Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2066 Filed 08/19/2008 Page 1 of 6

1 Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329)
Steven M. Perry (State Bar No. 106154)
2 Sean Eskovitz (State Bar No. 241877)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
3 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560
4 Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
5 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com;
steven.perry@mto.com; sean.eskovitz@mto.com
6 McKOOL SMITH PC
Peter A. Detre (State Bar No. 182619)
7 Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke (State Bar No. 207976)
Jennifer L. Polse (State Bar No. 219202)
8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
9 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 512-4000
10 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
Email: peter.detre@mto.com;
11 carolyn.luedtke@mto.com; jen.polse@mto.com
12 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126)
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
Email: rransom@sidley.com
Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)
Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: (512) 692-8700
Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com;
ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com

14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
16
Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
17 TO FILE MOTION FOR
vs. RECONSIDERATION OF CLAIM
18 CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR THE
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., FARMWALD/HOROWITZ PATENTS
19 AND MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
Defendants.
20

21

22 RAMBUS INC., CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW

Plaintiff,
23
v.
24
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
25
et al.,
26 Defendants.
27

28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2066 Filed 08/19/2008 Page 2 of 6

2 CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW

RAMBUS INC.,
3
Plaintiff,
4
vs.
5
MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al,
6
Defendants.
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2066 Filed 08/19/2008 Page 3 of 6

1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 The Court’s Claim Construction Order for the Farmwald/Horowitz Patents

3 (“Order”) finds that the term “memory device,” as used in the asserted claims of the

4 Farmwald/Horowitz patents-in-suit, need not refer to a single chip. The Court’s construction is

5 contrary to intrinsic evidence showing that the essence of the Farmwald/Horowitz inventions is to

6 enable single memory chips to achieve levels of performance that would have required multiple

7 prior art chips. Moreover, the Court’s construction is contrary to extrinsic evidence regarding

8 what one of skill in the art would understand the term “memory device” to mean. Whether the

9 term “memory device” is construed to be a single chip has significant implications with respect to

10 the Manufacturers’ invalidity arguments. Consequently, Rambus respectfully requests that the

11 Court grant Rambus leave to file the motion for reconsideration of the construction of the term

12 “memory device” attached hereto as Exhibit A.

13 In addition, the Court’s constructions of “sample” “samples” and “sampling” may

14 be read as introducing unintended distinctions among these terms as to the number of points in

15 time at which values are to be obtained. Nothing in either the evidence presented to the Court or

16 in the Court’s analysis supports such a distinction. Rambus respectfully requests that the Court

17 clarify its Order to make clear that all three terms involve obtaining values at “one or more

18 distinct points in time.”

19 II. DISCUSSION
20 A. The Court Should Grant Leave for Rambus to File A Motion for
Reconsideration of the Court’s Construction of “Memory Device.”
21
Local Rule 7-9(b)(3) indicates that leave to file a motion for reconsideration of an
22
order may be granted in the case of “[a] manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or
23
dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court” prior to the order in question.1 In
24

25 1
Rambus recognizes that Local Rule 7-9(c) provides that “[n]o motion for leave to file a motion
26 for reconsideration may repeat any oral or written argument made by the applying party in
support of or in opposition to the interlocutory order which the party now seeks to have
27 reconsidered.” Rambus respectfully submits, however, that in order to show “a manifest failure
by the court to consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the
28 Court,” as provided in Local Rule 7-9(b)(3), it must refer to those facts or arguments.
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
-1- FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2066 Filed 08/19/2008 Page 4 of 6

1 this case, as set forth in the motion for reconsideration that Rambus seeks leave to file, attached
2 hereto as Exhibit A, the Court’s claim construction order indicates that the Court failed to
3 consider material facts that cannot be reconciled with the Court’s construction of the term
4 “memory device.”
5 In particular:
6 (1) The Court, as indicated in the Order, failed to appreciate the import of a portion
7 of the specification cited by Rambus clearly indicating, contrary to the Order, that a “memory
8 device” must be a single chip;
9 (2) The Court failed to consider a portion of the prosecution history cited by
10 Rambus also clearly indicating, contrary to the Order, that a “memory device” must be a single
11 chip; and
12 (3) The Court failed to consider extrinsic evidence, in the form of the testimony of
13 one of the Manufacturers’ own experts, demonstrating that a person of skill in the art would
14 consider the term “memory device” to consist of a single chip.
15 The Manufacturers’ have asserted prior art, consisting of multiple chips that they
16 argue anticipate certain claims. Because the Court failed to consider intrinsic and extrinsic
17 evidence showing that “memory device,” as used in the Farmwald patent claims, refers to a single
18 chip, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court grant leave for Rambus to file the attached
19 motion for reconsideration.
20 B. The Court Should Clarify Its Construction of the Terms “sample,” “samples”
and “sampling”
21
The Court has construed “ ‘sample’ to mean ‘to obtain at a discrete point in time,’
22
‘samples’ as ‘obtains at discrete points in time,’ and ‘sampling’ as ‘obtaining at discrete points in
23
time.’” Order at 55. Thus, in what may have been an unintended distinction, the Court’s
24
construction seems to suggest that “sample” involves obtaining a value at a single discrete point
25
in time, while “samples” and “sampling” both involve obtaining values at multiple discrete points
26
in time. Nothing in the intrinsic or extrinsic evidence, or in the Court’s discussion of the terms,
27
supports such a distinction. To the contrary, “sample” “samples” and “sampling” are simply
28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
-2- FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2066 Filed 08/19/2008 Page 5 of 6

1 different conjugations of the same verb that cannot change the sense of the verb as the Court’s
2 construction may imply. Simply put, if “I sample” means that I obtain a value at one or more
3 discrete points in time, then “he samples” must mean that he obtains a value at one or more
4 discrete points in time; nothing in the different conjugations of the verb should affect the number
5 of values being obtained by the subject. As the Court’s constructions recognize, to sample may
6 mean to obtain at one or more distinct points in time.
7 Indeed, to hold otherwise would lead to inconsistent constructions of similar claim
8 language. For example, claim 30 of the ’020 patent includes the limitation: “input receiver
9 circuitry to sample an operation code synchronously with respect to a first transition of an
10 external clock signal,” while claim 29 of the ’120 patent includes the limitation that “the input
11 receiver circuitry samples the first operation code synchronously with respect to the external
12 clock signal.” Under the Court’s current construction, the former limitation would be interpreted
13 as involving the sampling of the operation code at a single discrete point in time, while the latter
14 limitation could involve sampling the operation code at multiple discrete points in time.
15 To avoid confusion, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court clarify its ruling
16 to make clear that “sample,” “samples,” and “sampling” are to be construed similarly as “obtain
17 at one or more discrete points in time,” “obtains at one or more discrete points in time,” and
18 “obtaining at one or more discrete points in time,” respectively.
19 III. CONCLUSION
20 For the reasons set forth above, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court (1)
21 grant leave for Rambus to file the Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s construction of the
22 term “memory device,” attached hereto as Exhibit A, and (2) clarify its ruling to make clear that
23 “sample,” “samples,” and “sampling” are to be construed similarly as “obtain at one or more
24 discrete points in time,” “obtains at one or more discrete points in time,” and “obtaining at one or
25 more discrete points in time,” respectively.
26

27

28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
-3- FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2066 Filed 08/19/2008 Page 6 of 6

1 DATED: August 19, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

2 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
3 McKOOL SMITH P.C.
4

5 By: /s/ Peter A. Detre

PETER A. DETRE
6
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
RAMBUS’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION
-4- FOR RECONSIDERATION AND FOR CLARIFICATION
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW