Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page1 of 10

EXHIBIT B

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page2 of 10

SK hynix Inc., et al. v. Rambus Inc.

Rambus Demonstratives re RAND Issues
Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW December 19, 2012

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page3 of 10

Legal Standard for Spoliation Sanction

In gauging the propriety of the sanction, the district court must take into account (1) the degree of fault of the party who altered or destroyed the evidence; (2) the degree of prejudice suffered by the opposing party; and (3) whether there is a lesser sanction that will avoid substantial unfairness to the opposing party .
The district court must select the least onerous sanction corresponding to the willfulness of the destructive act and the prejudice suffered by the victim.
Micron II, 645 F.3d at 1329 (citation omitted).

G01

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page4 of 10

Degree of Fault
The classic case of bad faith is one where the litigant intentionally destroys documents for the purpose of hiding adverse information.
9/21/12 Order at 56 (citing Micron II).

The evidence does not show that Rambus knowingly destroyed damaging evidence. Id.

G02

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page5 of 10

Degree of Prejudice
Hynixs equitable defenses require clear and convincing proof that (1) the patentee had a duty of disclosure to the standard setting organization, and (2) the patentee breached that duty. Hynix II, 645 F.3d at 1348 (citation omitted).
Rambuss pending applications did not have claims that read on the SDRAM standard.
Id. (citing Infineon).

G03

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page6 of 10

Degree of Prejudice
Because Rambuss pending applications did not read on SDRAM, the only possible area of prejudice was Hynixs claim of a JEDEC duty to disclose an intention to file or amend applications in the future.
For example, there may have been JEDEC materials or documents indicating an understanding among JEDEC members that they would disclose an intent to seek patent coverage of the SDRAM standard. 9/21/12 Order at 60.
G04

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page7 of 10

Written JEDEC Materials

JEDECs patent tracking lists are inconsistent with a duty to disclose intentions.
Phase III Findings at 26-27.

JEDEC minutes do not support a duty to disclose intentions. Id. at 18-19. Sign-in sheets and ballots say nothing about disclosing intentions. Id. at 16-17.

G05

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page8 of 10

Testimony of JEDEC Secretary

Q: Has there ever been a rule or policy of EIA or JEDEC that a member company is supposed to reveal its intention, intention to file patent applications in the future?

A: I dont believe anybody has said anything about future. I dont believe I have ever seen that in any of the patent policy wording I have ever seen.
12/20/2000 Dep. of JEDEC secretary Kenneth McGhee (625:20-626:4) (objection omitted). Admitted at Phase III trial.

G06

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page9 of 10

RAND Rate

G07

The Other DRAM Rate Is the Best Evidence of the RAND Rate
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4228-2 Filed12/26/12 Page10 of 10

Negotiated during the 1995-96 timeframe for RAND negotiations. Phase III Findings at 37.
Hynix intended SyncLink to be a high-speed main memory DRAM.
TX 6120 at 4; TX 3193 at 4, 11, 13, 17.

Rambus disclosed to Hynix its belief that SyncLink would likely infringe. Phase III Findings at 37. Hynix agreed to pay 2.5% royalty for sales of noncompatible DRAMs for the life of Rambus patents.
Id. at 42.
G08