 STA2064 STA2064N STA2065 STA2065N STDP8021 STDP8028 STDP8028-AB STi1000 STi1010 STi5205 STi5206 STi5211 STi5262 STi5267 STi5289 STi7105 STI7105ZUD STi7106 14
Asserted Claims Claims 5, 24,and 29 of the 937 Patent; and Claims 27 and 28 of the 037 Patent.
20759932.2
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
DDR3
LPDDR
Model Number STi7108 STi7110FTA STi7111 STI7111BHUCT STI7111BSUC STi7141 STi7162 STi7167 STi7197 STi7200 STI7200AWC STiH251 STLS2F01 STLS2F02 STLS2F02-LP FLI2510 FLI2515 FLI2520 FLI7510 FLI7512 FLI7515 FLI7525 FLI7540 SPEAr1300 SPEAr1310 SPEAR1310-2 SPEAr1340 STi7108 SPEAr300 SPEAR300-2 SPEAr310 SPEAR310-2 SPEAr320 SPEAR320-2 STA2062 STA2062A STA2064 STA2064N STA2065 STA2065N
Asserted Claims
Claim 8 of the 918 Patent; Claims 24 and 32 of the 195 Patent; Claims 20, and 25 of the 916 Patent; Claims 38, 40, and 46 of the 281 Patent; Claims 14, 38, and 49 of the 020 Patent Claims 3, 19,and 31 of the 997 Patent. Claim 6 of the 097 Patent; Claims 5, 24,and 29 of the 937 Patent; and Claims 27 and 28 of the 037 Patent.
Claim 8 of the 918 Patent; Claims 24 and 32 of the 195 Patent; Claims 20, and 25 of the 916 Patent; Claims 38, 40, and 46 of the 281 Patent; Claims 14, 38, and 49 of the 020 Patent; Claims 3, 19,and 31 of the 997 Patent; Claim 6 of the 097 Patent; and Claims 5, 24,and 29 of the 937 Patent.
20759932.2
15
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
C.
Claim Charts
Claim charts identifying the location of every element of every asserted claim of the Asserted Farmwald/Horowitz Patents (Asserted Claims) within the accused devices are attached hereto as Exhibits A-J. In order to avoid unnecessary repetition, the claim charts refer to the following specific information describing representative products: The STMicro STi5516 (which is capable of interfacing to SDRAM) (see Exhibit K); The STMicro STi5167 (which is capable of interfacing to DDR SDRAM) (see Exhibit L); The STMicro STi5211 (which is capable of interfacing to DDR2 SDRAM) (see Exhibit M); The STMicro FLI7512 (which is capable of interfacing to DDR3 SDRAM) (see Exhibit N); The STMicro STA2064 (which is capable of interfacing to LPDDR SDRAM) (see Exhibit O). Rambus contends that each of STMicros accused products that consists of or contains a controller for controlling the specified type of memory device infringes in substantially the same manner as specified for the corresponding representative product in the attached claim charts. Each of STMicros accused products includes the functionality and/or structure set forth in the attached claim charts in order to interface with the specified types of memory devices. In addition, the claim charts refer to the following materials: Sections 3.11.5.1 to 3.11.5.1.18 of JEDEC Standard No. 21-C (SDRAM Standard) (attached hereto as Exhibit P); JEDEC Standard, Double Data Rate (DDR) SDRAM Specification, JESD79F (DDR Standard) (attached hereto as Exhibit Q); JEDEC Standard, Low Power Double Data Rate (LPDDR) SDRAM Standard, JESD209B (LPDDR Standard) (attached hereto as Exhibit R); JEDEC Standard, DDR2 SDRAM Specification, JESD79-2F (DDR2 Standard) (attached hereto as Exhibit S);
20759932.2
16
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
20759932.2
JEDEC Standard, Low Power Double Data Rate 2 (LPDDR2), JESD209-2B (LPDDR2 Standard) (attached hereto as Exhibit T);
JEDEC Standard, DDR3 SDRAM Specification, JESD79-3E (DDR3 Standard) (attached hereto as Exhibit U);
Datasheet for Micron 128Mb Synchronous DRAM, Part Nos. MT48LC32M4A2, MT48LC16M8A2, and MT48LC8M16A2, Rev. J (Micron SDRAM Datasheet) (attached hereto as Exhibit V).
Datasheet for Hynix HY57V641620HG(L)TP, Rev. 0.9/Mar. 2004 (Hynix_SDRAM) (attached hereto as Exhibit W).
Rambus reserves the right to seek to amend these claim charts, as well as other information contained in this document and the exhibits attached hereto, to incorporate new information learned during the course of discovery. Rambus further reserves the right to seek to amend these claim charts, as well as other information contained in this document and the exhibits attached hereto, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6. For purposes of Rambuss present disclosures, the products and specifications listed herein are representative of each of the products and specifications that apply to the same JEDEC SDRAM standard. Further, STMicro products that are capable of interfacing with JEDEC SDRAM standard memory devices operate in accordance with the respective JEDEC SDRAM standard specification, which do not provide for alterative embodiments with respect to relevant features as specified herein. The circuitry in STMicro products that is used to interface with JEDEC standard memory satisfies the claimed elements. Rambus elaborates further in the attached Patent L.R. 3-1(c) charts and as follows.
17
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
Computers use different kinds of memory to store information. Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) is the low cost, temporary data storage for the computer. For example, DRAM stores temporary information like the current contents of the computer screen and stores information transferred from slower memory (like the hard drive) so that it can be accessed more quickly. The central processing unit (CPU) is often referred to as the brain of the computer. The
CPU communicates with the DRAM through a memory controller. The collection of wires that carry the control signals, address signals, and data signals between the DRAM and the controller is called the interface. Memory controllers are responsible for orchestrating operations of the memory devices. They retrieve information from and write information to memory cells within the memory core of a memory device. The memory core refers to the storage area of a memory device and its associated circuitry. Synchronous memory devices come in several types. Two examples are double data rate synchronous DRAMs (DDR SDRAMs) and double data rate two synchronous DRAMs (DDR2 SDRAMs). These types of DRAMs are defined by standards. Each type of DRAM operates in accordance with the requirements set forth in its respective standard. DDR and DDR2, and the other standards referenced in the infringement contentions, refer to standards issued by JEDEC. The standards also define the relationship between the memory controller and the memory: if the memory controller controls the DRAM as specified, the memory will operate as specified. Therefore, the standards specify how the memory controller is to communicate with the DRAMs and the semantics of each of the DRAM operations. The JEDEC SDRAM memory standard specifications specify operations necessary for memory controllers such as STMicros accused products to control JEDEC standard memory
20759932.2
18
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
devices on the level of Rambuss asserted claims. By operating in accordance with these standards, STMicros accused products infringe Rambuss Asserted Claims as specified in Rambuss present disclosure. In the above table, Rambus lists the accused devices of which it is aware by name and model number, and also lists the JEDEC memory standard with which each accused device complies and the claims infringed, based upon information available to Rambus at this time. The accused products listed above as representative are representative of all accused products that comply with the JEDEC standard(s) specified therewith. For purposes of Rambuss
infringement contentions and each of the Asserted Claims of the Asserted Patents, each STMicro accused product that complies with a particular JEDEC memory standard as specified herein operates in the same way as every other STMicro accused product that complies with that JEDEC memory standard as explained throughout these contentions in Rambuss Patent L.R. 3-1(c) claim charts. That is, each of the STMicro accused products contains circuitry for interfacing with and controlling JEDEC standard SDRAM. In order for the controller to perform its intended and advertised function of controlling SDRAM-standard memory devices, it complies with the specifications set forth in the JEDEC SDRAM memory standard with which the controller is designed to interface. The STMicro accused products therefore must comply with the various JEDEC memory standards discussed herein in order to control respective JEDEC standard memories. Rambus contends that every STMicro accused product that operates in accordance with a particular JEDEC standard infringes Rambuss Asserted Patents in the same way as every other STMicro accused product that operated in accordance with the same standard. Accordingly,
Rambuss listing of particular products as representative is based upon that products compliance with and operation in accordance with the specified standard. Because the accused products infringe based upon their operation in accordance with JEDEC SDRAM memory standards and the way that they control memory devices compliant with these JEDEC standards, such as the memory devices specified by the datasheets cited in Rambuss disclosures, each accused product that is specified to comply with a particular type of memory infringes by operating any memory device of that JEDEC standard type. Therefore, for purposes of Rambuss Asserted Claims and its disclosures, the JEDEC SDRAM standard datasheets represent
20759932.2
19
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 operation of other JEDEC-standard memory devices of the same type as well as the operation of STMicro accused devices that control memory devices of that type, as specified herein according to name and model number to the extent known by Rambus in the above table. The representative STMicro parts set forth herein are designed to, and do control the JEDEC standard memories described by the corresponding representative JEDEC standard SDRAM datasheets set forth herein. For the reasons set forth above and for purposes of Rambuss infringement contentions and its Asserted Claims, the functionality of a controller for controlling the representative JEDEC standard SDRAM memories described by these datasheets is the same as of the functionality of each STMicro accused product designed to be compatible with memories of the same JEDEC standard type, and operates in accordance with that standard. D. Indirect infringement
Rambus alleges that STMicro indirectly infringes all of the above-listed Asserted Claims. The direct infringers include third parties who incorporate the accused products into their own products and make, use, sell, offer for sale, and/or import their own products in the United States. For example, the accused STMicro SPEAr09B042 chip, which includes a DDR2 memory controller, is incorporated in the snom870 VoIP telephone. See Exhibit X. The accused STMicro STA2062 chip, which includes an LPDDR memory controller, is incorporated into the Garmin Oregon 400t GPS device. See Exhibit Y. The accused STMicro G V60131 chip, which includes a DDR memory controller, is incorporated into the Seagate Barracuda XT hard drive. See Exhibit Z. Direct infringers also include STMicro product resellers, retailers, customers, and end users. Resellers, retailers, and distributors have directly infringed the Asserted Claims at least by selling, offering for sale, importing, or using (e.g., through testing, demonstrations, etc.) STMicros accused devices. For example, the snom870 VoIP telephone is sold in the United States by Newegg.com. See www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16833365017. The Garmin Oregon 400t GPS device is sold in the United States by SportChalet.com. See www.sportchalet.com/product/ 301790_0100069702.do. The Seagate Barracuda XT hard drive is sold in the Unites States by Amazon.com. See http://www.amazon.com/Seagate-Barracuda-7200RPM-Internal-ST32000641AS/ dp/B002RWJHBM.
20759932.2
20
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
End users have also directly infringed the Asserted Claims by operating the accused devices as intended and encouraged by STMicro, including by operating the products with JEDEC compliant memory devices such as the snom870 VoIP telephone, Garmin Oregon 400t GPS, and Seagate Barracuda XT hard drive. The memory controllers in STMicros Accused Products are known by STMicro to be especially made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the Asserted Farmwald/Horowitz Patents and are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use. Therefore, by selling, offering to sell, and/or importing the Accused Products in the United States, STMicro has contributed to and continues to contribute to the infringement of the Asserted Patents. Moreover, STMicro has sold and/or offered to sell the Accused Products to third parties, with knowledge that they would be sold, offered for sale, and/or used in the United States, and/or imported into the United States and with knowledge that, in normal operation, the Accused Products infringe the Asserted Patents. STMicro actively encourages the incorporation of the Accused Products into products that it knows are sold, offered for sale, and/or used in the United States, and/or imported into the United States. STMicro promotes the use of the Accused Products in ways that infringe the Asserted Patents, for example by advertising that the Accused Products include controllers for JEDEC-standard memory devices. It follows that STMicro has induced and continues to induce acts by third parties that STMicro knew or should have known would constitute direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. STMicros knowledge of Rambuss patents and technology is set forth below in Section H (Willful Infringement), which is incorporated herein. Moreover, Rambus is well known to STMicro and the industry for its advancements in memory and memory controller technology. Rambus has been pursuing highly publicized lawsuits since 2000 against many of the worlds largest DRAM manufacturers based on their JEDEC-standard DRAM interfaces. STMicro must have subjectively believed at the time that there is a high probability that Rambus patents are infringed by its controllers for JEDEC-standard DRAMs, and to the extent it did not actually learn that fact, took deliberate actions to avoid learning that fact.
20759932.2
21
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
Rambuss investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, these disclosures are based on information available to Rambus at this time. Rambus reserves the right to seek to supplement these contentions as necessary and appropriate in accordance with the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this district as relevant discovery progresses. E. Literal Infringement and Doctrine of Equivalents
Rambus asserts that, under the proper construction of the asserted claims and their claim terms, every limitation of the asserted claims of the Rambus Patents is literally present in the STMicro devices accused of infringing the claim, as set forth in the claim charts attached hereto as Exhibit A-J. To the extent that any limitation is found to be not literally present, Rambus asserts that such limitation is present under the doctrine of equivalents. Moreover, pursuant to Patent Local Rule 3-6, Rambus reserves the right to seek to amend its Infringement Contentions to specifically assert infringement by the doctrine of equivalents in light of the Courts claim construction. F. Priority dates
Each of the asserted claims of the Asserted Farmwald/Horowitz Patents is entitled to the priority date of U.S. Patent Application No. 07/510,898, filed on April 18, 1990. Rambuss investigation and discovery are ongoing. Accordingly, these disclosures are based on information available to Rambus at this time. Rambus reserves the right to seek to supplement these contentions, particularly to the extent that the particular date of the claim of priority to earlier applications is determined to be relevant to any claim or defense in this matter. G. Rambuss Own Products
This provision is inapplicable because Rambus does not manufacture any products that practice the claimed inventions. However, Rambus designs, develops, markets and licenses high speed interface technology. Rambus has become a key player in the semiconductor industry by designing and developing innovative, cost-efficient technology for increasing the data transfer rate between integrated circuits for example, between memory controllers, memory devices, and memory sub-systems presently used in personal computers, graphics cards, communications networking equipment, digital television appliances, and home video games systems.
20759932.2
22
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
Over the past decades, Rambus has developed advanced memory and memory controller designs, and memory system architectures that practice the claimed inventions and that have revolutionized the way in which electronic systems access and store data. These include Rambuss XDR DRAM, which provides unprecedented ability to span performance and memory capacity requirements across a range of computing, consumer, and networking applications. These applications include, for example, Sony Corporations PlayStation 3. Over 100 million XDR DRAMs designed around Rambus technology have shipped from its customers. Rambus-developed designs and architectures that practice the claimed inventions of the Asserted Claims also include, without limitation, Rambuss previous generation memory, Direct RDRAM, which is used in personal computers, digital televisions, and Sonys PlayStation 2. Prior generations of RDRAM technology also incorporated certain of the inventions of the Asserted Claims. Rambus licenses its patents, including the patents in suit, to various manufacturers of synchronous memory devices, and others. Rambuss investigation and discovery are ongoing. Rambus reserves the right to modify or supplement these contentions as necessary and appropriate in accordance with the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this district as discovery progresses. H. Willful Infringement
STMicros infringement of the Asserted Farmwald/Horowitz patents has been willful. In October 2008, Rambus contacted STMicro to discuss licensing of Rambuss patents. On or about January 6, 2009, Rambus provided information to STMicro regarding the infringement of Rambus patents, including the 937 Patent, the 916 Patent, the 020 Patent, the 696 Patent, and the 997 Patent by STMicro products. On or about July 10, 2009, Rambus provided further information to STMicro regarding the infringement of the 937 Patent, the 916 Patent, and the 997 Patent by STMicros products. Despite its clear awareness of its infringement of Rambuss valid patents, STMicro has acted in reckless disregard of Rambuss patent rights. Since becoming aware of Rambuss patented technology and its infringement of the Asserted Patents, and despite having no reasonable basis for believing that it had a right to continue its infringing activities, STMicro has taken no remedial
20759932.2
23
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
action and made no efforts to avoid infringement. Rather, during this time, STMicro, which is also a member of JEDEC, expanded its infringement by continuing to sell additional generations of its memory controllers making use of Rambus patented technology. STMicro knew or should have known that it was infringing valid patents. STMicro has no credible defenses, whether formed contemporaneously with its expanding infringement or otherwise. In light of STMicros clear infringement, and the validity, of Rambuss patents, any reliance on purported, ad hoc defenses to justify expanding infringement would be reckless. Rambuss investigation and discovery are ongoing. Rambus reserves the right to modify or supplement these contentions as necessary and appropriate in accordance with the Federal Rules and Local Rules of this district as discovery progresses. II. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO PATENT LOCAL RULE 3-2 Rambus has produced documents corresponding to each of the categories set forth in Patent Local Rule 3-2.3 Documents with the following Bates ranges were produced pursuant to Rule 3-2(a) and Rule 3-2(b): PTO_003850 PTO_005286; PTO_005287 PTO_008575; PTO_008576 PTO_009240; PTO_009241 PTO_009749; PTO_009750 PTO_010148; PTO_010149 PTO_010802; PTO_010803 PTO_011100; PTO_011383 PTO_011605; PTO_011606 PTO_011797; PTO_011798 PTO_012319; PTO_012955 PTO_013231; PTO_013232 PTO_013586; PTO_013587 PTO_013912; PTO_013913 PTO_014256; PTO_014257 PTO_014677; PTO_014678 PTO_014862; R0000331 R0000339; R0008395 R0008443; R0024854 R0024857; R0034612 R0034615; R0034616 R0034616; R0034617 R0034617; R0034619 R0034619; R0037808 R0037968; R0040935 R0040992; R0046938 R0046976; R0046977 R0047013; R0049061 R0049096; R0049097 R0049132; R0049133 R0049225; R0049226 R0049265; R0052893 R0052906; R0052932 R0052947; R0053837 R0053905; R0054086 R0054123; R0055725 R0055869; R0058017 R0058057; R0058358 R0058569; R0058570 R0058609; R0058610 R0058910; R0058911 R0059189; R0060254 R0060315; R0069919 R0069920; R0110642 R0110642; R0113918 R0113935; R0114246 R0114246; R0114252 R0114255; R0114256 R0114260; R0114261 R0114261; R0114262 R0114262; R0114264 R0114264; R0114265 R0114266; R0114269 R0114269; R0114270 R0114271; R0114276 R0114279; R0114292 R0114292; R0114293 R0114293; R0114294 R0114294; R0114301 R0114301; R0114303 R0114303; R0114318 R0114318; R0114322 R0114324; R0114325 R0114326; R0114334 R0114334; R0114337 R0114337; R0114345 R0114345; R0114349 R0114351; R0114353 R0114353; R0114354 R0114354; R0114356 R0114356; R0114369 R0114370; R0114378 R0114378; R0114379 R0114379; R0114380 R0114380; R0114381 R0114382;
This preliminary identification is for convenience and is not an admission that each document falls within any exemplary categories in the Patent Local Rules, nor that any document qualifies as prior art.
20759932.2
24
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
20759932.2
R0114402 R0114402; R0114437 R0114441; R0114655 R0114655; R0114656 R0114656; R0114658 R0114659; R0114686 R0114686; R0114702 R0114702; R0114703 R0114703; R0114717 R0114762; R0114767 R0114772; R0114784 R0114785; R0114793 R0114795; R0114818 R0114818; R0114833 R0114833; R0114856 R0114856; R0114878 R0114879; R0114884 R0114884; R0114888 R0114888; R0114899 R0114899; R0114909 R0114909; R0114910 R0114910; R0114913 R0114913; R0114919 R0114921; R0114922 R0114930; R0114936 R0114936; R0114938 R0114938; R0114948 R0114952; R0114986 R0114986; R0114996 R0114996; R0114999 R0114999; R0115000 R0115000; R0115002 R0115003; R0115004 R0115004; R0115060 R0115060; R0115061 R0115062; R0115079 R0115088; R0115211 R0115239; R0115445 R0115462; R0115463 R0115481; R0115512 R0115556; R0128730 R0128731; R0128732 R0128734; R0133252 R0133301; R0133493 R0133542; R0133869 R0133930; R0133950 R0134011; R0135859 R0135898; R0136212 R0136213; R0136230 R0136269; R0137497 R0137527; R0140765 R0140826; R0143461 R0143753; R0143776 R0143810; R0144890 R0144922; R0144987 R0145013; R0145145 R0145183; R0145607 R0145835; R0150498 R0150528; R0154182 R0154333; R0157965 R0157965; R0168208 R0168225; R0168317 R0168380; R0185965 R0186027; R0190812 R0191156; R0195081 R0195084; R0195573 R0195576; R0195768 R0195769; R0195770 R0195770; R0195772 R0195772; R0195775 R0195776; R0195777 R0195777; R0195778 R0195778; R0195779 R0195779; R0195780 R0195780; R0195781 R0195782; R0195809 R0195809; R0196200 R0196217; R0196218 R0196235; R0201131 R0201132; R0201171 R0201172; R0201281 R0201282; R0201283 R0201283; R0201284 R0201284; R0303575 R0303841; R0465970 R0465970; R0465971 R0465971; R0465973 R0465973; R0465974 R0465974; R0465975 R0465975; R0465977 R0465977; R0465978 R0465978; R0465979 R0465979; R0465980 R0465980; R0465981 R0465981; R0465982 R0465982; R0465983 R0465983; R0465984 R0465984; R0465985 R0465985; R0465986 R0465986; R0465987 R0465987; R0465988 R0465988; R0465989 R0465989; R0465990 R0465990; R0465991 R0465991; R0465992 R0465992; R0465993 R0465993; R0465994 R0465994; R0465995 R0465995; R0465996 R0465996; R0465997 R0465997; R0465998 R0465998; R0465999 R0465999; R0466000 R0466000; R0466001 R0466001; R0466002 R0466002; R0466003 R0466003; R0475006 R0475011; R0917225 R0917230; R0917272 R0917274; R0917398 R0917404; R1348692 R1348731; R1349842 R1349881; R20521319 R20521457; R20521458 R20521487; R20521488 R20521565; R20521566 R20521707; R20521708 R20521839; R20521840 R20521848; R2700612 R2700651; R3419573 R3419694; R3591300 R3591460; RF0137788 RF0137792; RF0138614 RF0138616; RF0138777 RF0138777; RF0138919 RF0138919; RF0138970 RF0138970; RF0139855 RF0139855; RF0139942 RF0139945; RF0139999 RF0139999; RF0140026 RF0140026; RF0140090 RF0140090; and RF0140262 RF0140263. Documents with the following Bates ranges were produced pursuant to Rule 3-2(c): PTO_003850 PTO_005286; PTO_009241 PTO_009749; PTO_009750 PTO_010148; PTO_014863 PTO_016148; PTO_016149 PTO_017214; PTO_017215 PTO_018402; PTO_018403 PTO_019964; PTO_019965 PTO_020880; PTO_020881 PTO_022481; and PTO_022482 PTO_029273. Documents with the following Bates ranges were produced pursuant to Rule 3-2(d): R0507239 R0507269; R0903370 R0903400; R20519035 R20519068; R20519069 R20519101; R20519102 R20519132; R20519133 R20519165; R20519166 R20519196; R20519197 R20519235; R20744265 R20744297; R3362976 R3363008; PTO_003850 PTO_005286; PTO_009241 PTO_009749; PTO_009750 PTO_010148; PTO_014863 PTO_016148; PTO_016149 PTO_017214; PTO_017215 25
1 2 3 4
PTO_018402; PTO_018403 PTO_019964; PTO_019965 PTO_020880; PTO_020881 PTO_022481; and PTO_022482 PTO_029273.
DATED: May 8, 2013 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

20759932.2
By:
/s/ Peter A. Detre PETER A. DETRE
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
26
1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 4 5 6 7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 8 9 10 11 12 Executed on May 8, 2013, at Los Angeles, California. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
20759932.2
At the time of service, I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action. I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor, Los Angeles, California, 90071. On May 8, 2013, I served true copies of the document described as RAMBUS INC.S AMENDED DISCLOSURE OF ASSERTED CLAIMS AND INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS (PATENT L.R. 3-1) on the interested parties in this action as follows:
BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the document(s) to be sent from e-mail address david.pennington@mto.com to the persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the attached Service List. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
/s/ David Pennington David Pennington
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
20759932.2
SERVICE LIST
STMicroNDCA_5449@klgates.com QE-RambusNDCal@quinnemanuel.com Michael J. Bettinger mike.bettinger@klgates.com Stephen M. Everett stephen.everett@klgates.com Curt Holbreich curt.holbreich@klgates.com Elaine Y. Chow elaine.chow@klgates.com K&L GATES LLP Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 882-8200 Facsimile: (415) 882-8220 Sean Pak seanpak@quinnemanuel.com Peter Klivans peterklivans@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415-875-6600 Facsimile: 415-875-6700 Robert J. Becher robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: 213-443-3000 Facsimile: 213-443-3100
Attorneys for STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. and STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.
28

Exhibit 23

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Exhibit 23

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page1 of 60

Page 1 of 3 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page2 of 60 Gratzinger, Peter

Page 2 of 3 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page3 of 60

Page 3 of 3 Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page4 of 60

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page5 of 60

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page6 of 60

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2

560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7

WRITERS DIRECT LINE

(213) 683-9513 (213) 683-4013 FAX Peter.Gratzinger@mto.com

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page12 of 60

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page13 of 60

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE THIRTY-FIFTH FLOOR L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 7 1- 15 6 0 T E L E P H O N E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 3 - 9 10 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 2 13 ) 6 8 7 - 3 7 0 2

560 MISSION STREET S A N F R A N C I S C O , C A L I F O R N I A 9 410 5 - 2 9 0 7 T E L E P H O N E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 0 0 F A C S I M I L E ( 415 ) 512 - 4 0 7 7

April 15, 2013

WRITERS DIRECT LINE

(213) 683-9513 (213) 683-4013 FAX Peter.Gratzinger@mto.com

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page17 of 60

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document173-10 Filed05/28/13 Page18 of 60

TELEPHONIC HEARING BEFORE JUDGE VAUGHN WALKER - 04/17/2013

RAMBUS, INC. vs. STMICROELECTRONICS

CONDENSED TRANSCRIPT AND CONCORDANCE

10:09 o'clock a.m.

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE

MR. HOLBREICH: Well, we think that the difference

And here, we're talking this is at the

And given what honestly kind of surprised us

So if we're talking about the burden of trying

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE

The theory in Power Integrations -- and I

That is a fairly exotic theory. I don't think

So it's not -- while I'm heartened to hear

Now, the other thing I was surprised to hear

We've been moving to compel this information

And so that segues me to the second portion of

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE

We also have this outstanding request for

Your Honor granted relief and ordered ST to

So I can go through the sort of stages and

JUDGE WALKER: Well, it does seem to me, frankly,

You are correct, Mr. Gratzinger, it was my

You're also correct -- or at least it's my

I don't know if we've reached the point at

So what would be helpful, I think, is a

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE

I don't think it's practical to think that we

But, you know, perhaps three weeks from today,

And one other date that we're looking for,

And we would be willing to provide that

(19) April 24? (21) I guess. I'm looking at my calendar here.

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE

So you're not in a particularly happy

(1) discovery obligations, but I don't have that. (2)

And in the absence of that, what I'm inclined

So, honestly, Ms. Chow is the person closest

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE

MR. GRATZINGER: No, your Honor. I would -- I

(2) your Honor.

And certainly I can say that I think it would

So that -- of the things that have been

NOGARA REPORTING SERVICE