Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document244

Filed08/29/11 Page1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201

Mike McKool, Jr. (pro hac vice) Douglas Cawley (pro hac vice) McKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 Crescent Court Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 Email: mmckool@mckoolsmith.com; dcawley@mckoolsmith.com Scott L. Cole (pro hac vice) Pierre J. Hubert (pro hac vice) Craig N. Tolliver (pro hac vice) McKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 W. 6th Street Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: scole@mckoolsmith.com; phubert@mckoolsmith.com; ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.

J. Daniel Sharp (CSB No. 131042) CROWELL & MORING LLP 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.986.2800 Facsimile: 415.986.2827 Email: dsharp@crowell.com

McKOOL SMITH P.C.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant.

Case No. C-08-03343 SI DECLARATION OF PIERRE J. HUBERT IN SUPPORT OF RAMBUSS MOTION 1) TO COMPEL NVIDIA TO PROVIDE ITS PATENT LOCAL RULE 4-1 SUBMISSION NVIDIA FAILED TO PROVIDE BY THE COURT-ORDERED DEADLINE AND 2) FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE Date: TBD Time: 9:00 a.m. Judge: Honorable Susan Illston

Hubert Decl. ISO Rambuss Motion 1) to Compel NVIDIAs P.L.R. 4-1 Submission and 2) for Expedited Scheduling Case No. C-08-03343 SI McKool 397231v1

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document244

Filed08/29/11 Page2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201

I, Pierre J. Hubert, declare: 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of McKool Smith P.C., counsel of record for

Plaintiff Rambus Inc. in the above-entitled action. I am duly licensed in the State of Texas and admitted to practice before this Court pro hac vice. I make this declaration based on my personal knowledge, the record in this action, and matters of public record, and if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify competently as to the matters set forth below. 2. Rambus requests that expedited consideration and briefing of its motion to

compel because NVIDIAs Patent Local Rule (P.L.R.) 4-1 disclosure of claim terms NVIDIA contends should be construed is already overdue, and the Court set a September 16th deadline for the parties to exchange proposed constructions of claim terms that were to be identified in the parties P.L.R. 4-1 disclosures ordered to be exchanged by August 26th. 3. Rambus will be further prejudiced if NVIDIA continues to withhold its P.L.R. 4-1

McKOOL SMITH P.C.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

submission or refuses to provide its proposed claim constructions and supporting materials under P.L.R. 4-2 by September 16th. Without NVIDIAs P.L.R. 4-1 disclosure identifying claim terms NVIDIA proposes to be construed, Rambus does not know which such terms to address in its P.L.R. 4-2 submission. Further, P.L.R. 4-2, and thus the Courts order, mandate a bilateral simultaneous exchange of such materials, and Rambus will be prejudiced by unilaterally disclosing its claim construction positions if NVIDIA fails to disclose its positions. 4. Previous time modifications include continuances of case management

conferences, extensions of time for the exchange of materials from other cases and an extension of time for NVIDIA to file its answer and counterclaims to Rambuss complaint. 5. schedule. 6. On August 12, 2011, Rambus counsel received from NVIDIA materials styled The requested expedited briefing and hearing schedule will not affect the case

NVIDIA Corporations Local Rule 3-3 and 3-4 Invalidity Contentions, which Rambus is still reviewing for sufficiency.

Hubert Decl. ISO Rambuss Motion 1) to Compel NVIDIAs P.L.R. 4-1 Submission and 2) for Expedited Scheduling Case No. C-08-03343 SI

1
McKool 397231v1

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document244

Filed08/29/11 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, TX 75201

7.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of an email and attached

letter from NVIDIA counsel addressed to me. The letter is dated August 25, 2011, but I did not receive the email or letter until 12:54 a.m. Central on August 26th. 8. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an August 26, 2011

letter from Rambus counsel to NVIDIA counsel. Rambus stated at page 1 of this letter that Rambus is willing to discuss NVIDIAs proposal to alter the schedule on claim construction so that we can better understand NVIDIAs position. Note, however, that Rambus is not presently inclined to agree to any such proposal because NVIDIA has not identified any legitimate reason to do so. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of an August 26, 2011 As part of this

email exchange between counsel for Rambus and counsel for NVIDIA.

McKOOL SMITH P.C.

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

exchange, Rambus invited NVIDIA to meet-and-confer on August 26th and also made itself available to NVIDIA throughout the weekend of August 27-28th to discuss, but NVIDIA did not respond. On August 29th, I contacted NVIDIA counsel and inquired whether NVIDIA would agree to Rambuss motion, and NVIDIA indicated it would oppose. 10. Rambus provided its P.L.R. 4-1 statement to NVIDIA on August 26, 2011.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed on August 4, 2011, at Austin, Texas.

/s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert

Hubert Decl. ISO Rambuss Motion 1) to Compel NVIDIAs P.L.R. 4-1 Submission and 2) for Expedited Scheduling Case No. C-08-03343 SI