Attorney List On Signature Page

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2049 Filed 08/14/2008 Page 1 of 24
1 Attorney list on signature page

2
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN JOSE DIVISION
6
RAMBUS, INC.,
7
Plaintiff,
8 Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
v.
9
10 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE
SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S FINAL
11 INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS,
AMERICA INC.,
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
12
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., [PUBLIC VERSION]
13 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
14 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
15 L.P., Hearing Date: September 19, 2008
Time: 9:00 a.m.
16 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Courtroom: 6, 4th floor
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
17 U.S.A.,
18
19 Defendants.
20
21
RAMBUS, INC.,
22
Plaintiff,
23
v.
24 Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
25
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
26 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
27 L.P.,
28 Defendants.
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS Case No. C 05-02298
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 Page
3 I. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2
4 II. Background ....................................................................................................................... 3
III. Argument .......................................................................................................................... 7
5
A. Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions Should Be Stricken for Failure
6 to Comply with the Patent Local Rules to the Extent They Purport to
Accuse Samsung’s Memory Controllers............................................................... 7
7 1. The Final Infringement Contentions represent the first time Rambus
has purported to accuse memory controllers............................................. 7
8
2. Even Rambus’s belated charts, which for the first time purport to
9 accuse controllers, do not comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1................. 8
B. Rambus Cannot Satisfy Either of Patent Local Rule 3-6’s Exceptions to the
10 Bar to Late Amendment of Infringement Contentions. ...................................... 10
11 C. Rambus Cannot Demonstrate the Good Cause Required by Patent Local
Rule 3-7 to Add Memory Controllers as Accused Products This Close to
12 Trial ..................................................................................................................... 11
1. Rambus cannot demonstrate the necessary diligence ............................. 12
13
2. Permitting Rambus to accuse controllers at this late date would
14 prejudice Samsung .................................................................................. 14
3. The established considerations weigh in favor of striking the Final
15 Infringement Contentions with respect to controllers............................. 17
16 D. Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions Should Be Stricken for Failure
to Comply with the Patent Local Rules to the Extent They Purport to
17 Accuse GDDR5................................................................................................... 18
1. Rambus did not seek leave to add GDDR5 products to the case ............ 18
18
2. Rambus did not serve a claim chart for any GDDR5 product as
19 required by the Patent Local Rules ......................................................... 18
3. Rambus should not be permitted to add GDDR5 to the case at this
20 late date ................................................................................................... 19
21 IV. Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 19
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS i Case No. C 05-02298
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 CASES
3 Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., No. C05-03117, 2007 WL
4 2221029 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2007) ............................................................................. 16, 17
5 Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prods. Inc., No. C 04-03526, 2008 WL
6 2168379 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2008) .................................................................................. 14
7 Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., No. C 95-1987, 1998 WL 775115 (N.D. Cal.
8 Nov. 5, 1998) .................................................................................................. 11, 13, 15, 17
9 Berger v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., No. C 05-2523, 2006 WL 1095914 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25,
10 2006) ............................................................................................................... 11, 12, 13, 16
11 Berger v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., No. C 05-2523, 2006 WL 2038324 (N.D. Cal. July 17,
12 2006) aff'd, 214 Fed. Apx. 981 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 48 (U.S.
13 Oct. 1, 2007)...................................................................................................................... 10
14 Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., No. C 05-
15 04158, 2008 WL 624771 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2008).................................................... 12, 14
16 General Atomics v. Axis-Shield ASA, No. C 05-04074, 2006 WL 2329464 (N.D. Cal. Aug.
17 9, 2006) ............................................................................................................................. 14
18 Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp., No. C02-04709, 2003 WL 23142198 (N.D. Cal. July
19 9, 2003) ............................................................................................................................... 7
20 Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, No. C 02-3378, 2006 WL 463549
21 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006)............................................................................................ 13, 17
22 Integrated Circuit Sys., Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Co., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1106 (N.D.
23 Cal. 2004).......................................................................................................................... 11
24 Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. C 01-1640, 2003 WL 23120174 (N.D.
25 Cal. Dec. 1, 2003) ............................................................................................................. 15
26 LG Electrics Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ............. 8, 13, 15, 16
27 MEMC Electric Materials v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., No. C 01-4925, 2004
28 WL 5363616 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2004)........................................................... 11, 12, 13, 16

FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS ii Case No. C 05-02298
1 Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, No. 5:01-CV-344, 2004 WL 5586072 (E.D. Tex.
2 Sept. 10, 2004.............................................................................................................. 15, 16
3 Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am. Inc., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007) .............................. 10, 12, 14
4 O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....... 11, 12, 14
5 Orion IP, LLC v. Staples, Inc., 407 F. Supp. 2d 815 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2006)............................... 9
6 Safeclick, LLC v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, No. 06-1182, 2006 WL 3017347 (Fed. Cir. Oct.
7 23, 2006) ............................................................................................................................. 9
8 ZiLOG, Inc. v. Quicklogic Corp., No. C03-03725, 2006 WL 563057 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6,
9 2006) ................................................................................................................................. 14
10 Zoltar Satellite Alarm Sys., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., No. C06-00044, 2008 WL 913326
11 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2008) ............................................................................................. 11, 17
12 LOCAL RULES
13 PATENT L.R. 3-1(a)-(c).................................................................................................................... 7
14 PATENT L.R. 3-6 ............................................................................................................................ 10
15 PATENT L.R. 3-7 ............................................................................................................................ 11
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS iii Case No. C 05-02298
1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 19, 2008, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter
4 as this matter may be heard, Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co.,
5 Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., and Samsung Austin
6 Semiconductor, L.P. (collectively, “Samsung”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order
7 striking portions of Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions.
8 Samsung’s motion is based upon the memorandum set forth below, the accompanying
9 declaration of Carmen E. Bremer and documentary evidence in support of the Motion, the
10 proposed order submitted herewith, the complete record of this action, the evidence and argument
11 presented at the hearing on this Motion, and all matters of which the Court may take judicial
12 notice.
13 RELIEF REQUESTED
14 Samsung respectfully seeks an Order striking those portions of Rambus’s Final
15 Infringement Contentions that purport to accuse Samsung’s memory controller products and
16 GDDR5 memory products.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FINAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS 1 Case No. C 05-02298
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2
I. INTRODUCTION
3
4 For the past three years, Rambus made the conscious decision not to pursue the claims
5 plead in its original 2005 complaint against memory controllers, which are semiconductor devices
6 that control, among other things, DRAMs. In each of Rambus’s three sets of infringement
7 contentions (which were filed in April 2006, and February and July 2007), Rambus completely
8 omitted the term “controllers” from the mandated list of Accused Products, did not identify any
9 patent claims that it was asserting against “controllers,” and did not disclose, as was required, its
10 infringement theory in a chart showing where each element of any asserted claim could be found
11 within the accused “controllers.” Nor did Rambus challenge Samsung’s objections to discovery
12 requests that covered “Accused Products,” a boilerplate defined term that, unlike each version of
13 the infringement contentions, included a vague and undefined reference to “controllers.” As a
14 consequence, from June 2005 until Rambus suddenly sent Samsung a belated discovery letter in
15 mid-July 2008, the parties had not discussed, much less litigated, a single issue (discovery, claim
16 construction, summary judgment, or otherwise) concerning controllers in connection with
17 Rambus’s patent claims.
18 On August 1, 2008, in what were supposed to be its Final Infringement Contentions
19 containing at most minor modifications as permitted by Patent Local Rule 3-6 in response to the
20 Court’s claim construction ruling or an opposing party’s invalidity contentions, Rambus reversed
21 course and added more than seventy new products, including seventy-two controllers, to its list of
22 Accused Products. Significantly, these newly accused controller products perform different
23 functions, have different circuitry, and are simply different products than DRAM memory
24 products, which prior to August 1, 2008 had been the sole focus of Rambus’s preliminary
25 infringement contentions, and consequently its patent-infringement claims. As a result, Rambus
26 violated in material respects the letter and spirit of the Patent Local Rules by withholding its
27 infringement theories until the end of fact discovery and just months before trial, and then
28 unexpectedly adding a host of new products without leave of Court or other authority to do so.

1 Nor has Rambus even at this late date fully disclosed its infringement theory. Its 1 ½ page
2 chart (which is supposed to cover seventy-two controllers) does not show where in any accused
3 controller the elements of the asserted claims can be found. Instead, Rambus only purports to
4 describe how three types of DDR2 SDRAM can interface with and are controlled by a memory
5 controller—not to demonstrate that Samsung’s memory controllers are capable of doing so, or
6 where in Samsung’s memory controllers the requisite circuitry and other claim elements can be
7 found. These deficiencies are, in any event, far overshadowed by the timing of Rambus’s attempt
8 to add a host of new products and infringement theories to this litigation. Accordingly, Rambus’s
9 infringement contentions must be stricken with respect to controllers.
10 In addition, Rambus improperly added new SDRAM products (i.e., GDDR5 SDRAM) to
11 its list of Accused Products in its Final Infringement Contentions (and without even including an
12 infringement chart for GDDR5). Not only did Rambus fail to seek leave to amend its contentions
13 to include (by reference to a single GDDR5 product on its list of Accused Product) GDDR5, but
14 Rambus also cannot show good cause for its late amendment, given that Samsung’s development
15 of GDDR5 has been public knowledge for at least a year. Rambus clearly had no right to
16 “accuse” GDDR5 in the manner that it did in its Final Infringement Contentions (i.e., without
17 even serving a claim chart) under the Patent Local Rules and, for similar reasons set forth above,
18 the Court should also strike Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions to the extent that Rambus
19 added new GDDR5 products.
20
21 II. BACKGROUND
22 Rambus and Samsung entered into an SDR/DDR License in July 2000, which Rambus
23 terminated in June 2005. See, e.g., Declaration of Carmen E. Bremer in Support of Samsung’s
24 Mot. to Strike Portions of Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions (“Bremer Decl.”) Ex. 1
25 (SDR/DDR IC and SDR/DDR Memory Module Patent License Agreement Between Rambus Inc.
26 and Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Oct. 20, 2000 [“SDR/DDR License”]). This license covered,
27 among other things, certain specifically defined types of memory controllers that control, among
28 other things, Samsung’s SDRAMs. Id. at 1.3. Memory controllers, however, represent a small

1 fraction of Samsung’s memory sales relative to SDRAMs, and Rambus received most of its
2 royalty revenue from Samsung based on SDRAMs, not controllers. See, e.g., Bremer Decl. Ex. 1
3 (SDR/DDR License); Ex. 2 (SEC’s Royalty Statement for 4Q, 2000).
4 REDACTED
5
8 Likewise, after Rambus purported to terminate the license in June 2005 based on a 2004
9 audit of Samsung’s controller sales, Rambus never sued Samsung for the alleged breach. See
10 Bremer Decl. Ex. 4 (Letter from J. Danforth to Whom It May Concern, June 6, 2005).
11 Against this background, Rambus filed the instant actions against Samsung on June 6,
12 2005, naming several generations of Samsung’s Synchronous DRAM devices as accused
13 products, and including a generic reference to “controllers,” without identifying which controller
14 products it was accusing. See Bremer Decl. Ex. 5 (Rambus’s Am. Compl., June 6, 2005) at ¶¶
15 12-13. In accordance with this Court’s Patent Local Rules and various case-management orders
16 of the Court, Rambus has served over the course of the litigation a series of disclosures relating to
17 its infringement contentions and the products accused of infringement. Yet Rambus has
18 manifested a decided—if not total—lack of interest in Samsung’s controllers with respect to its
19 patent claims at every turn of this litigation, until, as discussed below, July 14, 2008.
20 In the ‘2298 case, Rambus’s April 3, 2006 Local Rule 3-1(b) Disclosures identified only
21 Samsung DRAM devices as accused products:
22 ACCUSED SAMSUNG DEVICES
Based on currently available information, Rambus is aware that at least the
23 Samsung devices identified in the attached Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H
infringe the Rambus Patents. These Samsung devices include at least: Samsung’s
24 SDRAM (“Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory”) devices; Samsung’s
SDR-SGRAM (“Synchronous Graphic Random Access Memory”) devices;
25 Samsung’s Mobile-SDRAM (“Mobile Synchronous Dynamic Random Access
Memory”) devices; Samsung’s DDR-SDRAM (“Double-Data-Rate Synchronous
26 Dynamic Random Access Memory”) devices; Samsung’s Mobile-DDR-SDRAM
(“Samsung Mobile Double-Data-Rate Synchronous Dynamic Random Access
27 Memory”) devices; and Samsung’s DDR-SGRAM (“Double-Data-Rate
Synchronous Graphic Random Access Memory”) devices.
28

1 See Bremer Decl. Ex. 6 (Rambus’s Local Rule 3-1(b) Disclosures, Dated Apr. 3, 2006) at 3. The
2 same is true for Rambus’s February 23, 2007 Local Rule 3-1 Disclosures and Rambus’s July 20,
3 2007 Supplemental Local Rule 3-1 Disclosures, both served in the ‘334 case. See Bremer Decl.
4 Ex. 7 (Rambus’s Local R. 3-1 Disclosures, Feb. 23, 2007), at 3-4; Ex. 8 (Rambus’s Local R. 3-1
5 Supp. Disclosures, Dated July 20, 2007), at 4-5.
6 Rambus failed to mention, much less specifically identify, memory controllers—by name
7 or part number—as Accused Products as required by the Patent Local Rules in its 3-1 Disclosures
8 in either the ‘2298 or the ‘334 case. Indeed, Rambus did not list or identify memory controllers
9 as Accused Products in any of its Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PICs”), nor did
10 Rambus provide claim charts demonstrating how the elements of any asserted claim were met by
11 any Samsung memory controller.1 And at no point in any of Rambus’s infringement contentions
12 in this case has Rambus identified a Samsung controller and matched it up to the elements of any
13 asserted claim. Rather, prior to August 1, 2008, Rambus identified and charted in its PICs only
14 DRAM products (memory devices and memory modules), which are distinct from memory
15 controllers.
16 Rambus also served discovery requests that included the term “Accused Products,” a
17 boilerplate defined term that included a vague reference to “controllers” that was entirely out of
18 synch with Rambus’s definition of “Accused Products” in its infringement contentions, which
19 made no reference to controllers.2 Also, like its two complaints, Rambus’s discovery requests did
20
1
The “Preliminary Infringement Contentions” include Rambus’s Disclosures of Asserted Claims
21 and Preliminary Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules, dated April 3, 2006
(Case No. 05-02298) and February 23, 2007 (Case No. 05-00334), and Rambus’s Supplemental
22 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement Contentions, dated July 20, 2008
(Case Nos. 05-02298 and 05-00334).
23 2
It was not until July 2008 that Rambus issued discovery requests (only two of them) that were
24 specifically directed to “controllers.” Rambus issued these two requests after the claim
construction process, near the close of fact discovery, and did not define which controllers were
25 accused, or what its infringement theory was with respect to them. Samsung objected to these
requests, including on the grounds that Rambus had not included controllers in its infringement
26 contentions. See Bremer Decl. Ex. 9 at 4 (Samsung’s Resps. and Objs. to Rambus’ Sixth Set of
Reqs. for Produc. of Docs., Aug. 4, 2008) (“Samsung further objects to the definitions of
27 ‘Relevant Products’ and ‘GDDR5 Products’ to the extent such definitions include products or
features of products that Rambus has not accused of infringement in its First Amended
28 Complaint, its Counterclaims on Reply, its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary
Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules ‘Preliminary Infringement
1 not define the term or, more importantly, identify which controller products it was accusing and
2 on what theory. See, e.g., Bremer Decl. Ex. 10 (Rambus’s First Set of Reqs. for the Produc. of
3 Docs., Oct. 13, 2005). Samsung objected to these requests, see Bremer Decl. Ex. 11 (Samsung’s
4 Objs. and Resps. to Rambus’s First Set of Reqs. for Produc. of Docs., Mar. 23, 2007), which
5 Rambus ignored until July 14, 2008 (after the discovery cutoff for the September trial), when it
6 sent a belated letter challenging for the first time Samsung’s objections to Rambus’s expansive
7 discovery of technical and sales information relating to controllers. See, e.g., Bremer Decl. Ex.
8 12 (Ltr. from B. Ward to R. Berezin, Jul. 14, 2008).
9 On August 1, 2008, Rambus served its Final Infringement Contentions, in which it
10 identified more than seventy of Samsung’s memory controllers as Accused Products that were not
11 accused in any of Rambus’s preliminary infringement contentions. See Bremer Decl. Ex. 13
12 (Exhibit B to Rambus’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Final Infringement Contentions, Aug.
13 1, 2008). Rambus’s List of Accused Products served with its Final Infringement Contentions also
14 identified a Samsung GDDR5 product, but no claim chart was served for any GDDR5 product, as
15 required by the Patent Local Rules. Five days later, Rambus filed a motion to compel with the
16 Special Master in which it seeks an order requiring Samsung to produce technical information for
17 the seventy-two newly identified controller products and the newly identified GDDR5 product,
18 eight years of sales data relating to these products, and 30(b)(6) witnesses to testify about these
19 subjects. See Bremer Decl. Ex. 14 (Rambus’s Mot. to Compel Samsung to Produce Disc.
20 Relating to (1) Sales of Accused Products; and (2) Memory Controllers, Dated Aug. 6, 2008).
21 Rambus has therefore withheld virtually all disclosure and discovery with respect to its patent
22 infringement case against controllers and GDDR5, while seeking to compel Samsung to provide
23 full controller and GDDR5 discovery with no time for reciprocal fact discovery or to take
24 Contentions,’ and/or its Supplemental Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary
Infringement Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules ‘Supplemental Infringement
25 Contentions.’), and also to the specific requests that sought information relating to controllers.
See id. at 29-31, (“Samsung further objects to this Request as overly broad and unduly
26 burdensome to the extent it seeks information about products, ‘any controllers,’ [sic] and for
which Rambus has not specifically identified by product name or product number, as required by
27 the Local Patent Rules. Samsung objects to the Request in that it seeks the production of
documents that are not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
28 admissible evidence.”). Samsung did not agree to produce responsive documents. Id.

1 Rambus’s infringement theories into account as part of the now-completed claim construction
2 process.
3 III. ARGUMENT
4 A. Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions Should Be Stricken for Failure to
Comply with the Patent Local Rules to the Extent They Purport to Accuse
5 Samsung’s Memory Controllers.
6
1. The Final Infringement Contentions represent the first time Rambus
7 has purported to accuse memory controllers.
8
This Court’s Patent Local Rule 3-1 expressly requires a patent plaintiff to serve
9
infringement contentions that: (a) identify every asserted patent claim; (b) identify with
10
specificity the precise products accused of infringement; and (c) describe how or where each
11
element of each asserted claim is practiced by the defendant’s accused products. PATENT L.R. 3-
12
1(a)-(c). The rules plainly contemplate separate charts for each Accused Instrumentality. See,
13
e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. EMC Corp., No. C02-04709JFPVT, 2003 WL 23142198, at *1
14
(N.D. Cal. July 9, 2003). Rambus failed in each of its infringement contentions submitted prior to
15
August 1, 2008 to comply with these requirements for any Samsung memory controller.
16
Rambus’s contentions did not use the term “controllers” in its list of Accused Products, identify
17
claims asserted against controllers, or provide a chart showing where each element of each
18
asserted claim could be found any accused controller. See Bremer Decl. Exs. 6-8. Indeed, only
19
one chart submitted by Rambus before its Final Infringement Contentions contained the word
20
“controllers”—namely, the chart for U.S. Patent 6,715,020 (the “’5,020 patent”). See Bremer
21
Decl. Ex. 15 (Preliminary Infringement Contentions Claim Chart for Patent No. 6,715,020, Feb.
22
23, 2007). The ’5,020 chart, however, accused not memory controllers, but rather three types of
23
DRAMs (DDR2 SDRAM, GDDR2 SDRAM and DDR3 SDRAM), and merely purported to show
24
that these DRAMs interfaced with and were controlled by memory controllers. Id. The chart did
25
not purport to disclose in any form whether Samsung’s controllers (or which ones) were
26
compatible with and controlled the DRAMs in question, or how the controllers met each claim
27
element. Therefore, Samsung could not have known for nearly all of the litigation thus far that
28
Rambus intended to accuse controllers at the January patent trial, nor could it have known
1 Rambus’s infringement theory with regard to controllers.3 As a result, Rambus’s non-compliance

2 with the Patent Local Rules with respect to controllers was material in all pertinent respects.
3 Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions do nothing less than add at the last minute a
4 host of new infringement theories and issues never before disclosed to Samsung. Rambus
5 therefore is attempting to add an entirely new component to its infringement case, which clearly
6 is improper:
7 The Patent local rules were adopted by this district in order to give claim charts
more “bite.” The rules are designed to require parties to crystallize their theories
8 of the case early in the litigation and to adhere to those theories once they have
been disclosed . . . .Unlike the liberal policy for amending pleadings, the
9 philosophy behind amending claim charts is decidedly conservative, and designed
to prevent the “shifting sands” approach to claim construction.
10
11 LG Elecs. Inc. v. Q-Lity Computer Inc., 211 F.R.D. 360, 372 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (Citation
12 omitted.).
13 2. Even Rambus’s belated charts, which for the first time purport to
14 accuse controllers, do not comply with Patent Local Rule 3-1.
15 Aside from the timing of the controller portion of its Final Infringement Contentions
16 (which alone compel that they be struck), Rambus still has not shown where each element of its
17 asserted claims can be found in the seventy-two accused controllers. First, Rambus failed to
18 name any Samsung controller in the 1 ½-page claim chart devoted to controllers. Rather, Rambus
19 merely repeated that portion of the claim language that refers to “a controller”: “[e]ach of
20 Samsung’s and Micron’s DDR2-compatible memory controllers is a controller device for
21 controlling a DDR2 synchronous dynamic random access memory device, such as a Samsung
22 DDR2 SDRAM device.” See Bremer Decl. Ex. 16 (Rambus’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and
23 Final Infringement Contentions, Dated Aug. 1, 2008 [“Final Infringement Contentions”]).
24 Further, Rambus did not provide any information showing that the accused controllers
25
3
Rambus’s discovery requests also shed no light on these issues, as explained above, since they
26 neither defined the term “controllers’, nor indicated which controllers Rambus was accusing and
whether it was pursuing them, given that its Patent Local Rule Accused Product list (including
27 amendments thereto) did not accuse controllers. Rambus also did not challenge Samsung’s
objections until mid-July 2008, which was more than a year after they were first made. See
28 Bremer Decl. Ex. 12.

1 work with and control the accused DDR2 parts used in the controller chart, nor did Rambus
2 disclose its theory showing where in the controllers the claim elements can be found. Finally,
3 Rambus did not identify the corresponding part of each (or any) accused controller that would
4 meet each claim limitation, and instead apparently inferred the existence of these functional parts
5 from what is described in the cited DRAM datasheets. An example from Rambus’s claim chart
6 illustrates this deficiency:
7
PATENT CLAIMS SAMSUNG and MICRON DDR2-
8 COMPATIBLE MEMORY
CONTROLLERS
9 input receiver circuitry to receive the amount of Each of Samsung’s DDR2 SDRAM devices is
data output by the memory device. designed to be controlled by a controller that
10 includes input receiver circuitry to receive the
amount of data output by the memory device.
11 (See, e.g. SDDR2DOT at 20-22 “Burst Read
Command”; 34-35 “Burst Read with Auto
12 Precharge”)
13
Noticeably absent from Rambus’s chart are: (1) any mention of a Samsung memory controller
14
(identified by product number or otherwise); and (2) any disclosure showing that any Samsung
15
controller contains input receiver circuitry or that such circuitry is capable of receiving the data
16
output by the Samsung DDR2 device listed in the chart. See id. Rather, Rambus only discloses
17
its theory that data can be read from a DDR2 memory device, and infers that a generic controller
18
would have input receiver circuitry as claimed in the patent to receive that data. Id. Rambus
19
nowhere shows that any one of the seventy-two accused controllers actually has the requisite
20
“input receiver circuitry,” where that circuitry is on the devices, or that they can receive data from
21
DDR2 SDRAM devices. Indeed, Rambus relies on information specifying the design of a DDR2
22
SDRAM in its charts, instead of on materials describing how a controller (much less a
23
specifically identified Samsung controller) functions, how it is designed, and whether it works
24
with the DDR2 part in the manner specified in the DDR2 materials on which Rambus relies.
25
These same deficiencies are present in the other two charts for GDDR2 SDRAM and DDR3
26
SDRAM. See Bremer Decl. Exs. 17, 18 (Exs. G and I to Final Infringement Contentions).
27
28

1 B. Rambus Cannot Satisfy Either of Patent Local Rule 3-6’s Exceptions to the
Bar to Late Amendment of Infringement Contentions.
2
3 The Patent Local Rules explicitly limit when infringement contentions may be amended.
4 Patent Local Rule 3-6 provides only two narrow situations in which a party can modify its
5 preliminary infringement contentions without leave of the Court.4 Rule 3-6(a) permits a party
6 claiming patent infringement to modify its Preliminary Infringement Contentions and convert
7 them into the party’s Final Infringement Contentions in a good-faith response to either the court’s
8 claim construction ruling or the opposing party’s invalidity contentions. PATENT L.R. 3-6.
9 The exception that allows a party to amend its contentions after a claim construction
10 ruling “does not mean that after every claim construction order, new infringement contentions
11 may be filed,” and does not permit Rambus’s recent amendments. Nike, Inc. v. Adidas Am. Inc.,
12 479 F.Supp.2d 664, 667 (E.D. Tex. 2007). “This exception is intended to allow a party to
13 respond to an unexpected claim construction by the court.” Id. The court’s recent claim
14 construction order does not implicate controllers. Indeed, nothing in the Court’s claim
15 construction ruling could have been a surprise to Rambus given the prior claim construction
16 decision of the Court in Hynix I. See Claim Construction Order (July 10, 2008) (‘334 Docket
17 Entry No. 1960). Accordingly, nothing in the Court’s claim construction order could have
18 opened the door for Rambus to add a completely new and different type of product line to its
19 infringement contentions. See, e.g., Nike, 479 F.Supp.2d at 667-68, 669 (rejecting assertion of
20 additional PICs on basis of claim construction order after noting that the court did not wholly
21 depart from either party’s proposals and that “[a] party cannot argue that because its precise
22 proposal for a construction of a claim term is not adopted by the court, it is surprised and must
23 prepare new infringement contentions. Courts seldom simply adopt the construction of one party
24 or the other.”).
25 Because Rule 3-6’s narrow exceptions do not apply to permit Rambus to amend its
26
4
Rambus’s latest infringement contentions can in no way be regarded as simply “a restatement
27 of its earlier infringement contention with a mere change of ‘scope and clarity.’” Safeclick, LLC
v. Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n, No. 06-1182, 2006 WL 3017347, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2006) (citing
28 Orion IP, LLC v. Staples, Inc., 407 F.Supp.2d 815 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2006)).

1 infringement contentions to include an entirely new category of products at this late date, Rambus
2 was required to obtain leave of the Court to amend its infringement contentions under Patent
3 Local Rule 3-7. See, e.g., Berger v. Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., No. C 05-2523 CRB, 2006 WL
4 2038324, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) aff’d, 214 Fed. Apx. 981 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. denied,
5 128 S.Ct. 48 (U.S. Oct. 1, 2007) (“The Rules are clear that absent those two exceptions a party
6 must show good cause for amendment.”).
7 C. Rambus Cannot Demonstrate the Good Cause Required by Patent Local Rule
8 3-7 to Add Memory Controllers as Accused Products This Close to Trial.
9 As explained above, Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions should be stricken to the

10 extent they purport to accuse Samsung’s memory controllers because Rambus cannot satisfy
11 Patent Local Rule 3-6’s narrow exceptions permitting amendment. Even if Rambus had sought
12 leave to file its new contentions against controllers, Rambus cannot establish the requisite good
13 cause.
14 Patent Local Rule 3-7 provides that “[a]mendment . . . of the Preliminary . . . Infringement
15 Contentions . . . other than as expressly permitted in Patent L.R. 3-6, may be made only by order
16 of the Court, which shall be entered only upon a showing of good cause.” PATENT L.R. 3-7; see
17 also Integrated Circuit Sys., Inc. v. Realtek Semiconductor Co., 308 F.Supp.2d 1106, 1107 (N.D.
18 Cal. 2004) (holding that a party must obtain leave of court to supplement its infringement
19 contentions with new allegedly infringing product families). The good-cause requirement
20 prohibits infringement contentions becoming moving targets in the course of a lawsuit.
21 Integrated Circuit Sys., 308 F.Supp.2d at 1107; see also id. (noting that the rule is “designed to
22 require parties to crystallize their [patentholder’s] theories of the case early in the litigation and to
23 adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed . . . . and designed to . . . ensure that
24 litigants put all their cards on the table up front.”) (quoting Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices,
25 Inc., No. C 95-1987 FMS, 1998 WL 775115, at *2-3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 1998); Berger v.
26 Rossignol Ski Co., Inc., No. C 05-2523 CRB, 2006 WL 1095914, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2006)
27 (explaining that the rules “are designed to avoid ‘vexatious shuffling of positions’ that could
28 occur if the parties are permitted to freely modify their infringement contentions at any point in

1 the action”) (quotation and citation omitted).

2 Good cause requires a showing of diligence. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Monolithic Power
3 Sys., Inc., 467 F.3d 1355, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Zoltar Satellite Alarm Sys., Inc. v. Motorola,
4 Inc., No. C06-00044 JW (HRL), 2008 WL 913326, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2008). In this regard,
5 “carelessness is not compatible with a finding of diligence and offers no reason for a grant of
6 relief.” MEMC Elec. Materials. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., No. C 01-4925 SBA, 2004
7 WL 5363616, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2004); Berger 2006 WL 1095914, at *5 (“Carelessness or
8 mere errors . . . are insufficient to establish good cause.”). In addition to diligence, the good-
9 cause basis for belated amendment of PICs under Rule 3-7 turns on the resulting prejudice to the
10 parties. Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., No. C 05-
11 04158 MHP, 2008 WL 624771, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2008). This two-part inquiry thus first
12 considers whether the plaintiff was diligent in amending the contentions and then considers
13 prejudice to the nonmoving parties. O2, 467 F.3d at 1366-68. “[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon
14 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. If that party was not diligent, the inquiry
15 should end.” MEMC, 2004 WL 5363616, at *5 (citations omitted).
16 A determination of whether good cause has been established is within the sound discretion
17 of the trial court. See, e.g., Berger, 2006 WL 1095914. In deciding whether to permit additional
18 infringement contentions, the court considers the kind of factors identified as important in
19 deciding whether to exclude evidence for discovery violations and whether to allow late
20 amendments in pleadings. O2, 467 F.3d at 1366; see also Nike, 479 F.Supp.2d at 668. The
21 factors include the diligence of the party in amending, possible prejudice to the non-moving
22 party, the length of the delay and its potential impact on the proceedings, the importance of the
23 matter to the case, and whether lesser sanctions would provide adequate redress. See MEMC
24 2004 WL 5363616, at *5; see also Nike, 479 F.Supp.2d at 668.
25
1. Rambus cannot demonstrate the necessary diligence.
26
27 Consideration of the established factors makes clear that Rambus will not be able to
28 demonstrate diligence in supplementing its PICs to include memory controllers, which is its

1 burden. See, e.g., O2, 467 F.3d at 1366. Rambus has been fully aware of Samsung’s controller
2 products since at least 2000 when it began collecting royalties on controllers. Rambus made
3 reference to controllers in its June 2005 amended complaint and was able to identify more than
4 seventy controller products when it decided to do so just months before trial. Nor is there any
5 lack of publicly available information about Samsung’s controllers. See, e.g., Nike, 479
6 F.Supp.2d at 670 (noting that Nike’s mention of doctrine of equivalents shows that it was aware
7 of possibility of pursuing late-added products and chose not to do so, and striking amended
8 contentions). Rambus appears to have made a strategic choice over the past three years to omit
9 any reference to controllers in its Patent Local Rule disclosures while only making vague
10 references to them in its discovery requests (which it did not pursue) until just before the close of
11 fact discovery, after claim construction, and just months before trial. Rambus appears to have
12 taken a “deliberate strategic course” that, in any event, it should not be allowed to alter this late in
13 the litigation. Berger, 2006 WL 1095914, at *5.
14 In circumstances like these, there is little doubt that Rambus’s Final Infringement
15 Contentions should be stricken with respect to controllers. In LG Elecs., 211 F.R.D. at 371, for
16 instance, the court denied a motion to amend PICs to add new products one-and-a-half years after
17 the case began because the plaintiff could have alleged infringement against the products early in
18 the litigation and failed to show good cause for waiting to attempt to add the products when
19 numerous news articles had appeared the year before discussing the defendants’ manufacture of
20 the products. See also, e.g., Berger, 2006 WL 1095914, at *5 (disallowing amendments
21 following a three-month delay and the patent holder’s failure to provide any justification for the
22 amendment other than pure error); Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, No. C 02-
23 3378 JSW, 2006 WL 463549, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2006) (disallowing amendments when
24 patent holder waited almost three years to attempt to demonstrate qualifying good cause and then
25 failed to point to any specific information disclosed by the defendant that would justify leave to
26 assert the additional claims); MEMC 2004 WL 5363616, at *8 (denying leave to amend PICs to
27 assert doctrine of equivalents when patent holder did not seek leave until after discovery had
28 closed and it had over a year of discovery to ascertain the new theory, and permitting amendment

1 would require reopening discovery to allow the defendant to develop evidence to prepare
2 defenses to new theory presented in amendments); Atmel, 1998 WL 775115, at *2 (disallowing
3 amendments when leave sought after claim construction and well over one year after preliminary
4 infringement contentions were served).
5 Indeed, Rambus’s last-minute attempt to add these new products at this late date stands in
6 stark contrast to cases in which this Court has found patent holders to have demonstrated the
7 necessary diligence and thus good cause.5 Rambus’s effort to add its (still deficient) memory-
8 controller infringement contentions demonstrates a lack of diligence that cannot satisfy Rule 3-7’s
9 good-cause standard.
10 2. Permitting Rambus to accuse controllers at this late date would
11 prejudice Samsung.
12 Samsung will suffer unfair prejudice if Rambus’s controller infringement contentions are
13 permitted to stand. In the first instance, permitting an opponent to disregard its obligations under
14 the Court’s rules represents inherent prejudice to the other party. See e.g., Nike, 479 F.Supp.2d
15
5
16 See, e.g., Stanford, 2008 WL 624771, at *3-4 (finding that although patentholder’s four-month
delay demonstrated that it was not diligent in seeking leave to amend its PICs to add a new
17 product, it was diligent in notifying and seeking discovery from the defendant by immediately
serving its amended contentions on the defendant as soon as the new product was approved by the
18 FDA and including the product in discovery requests, including a request to inspect samples of
the new product, the notice preceded claim construction briefing and informed the defendant’s
19 claim construction briefing, the defendant never moved to strike and instead addressed the new
product in the claim construction phase, and the defendant would suffer no prejudice if leave
20 were granted); Acco Brands, Inc. v. PC Guardian Anti-Theft Prods., Inc., No. C 04-03526 SI,
2008 WL 2168379, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 22, 2008) (finding defendants sufficiently diligent in
21 bringing new invalidity contentions to the attention of plaintiff and the Court when defendants
only recently discovered three Apple computers with security slots that all constituted prior art
22 and had difficulties locating the computers and measuring their security slots, and there was no
indication of gamesmanship on the part of defendants in the timing of the contentions); Gen.
23 Atomics v. Axis-Shield ASA, No. C 05-04074 SI, 2006 WL 2329464, at *1-*2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9,
2006) (concluding that patent holder had been sufficiently diligent because it did not conceive of
24 the new infringement theory until the parties exchanged preliminary claim construction
statements, it notified court of intent to amend its preliminary infringement contentions just three
25 months after serving its preliminary contentions, and the case was relatively young); ZiLOG, Inc.
v. Quicklogic Corp., No. C03-03725 JW, 2006 WL 563057, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2006)
26 (finding good cause satisfied when the action had been stayed right after preliminary infringement
contentions were served and, during the stay, the PTO reexamined and invalidated several claims,
27 and plaintiff gave notice of an intent to amend based on the reexaminations simultaneously with
seeking that the stay be lifted, and the defendants would not be prejudiced).
28

1 669-70 (noting that accepting patentee’s “notice” argument in the face of a “passing” reference to
2 an infringement theory would encourage parties to “adopt a ‘rolling’ approach to infringement
3 and invalidity contentions in the hope of hiding their true intentions until late in the case,” which
4 would “thwart the purpose of the local patent rules.”). Moreover, Samsung would be forced to
5 forfeit the early and detailed notice of a party’s infringement claims to which it was entitled under
6 the Patent Local Rules. See, e.g., O2, 467 F.3d at 1366 (noting “the need for certainty as to the
7 legal theories” in discussing the purpose of rule); Atmel, 1998 WL 775115, at *2 (“The patent
8 local rules were adopted by this district in order to give claim charts more ‘bite.’ The rules are
9 designed to require parties to crystallize their theories of the case early in the litigation and to
10 adhere to those theories once they have been disclosed.”). Indeed, Samsung will be substantially
11 harmed by having inadequate information about the nature of Rambus’s infringement contentions
12 related to controllers, including in connection with claim construction. See, e.g., LG Elecs., 211
13 F.R.D. at 372 (noting that LG gave inadequate notice that Apple products were at issue,
14 preventing Quanta and Apple from having opportunity to consider those products in presenting
15 claim construction arguments); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, No. 5:01-CV-344, 2004
16 WL 5586072, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2004) (finding that plaintiffs failed to provide adequate
17 notice of infringement claims against Microsoft Windows product when plaintiffs merely noted it
18 on last page of infringement contentions but conducted no discovery and developed no
19 infringement theories regarding Windows). Samsung should not have been forced to guess
20 which, if any, controller products were at issue, what Rambus’s infringement theory was with
21 respect to them, or whether Rambus intended to pursue its claims against controllers at the
22 January patent trial based on Rambus’s generic reference to controllers in its amended complaint
23 or its discovery requests. See, e.g., Intertrust Techs. Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., No. C 01-1640
24 SBA, 2003 WL 23120174, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 1, 2003) (finding that patent owner’s disclosures
25 did not comport with the spirit of the local rules because infringing software was identified by
26 function rather than product name and it failed to name the version of the software program that
27 allegedly infringed). Further, Samsung still does not know what Rambus’s infringement theory is
28 with respect to controllers based on its deficient claim charts. Because of Rambus’s litigation

1 strategy and omissions in violation of the Patent Local Rules, patent issues associated with
2 controllers have not been developed in discovery (which is now almost complete), were absent
3 from the claim construction phase of the case, and until now, have been entirely absent from
4 Rambus’s disclosed infringement theories and other local-rule disclosures. Also, the Court
5 already issued its claim construction order. Samsung did not have an opportunity to frame its
6 claim construction positions with the controller products in mind or with knowledge of Rambus’s
7 infringement positions with respect to them. As this Court has explained in a different context in
8 this litigation, “being forced to litigate without fair notice of the claims and defenses arrayed
9 against you constitutes ‘prejudice.’” Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., et al., Order
10 Denying Mfrs.’ Mots. to Strike Rambus’ Countercls., at 6 Nos., CV-00-20905 RMW, C-05-
11 02298 RMW, C-05-00334 RMW, C-06-00244 RMW (Nov. 15, 2007).
12 As the Court knows, the patent trial is set for January 19, 2009, and the close of fact
13 discovery is August 29, 2008. It is therefore too late for Rambus to replay the entire process,
14 which would be necessary to avoid prejudice to Samsung. See, e.g., Abbott Diabetes Care, Inc. v.
15 Roche Diagnostics Corp., No. C05-03117 MJJ, 2007 WL 2221029 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2007)
16 (finding that because less than two months remained before the termination of fact discovery, the
17 addition of new products would likely derail the case management schedule, require additional
18 claim construction, and delay trial); Berger, 2006 WL 1095914, at *4 (concluding that permitting
19 amendment would prejudice the defendant because the defendant had relied on plaintiff’s
20 preliminary infringement contentions and incurred substantial costs in creating its preliminary
21 invalidity contentions and a summary-judgment motion and would further delay resolution of the
22 case); MEMC, 2004 WL 5363616, at *5 (explaining that prejudice to defendant of reopening
23 discovery supported denying leave to amend contentions).
24 Indeed, permitting Rambus to amend its infringement contentions now would require
25 reopening claim construction, extending discovery, and postponing the patent trial in order to cure
26 the prejudice to Samsung. Adding the memory controller products to this litigation at this late
27 date would therefore cause substantial delays in the resolution of these cases. See, e.g., LG
28 Elecs., 211 F.R.D. at 371 (denying motion to amend PICs to add new products one and one half

1 years after inception of case because new products had been absent from discovery, which was
2 near close, and the addition of new products would require reopening claim construction); Mass.
3 Inst. of Tech., 2004 WL 5586072, at *6 (granting motion to strike amended contentions when
4 claim construction order has issued, fact discovery was within one month of closing, and
5 permitting plaintiff to add a new product at late date would cause significant, avoidable delay).
6
3. The established considerations weigh in favor of striking the Final
7
Infringement Contentions with respect to controllers.
8
Considering all the factors, Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions should be stricken
9
to the extent they purport to accuse Samsung’s controller products. Courts have rejected belated
10
attempts to accuse new products under circumstances much less egregious than those here. For
11
example, in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v. Roche Diagnostics Corp., No. C05-03117 MJJ, 2007
12
WL 2221029 (N.D. Cal. July 30, 2007), the defendants notified the plaintiff of their new products
13
in December 2006 and January 2007, but the plaintiff did not request leave to accuse the new
14
products until May 29, 2007. Id. at * 1. The plaintiff provided no adequate explanation for the
15
six-month delay between its awareness of the new products and when it sought leave to accuse
16
them, and thus the court held that the plaintiff had failed to present sufficient evidence of
17
diligence to show the required good cause. Id.; see also, e.g., Zoltar, 2008 WL 913326, at *2
18
(permitting amendment of invalidity contentions to add prior art when patent holder did not
19
suggest that defendants had not been diligent, but merely that defendants has already had a
20
sufficient and lengthy time period to amend the invalidity contentions, and when there was no
21
suggestion of prejudice to the patent holder, the parties had not begun discovery, and no
22
discovery deadlines or trial date were yet set); Atmel, 1998 WL 775115 (denying plaintiff’s
23
motion to amend claim charts which were filed after claim construction was completed and well
24
over one year after preliminary infringement contentions were served); Informatica, 2006 WL
25
463549, at *1 (granting motion to strike additional claims asserted in final infringement
26
contentions when plaintiff did not seek leave prior to amending and failed to demonstrate good
27
cause, and rejecting plaintiff’s argument for an automatic exception to the local rules for
28

1 software-infringement cases).
2 D. Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions Should Be Stricken for Failure to
Comply with the Patent Local Rules to the Extent They Purport to Accuse
3
GDDR5.
4
1. Rambus did not seek leave to add GDDR5 products to the case.
5
Rambus’s PICs in this case make no reference to Samsung’s GDDR5 products, even
6
though Samsung publicly announced that GDDR5 products were under development at least a
7
year ago. See, e.g., Bremer Decl. Ex. 19 at 2 (JEDEC Press Release, Aug. 15, 2007) (explaining
8
that “GDDR5 is currently under development in JEDEC (JC-42.3 subcommittee), with an
9
expected specification release date of mid-to-late ’08”). Rambus’s identification of a Samsung
10
GDDR5 part number on the list of Accused Products served with its Final Infringement
11
Contentions on August 1, 2008 therefore represent the first time that Rambus has purported to
12
accuse Samsung’s GDDR5 products and make them an issue for the January patent trial. As with
13
its attempt to accuse controllers, however, Rambus failed to seek leave from the Court to add this
14
new product to the case, as required by Patent Local Rule 3-7. Rambus’s Final Infringement
15
Contentions should be stricken to the extent they purport to accuse any Samsung GDDR5 product
16
for this reason alone.
17
18 2. Rambus did not serve a claim chart for any GDDR5 product as
required by the Patent Local Rules.
19
In addition, Rambus did not comply with the requirements of Patent Local Rule 3-1
20
because it did not serve a claim chart to demonstrate how the Samsung GDDR5 product identified
21
by part number in Rambus’s list of Accused Products practices every element of the asserted
22
claims. Rambus has in no way—in its Final Infringement Contentions or otherwise—articulated
23
or disclosed its infringement theory with respect to GDDR5. Rather, Samsung’s knowledge of
24
Rambus’s GDDR5 infringement allegations is limited to Rambus’s inclusion of a single Samsung
25
GDDR5 product on Rambus’s list of Accused Products on August 1, 2008.
26
27
28

1 3. Rambus should not be permitted to add GDDR5 to the case at this late
date.
2
3 Even setting aside Rambus’s failure to comply with the requirements of the Patent Local
4 Rules when adding new infringement allegations, Rambus should not be permitted to add
5 GDDR5 products to the case now that claim construction has been completed and trial is just
6 months away. As an initial matter, Rambus could have raised this issue at least a year ago, when
7 Samsung publicly announced that GDDR5 was under development. See Bremer Decl. Ex. 19.
8 Indeed, Rambus asked specific questions about GDDR5 at depositions of Samsung employees at
9 that time. See, e.g., Bremer Decl. Ex. 20 at 313 (Dep. of J.B. Lee, Rambus vs. Hynix
10 Semiconductor, C 05-00334, Aug. 30, 2007) (“Q: Samsung is currently developing a GDDR5
11 part. Is that right?”). Despite its knowledge, Rambus sat on its hands for at least a year before
12 attempting to add GDDR5 to this lawsuit (and even then, without serving a single GDDR5 claim
13 chart).
14 In addition, discovery closes just weeks from now, yet Samsung’s responses to nearly all
15 the patent-related discovery in this case that has been pending for over three years and would
16 have to be revisited and possibly supplemented to account for the new generation of products.
17 And Samsung would need to take discovery to determine the nature of Rambus’s infringement
18 theory with respect to GDDR5 and to prepare a defense to that theory, but it is already too late for
19 Samsung to serve new discovery requests on these issues because Rambus’s responses would be
20 due outside the discovery period, which closes later this month.
21 It is simply too late in the game and too prejudicial to Samsung to allow Rambus to inject
22 Samsung’s GDDR5 product line into the issues to be tried at the January patent trial.
23 IV. CONCLUSION
24 For these reasons, the Court should strike the portions of Rambus’s Final Infringement
25 Contentions that purport to accuse any Samsung’s memory controllers or GDDR5 product of
26 infringement of any Rambus patent.
27
28

1 Dated: August 13, 2008

2 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES, LLP
3
4 By: /s/ David J. Healey

David J. Healey
5
MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795)
6 Email: matthew.powers@weil.com
EDWARD R. REINES (Bar No. 135930)
7 Email: edward.reines@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
8 201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
9 Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
10
DAVID J. HEALEY (admitted pro hac vice)
11 Email: david.healey@weil.com
ANITA E. KADALA (admitted pro hac vice)
12 Email: anita.kadala@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
13 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
14 Telephone: (713) 546-5000
Facsimile: (713) 224-9511
15
Attorneys for Defendants
16 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
17 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


Attorney List On Signature Page

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attorney List On Signature Page

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2049 Filed 08/14/2008 Page 1 of 24

1 Attorney list on signature page

10 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

1 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

1 Rambus’s infringement theory with regard to controllers.3 As a result, Rambus’s non-compliance

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

9 As explained above, Rambus’s Final Infringement Contentions should be stricken to the

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

1 the action”) (quotation and citation omitted).

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

26 infringement of any Rambus patent.

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

1 Dated: August 13, 2008

4 By: /s/ David J. Healey

SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF RAMBUS’S Case No. C 05-00334

You might also like