United States District Court For The Northern District of California San Jose Division

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2473 Filed 10/25/2008 Page 1 of 13
1 TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP

DANIEL J. FURNISS (SBN 73531) djfurniss@townsend.com
2 THEODORE G. BROWN, III (SBN 114672) tgbrown@townsend.com
JORDAN TRENT JONES (SBN 166600) jtjones@townsend.com
3 379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
4 Telephone: (650) 326-2400; Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
5 THELEN LLP
KENNETH L. NISSLY (SBN 77589) kennissly@thelen.com
6 SUSAN van KEULEN (SBN 136060) svankeulen@thelen.com
GEOFFREY H. YOST (SBN 159687) gyost@thelen.com
7 225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200
San Jose, California 95113
8 Telephone: (408) 292-5800; Facsimile: (408) 287-8040
9 O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
KENNETH R. O'ROURKE (SBN 120144) korourke@omm.com
10 WALLACE A. ALLAN (SBN 102054) tallan@omm.com
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1060
11 Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
Telephone: (213) 430-6000; Facsimile (213) 430-6407
12
Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs
13 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX
14 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and
15 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17 SAN JOSE DIVISION
18 RAMBUS INC.,
Plaintiff, Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
19 v.
HYNIX’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
20 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX JUDGMENT FOR THE
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX PREVENTION OF DOUBLE
21 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING RECOVERY OF DAMAGES
AMERICA INC., RELATING TO HYNIX’S SALES OF
22 DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, AND GDDR3
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., PRODUCTS (MSJ # 11)
23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Date: December 2, 2008
24 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, Time: 2:00 p.m.
L.P., Location: Courtroom 6, 4th Floor
25 Ctrm: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
26 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
U.S.A.,
27
Defendants
28
HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOUBLE DAMAGES RELATING TO
HYNIX’S SALES OF DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, AND GDDR3 PRODUCTS (MSJ # 11) – NO. C 05-00334 RMW
1 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX
2 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
3 U.K. LTD., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,
4
Counterclaim Plaintiffs,
5 v.
6 RAMBUS INC.,
7 Counterdefendant.
8
9 DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL

10 THIS ENVELOPE CONTAINS INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN DESIGNATED AS
OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY OR CONFIDENTIAL PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTIVE
11 ORDER ENTERED IN THIS CASE AND IS NOT TO BE OPENED OR ITS CONTENTS
REVEALED ABSENT A COURT ORDER OR STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOUBLE DAMAGES RELATING TO
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................2
4 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................................3
5 A. Rambus I Damages..............................................................................................................3
6 B. Significance of Hynix’s Pre-2006 DDR2+ Product Sales...................................................3
7 C. Rambus II – Rambus’s Damage Calculations Regarding Hynix’s
DDR2+ Products .................................................................................................................4
8
III. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................................4
9
A. Standard for Granting Summary Judgment .........................................................................4
10
IV. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................................5
11
A. The Prohibition Against Double Recovery Prevents Rambus From
12 Seeking Damages for Hynix’s Sales of DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and
GDDR3 Products In Both Rambus I and Rambus II...........................................................5
13
B. Damages for Hynix’s Post-2005 Sales of DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and
14 GDDR3 Products Should Be Litigated in Rambus II..........................................................6
15 1. Litigation In Rambus II Would Provide For Jury
Determination of Damages......................................................................................6
16
3. Rambus’s Current Damages Calculations in Rambus II Include
17 Hynix’s Pre-2006 Sales and Post-2005 Sales of DDR2+
Products. ..................................................................................................................7
18
CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................................8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOUBLE DAMAGES RELATING TO i
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 Page
3 Cases
4 Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp.,
466 F.3d 1000 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................... 5
5
Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB,
6 410 F.3d 701 (Fed. Cir. 2005). ............................................................................................................ 4
7 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,
477 U.S. 242 (1986) ........................................................................................................................ 4, 5
8
Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach.,
9 731 F.2d 831 (Fed. Cir. 1984). ............................................................................................................ 4
10 Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson,
550 F.Supp.2d 1102 (N.D. Cal. 2008)................................................................................................. 6
11
Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc.,
12 295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................................................6
13 Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett,
477 U.S. 317 (1986) ............................................................................................................................ 5
14
Computer Associates Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc.,
15 982 F.2d 693 (2nd Cir. 1992) .............................................................................................................. 5
16 Gasaway v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
26 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................................. 5
17
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,
18 492 U.S. 33 (1989) .............................................................................................................................. 7
19 Lamle v. Mattel, Inc.,
394 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2005). .......................................................................................................... 4
20
Masson v. New Yorker Magazine,
21 501 U.S. 496 (1991) ............................................................................................................................ 5
22 Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.,
504 U.S. 374 (1992) ............................................................................................................................ 6
23
O’Shea v. Littleton,
24 414 U.S. 488 (1974) ............................................................................................................................ 6
25 Oiness v. Walgreen Co.,
838 F.Supp. 1420 (D.Colo. 1993) ....................................................................................................... 6
26
Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp.,
27 504 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................................... 6
28 Schoenthal v. Irving Trust Co.,
287 U.S. 92 (1932) .............................................................................................................................. 7
HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOUBLE DAMAGES RELATING TO ii
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (con’t)
2 Page
4 Rule
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 ................................................................................................................................ 4, 5
6 Other Authorities
7 Annotated Patent Digest § 30:4 ............................................................................................................... 5
8 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil § 38.33................................................................................................ 6
9 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil § 38.42................................................................................................6
10 Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil § 56.31................................................................................................ 5
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOUBLE DAMAGES RELATING TO iii
1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
3
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 2, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as this
4
matter may be heard before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, United States District Court for the
5
Northern District of California, 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95110, defendants and
6
counterclaimants Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix
7
Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd. and Hynix
8
Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively "Hynix") will and hereby do move this Court for an
9
order Granting Hynix’s Motion For Summary Judgment For the Prevention of Double Recovery of
10
Damages Relating To Hynix’s Sales of DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and GDDR3 Products (MSJ # 11).
11
This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the accompanying Memorandum of
12
Points and Authorities, the supporting Declarations of Theodore G. Brown, III and Sven Raz in
13
Support of Hynix’s motions for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions, the pleadings and papers
14
on file in this action and related actions, and such other matters as may be presented to the Court at the
15
time of the hearing.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
HYNIX'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE PREVENTION OF DOUBLE DAMAGES RELATING TO 1
HYNIX’S SALES OF DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, AND GDDR3 PRODUCTS (MSJ # 11) – CASE NO. C 05-00334 RMW
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 In a related case, 5:00-cv-20905-RMW (“Rambus I” or "20905 action"), the patent jury
4 awarded damages for Hynix’s pre-2006 sales of certain of the Accused Products (DDR2, DDR3,
5 gDDR2, and GDDR3, hereinafter referred to as “DDR2+” for convenience) that also are at issue in the
6 present case (“Rambus II” or "334 action") Rambus is seeking post-verdict/pre-judgment damages for
7 Hynix’s post-2005 sales of these same DDR2+ products, thereby placing a double-recovery issue
8 before the court. (Brown Decl., Ex. M, pp. 20-21; and Ex. N, pp. 2-3.) Hynix requests the Court
9 resolve these issues by (1) granting summary judgment that, as a matter of law, Rambus cannot
10 recover damages in this action for any Hynix sales or manufacture of DDR2+ products prior to 2006
11 and (2) permitting Rambus to seek the requested post-verdict damages for these Accused Products
12 only in Rambus II. As an alternative, the Court should grant summary judgment that, as a matter of
13 law, Rambus cannot recover in this action any damages for any sales or manufacturing activities
14 regarding the products accused in this action for which Rambus seeks post-verdict royalties in Case
15 No. 00-vc-20905.
16 At least two reasons exist why the Court should address the requested post-verdict damages for
17 DDR2+ products accused in this action rather than by way of adding any such damages to the remitted
18 damage amount in the 20905 action. First, assessment in Rambus II provides jury determination of
19 the requested damages, which is consistent with Hynix’s Seventh Amendment rights. Second,
20 despite the fact that Rambus’s damages expert acknowledges the existence of this “double-recovery”
21 issue, Rambus includes both Hynix’s pre-2006 and post-2005 sales of these products in its Rambus II
22 damages calculations, thereby demonstrating that restricting consideration of post-2005 DDR2+ sales
23 as to Rambus II will not cause any prejudice to Rambus.
24 But, if Rambus persists in seeking additional damages in the 20905 action for post-2005 sales
25 or manufacturing of Hynix's DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, and/or GDDR4 products, the Court
26 should then grant summary judgment that Rambus cannot obtain such damages for such products in
27 the 334 action, to the extent they are accounted for in the 20905 action.
28
1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

2 A. Rambus I Damages
3 In the 2006 Rambus I patent trial (case 5:00-cv-20905-RMW), the jury found that certain of
4 Hynix’s products) infringed Rambus’s asserted patents and awarded damages. (Brown Decl., Ex. O,
5 pp. 1, 3; Ex. J, pp. 1-2.) The products that were found to infringe included SDRAM (representative of
6 SDRAM, SGRAM, and Handy SDRAM products) and DDR SDRAM (representative of DDR
7 SDRAM, DDR2 SDRAM, DDR3 SDRAM, GDDR SDRAM, GDDR2 SDRAM, GDDR3 SDRAM,
8 AND DDR SGRAM products). (Brown Decl., Ex. L, p. 6.) Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that
9 Hynix’s SDRAM and DDR sales through December 31, 2005 were $1,702,544,332 and
10 $2,742,557,314, respectively. (Brown Decl., Ex. J, p. 2, n.2.) By order dated July 14, 2006, the Court
11 remitted the jury’s award of damages to $133,584,129 (1% royalty applied to SDRAM sales combined
12 with 4.25% royalty applied to DDR sales). (Brown Decl., Ex. J (“Remittitur Order”), p. 7.) On May
13 9, 2008, Rambus requested supplemental damages for the post-verdict/pre-judgment time frame (i.e.,
14 the post-2005 to judgment time frame). (Brown Decl., Ex. M, pp. 20-21.) That motion is fully
15 briefed and remains pending before this Court. Rambus’s request encompasses, in part, several
16 products that are at issue in the current Rambus II litigation (i.e., Hynix’s DDR2, DDR3,
17 gDDR2 and GDDR3 products) (emphasis added).
18 B. Significance of Hynix’s Pre-2006 DDR2+ Product Sales

19 The Rambus I damages for Hynix’s sale of DDR2+ products represent a small portion of the
20 total damages for the pre-2006 time period covered by the jury verdict. The damages awarded in
21 Rambus I, and confirmed in the Remittitur Order, were based in part on Hynix’s pre-2006 sales of its
22 DDR2 SDRAM, DDR3 SDRAM, gDDR2 SDRAM and GDDR3 SDRAM, products. (Brown Decl.,
23 Ex. L, p. 6 and Ex. J, pp. 1-2.) REDACTED

24 REDACTED (Raz Decl., Ex. 21, Table 11.) Applying the 4.25% royalty
rate from the Remittitur Order to the REDACTED yields REDACTED , which represents
REDACTED
25 of the
26 damages REDACTED for the time period covered by the Remittitur Order (i.e., through December
27 31, 2005). Rambus also seeks damages for alleged infringement by DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and
28 GDDR3 products in this case, thereby creating a potential double recovery for Rambus. As such a
1 double recovery is prohibited by law, this Court must determine the proper case, if any, for
2 determining damages for these products: Rambus I or Rambus II.
3 C. Rambus II – Rambus’s Damage Calculations Regarding Hynix’s DDR2+ Products
4 Rambus recognizes the existence of this double-recovery issue. Rambus’s damages expert,
5 David J. Teece, acknowledges that such a double-recovery issue exists due to Rambus REDACTED
6 REDACTED
7 REDACTED (Raz. Decl., Ex. 20, p. 50.) Dr. Teece has also
8 acknowledged the problematic nature of allowing a plaintiff a “double recovery.” (Raz Decl., Ex. 20,
9 p. 49) In fact, Dr. Teece’s expert report on damages for the present litigation includes calculations
10 regarding Hynix’s pre-2006 and post-2005 sales of DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and GDDR3 products.
11 (Raz Decl., Ex. 20, p. 50.) Dr. Teece stated that he expects and intends to supplement his report
12 and/or conform his testimony at trial in Rambus II to the Court’s resolution of the disputed sales in
13 Rambus I in order to avoid any “double recovery.” (Raz Decl., Ex. 20, p. 50.)
14 III. LEGAL STANDARDS
15 A. Standard for Granting Summary Judgment
16 "Summary Judgment is as appropriate in a patent case as in any other." Barmag Barmer
17 Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Mach., 731 F.2d 831, 835 (Fed. Cir. 1984). With regard to procedural
18 issues not unique to patent law, the law of the regional circuit controls. Lamle v. Mattel, Inc., 394
19 F.3d 1355, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005). This includes summary-judgment motions filed pursuant to Federal
20 Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Air Turbine Tech., Inc. v. Atlas Copco AB, 410 F.3d 701, 707
21 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Because summary judgment is not unique to patent law, Ninth Circuit law controls
22 the procedural issues at this stage of the case.
23 Summary judgment is proper when the pleadings, discovery and affidavits show that there is
24 “no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
25 law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Material facts are those which may affect the outcome of the case.
26 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). A dispute as to a material fact is genuine
27 if there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party. Id.
28 The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of identifying those portions of the
1 pleadings, discovery and affidavits that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.
2 Celotex Corp. v. Cattrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). On an issue for which the opposing party will
3 have the burden of proof at trial, the moving party need only point out “that there is an absence of
4 evidence to support the nonmoving party's case.” Id. at 325. Summary judgment is most appropriate
5 when disputed issues are legal rather than factual. See generally Moore’s Federal Practice – Civil §
6 56.31.
7 Once the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the
8 pleadings and, by its own affidavits or discovery, “set out specific facts showing a genuine issue for
9 trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Mere allegations or denials do not defeat a moving party's allegations.
10 Id.; Gasaway v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 957, 960 (9th Cir. 1994). The court may not
11 make credibility determinations, and inferences to be drawn from the facts must be viewed in the light
12 most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, 501 U.S. 496, 520
13 (1991); Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
14 The moving party may “move, with or without supporting affidavits, for summary judgment
15 on all or part of the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “A supporting or opposing affidavit must be made
16 on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that the affiant is
17 competent to testify on the matters stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e).
18 IV. ARGUMENT
19 A. The Prohibition Against Double Recovery Prevents Rambus From Seeking
Damages for Hynix’s Sales of DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and GDDR3 Products In Both
20 Rambus I and Rambus II.
21 It is axiomatic that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover twice for the same injury. See
22 Computer Associates Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 720 (2nd Cir. 1992). This general
23 prohibition applies to patent infringement damages. Aero Products Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation
24 Corp., 466 F.3d 1000, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2006); see also Annotated Patent Digest § 30:4 (Double
25 recovery prohibited). A patentee is only entitled to one recovery of damages for each infringing sale
26 (act) and cannot realize a "further recovery for the same sale" by asserting another patent.
27 Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002). As Hynix’s sales of
28 DDR2+ products were at issue in Rambus I and are at issue in Rambus II, the Court must prohibit
1 Rambus from seeking duplicative damages. Thus, the Court must prevent Rambus from seeking a
2 double recovery by excluding these pre-2006 sales from any damages calculations in Rambus II.
3 Additionally, the Court must prevent Rambus from seeking a double recovery for Hynix’s post-2005
4 sales of these products.
5 B. Damages for Hynix’s Post-2005 Sales of DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, and GDDR3
Products Should Be Litigated in Rambus II.
6
1. Litigation In Rambus II Would Provide For Jury Determination of
7 Damages.
8 In deciding whether to allocate the determination of the requested post-2005 damages to
9 Rambus I or II, an important consideration is that allocation to Rambus II would provide for jury
10 determination of damages, where allocation to Rambus I would require equitable relief. In general,
11 the determination of damages for patent infringement carries a Seventh Amendment right to a jury
12 trial. Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 838 F.Supp. 1420, 1421 (D.Colo. 1993); See also Moore’s Federal
13 Practice – Civil § 38.33[6]. Although equitable relief in the form of royalties for post-verdict
14 infringement may be appropriate in some circumstances, Hynix’s Seventh Amendment rights militate
15 towards a jury determination in Rambus II as the correct method of adjudicating damages in this case.
16 See Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1314-16 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Boston
17 Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 550 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (characterizing
18 royalties for future infringement as a form of equitable relief).
19 Submission of the post-2005 sales damages issue to the Rambus II jury instead of granting the
20 requested Rambus I equitable relief is supported by the fact that equitable relief is not available where
21 an adequate remedy at law exists. Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 504 U.S. 374, 381 (1992)
22 (“basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence that courts of equity should not act … when the moving party
23 has an adequate remedy at law and will not suffer irreparable injury if denied equitable relief”)
24 (quoting O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 499 (1974)). Thus, “[f]ederal courts cannot grant
25 equitable relief without first determining that [the] plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.” Moore’s
26 Federal Practice – Civil § 38.42[2] Adequacy of Legal Remedy. The Supreme Court has stated that
27 “the long-settled rule that suits in equity will not be sustained where a complete remedy exists at law
28 …, ‘serves to guard the right of trial by jury preserved by the Seventh Amendment and to that end it
1 should be liberally construed.’” Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 48 (1989) (quoting
2 Schoenthal v. Irving Trust Co., 287 U.S. 92, 94 (1932)). Thus, jury determination of DDR2+ royalties
3 in Rambus II (if Rambus prevails on liability) plainly provides Rambus with an adequate remedy at
4 law that trumps the equitable relief of additional, post verdict damages in Rambus I in order to
5 liberally construe the “long-settled” equitable relief rule that serves to guard the Seventh Amendment
6 right to trial by jury.
7 3. Rambus’s Current Damages Calculations in Rambus II Include Hynix’s
Pre-2006 Sales and Post-2005 Sales of DDR2+ Products.
8
9 As discussed above, Rambus includes Hynix’s pre-2006 sales and post-2005 sales of DDR2+
10 in its current Rambus II damages calculations, despite recognizing that the prohibition against double
11 recovery will prevent Rambus from collecting twice on the same sales. At a minimum, this reflects
12 recognition on the part of Rambus that allocation of any damages for Hynix’s post-2005 sales of these
13 products to Rambus II is a foreseeable result of this double recovery issue. Further, because Rambus’s
14 expert already has opined (albeit errantly) on a reasonable royalty for sales of these parts, Rambus will
15 not suffer any prejudice submitting the DDR2+ damages issue to the jury in the present case, if and
16 when appropriate
17 ////
18 ////
19 ////
20 ////
21 ////
22 ////
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26 ////
27 ////
28 ////
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons presented above, Hynix respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion
3 and to issue an order excluding Hynix’s pre-2006 sales of DDR2+ products from any damages
4 calculations in the present case and allocating the determination of any damages for Hynix’s
5 post-2005 sales of DDR2+ products to the present case. Alternatively, Hynix respectfully requests the
6 Court should summary judgment that, as a matter of law, Rambus cannot recover in this action any
7 damages for any sales or manufacturing activities regarding the products accused in this action for
8 which Rambus seeks post-verdict royalties in Case No. 00-vc-20905.
10
11 DATED: October 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

12
13 By: /s/ Theodore G. Brown, III

Daniel J. Furniss
14 Theodore G. Brown, III
Jordan Trent Jones
15 TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
16 Kenneth L. Nissly
Susan van Keulen
17 Geoffrey H. Yost
THELEN LLP
18
Kenneth R. O'Rourke
19 Wallace A. Allan
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
20
Attorneys for
21 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC.,
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,
22 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX
23 SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
24 61628604 v1
25
26
27
28

United States District Court For The Northern District of California San Jose Division

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

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

United States District Court For The Northern District of California San Jose Division

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2473 Filed 10/25/2008 Page 1 of 13

1 TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP

1 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

9 DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL

1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (con’t)

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

23 as to Rambus II will not cause any prejudice to Rambus.

1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

17 gDDR2 and GDDR3 products) (emphasis added).

18 B. Significance of Hynix’s Pre-2006 DDR2+ Product Sales

23 Ex. L, p. 6 and Ex. J, pp. 1-2.) REDACTED

8 which Rambus seeks post-verdict royalties in Case No. 00-vc-20905.

11 DATED: October 24, 2008 Respectfully submitted,

13 By: /s/ Theodore G. Brown, III

Вам также может понравиться