2344

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2344 Filed 10/03/2008 Page 1 of 12
1 Gregory P. Stone (State Bar No. 078329) Rollin A. Ransom (State Bar No. 196126)
Steven M. Perry (State Bar No. 106154) SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2 Sean Eskovitz (State Bar No. 241877) 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Los Angeles, California 90013-1010
3 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
4 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Email: rransom@sidley.com
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
5 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com; Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)
steven.perry@mto.com; sean.eskovitz@mto.com Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)
6 McKOOL SMITH PC
Peter A. Detre (State Bar No. 182619) 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
7 Rosemarie T. Ring (State Bar No. 220769) Austin, Texas 78701
Jennifer L. Polse (State Bar No. 219202) Telephone: (512) 692-8700
8 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com;
9 San Francisco, California 94105 ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
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
14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
15
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
16
Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
17 AND MOTION TO PRECLUDE THE
vs. MANUFACTURERS’ REBUTTAL
18 EXPERT REPORTS ON INFRINGEMENT
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., AND RELATED TRIAL TESTIMONY;
19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Defendants. AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
20
Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
21 Location: Courtroom 6
Date: October 17, 2008
22 Time: 9:00 a.m.
23
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW
24 Plaintiff,
25 v.
26 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

27 et al.,
Defendants.
28
RAMBUS’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE REBUTTAL
6056782.1 EXPERT REPORTS ON INFRINGEMENT
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
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 TO PRECLUDE
6056782.1 REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS ON INFRINGEMENT
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT ON October 17, 2008 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon
3 thereafter as counsel may be heard before the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, in Courtroom 6 of the
4 above-captioned Court located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95110, Plaintiff
5 Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) will bring a motion to preclude the Manufacturers’ rebuttal expert
6 reports on infringement and related trial testimony.
7 This motion is based on this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of
8 Points and Authorities attached hereto, the Declaration of Peter A. Detre filed herewith, all of the
9 Court’s records and files in this action, and on such other and further written and oral argument
10 and authorities as may be presented at or before the hearing on this matter.
11
12 DATED: October 3, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

13 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
14 McKOOL SMITH PC
15
16 By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring

ROSEMARIE T. RING
17
Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6056782.1 REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS ON INFRINGEMENT
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2 Plaintiff Rambus Inc. respectfully submits this motion to preclude four rebuttal
3 expert reports and related trial testimony on infringement offered by the Manufacturers because it
4 violates the Joint Case Management Order dated April 24, 2007 (“JCMO”). In an effort to “avoid
5 cumulative testimony,” the JCMO limits each side to one testifying expert on any particular issue.
6 Rambus is required to “disclose only one testifying expert on any particular issue.” Likewise, the
7 Manufacturers are required to “agree on, disclose, and offer only one testifying expert on any
8 particular issue common to one or more of the Manufacturers.” If either Rambus or one of the
9 Manufacturers intends to offer more than one expert on a particular issue, the JCMO allows that
10 party to seek leave from the Court to do so upon a showing of prejudice.
11 The Manufacturers’ apparent contention that infringement is not an issue common
12 to all of the Manufacturers is belied by their own conduct to date in treating the infringement
13 issue collectively, notwithstanding whatever tactical advantage they now see in recasting it as an
14 individual issue allowing them to argue to the jury that their four experts all disagree with
15 Rambus’s one expert. The status of the infringement issue as a common issue in this case and the
16 propriety of the Manufacturer’s decision to treat it as such until now is confirmed by the
17 duplicative arguments advanced in the rebuttal expert reports themselves, which provide a
18 preview of the “cumulative testimony” the JCMO is meant to prevent. Because infringement is
19 an issue common to all of the Manufacturers, and none of them sought leave from the Court to
20 offer individual experts on infringement, Rambus’s motion should be granted.
21 If Rambus’s motion is granted, and the Court permits the Manufacturers to serve a
22 single rebuttal expert report on the issue of infringement consistent with the JCMO, Rambus
23 respectfully requests that any such new report be limited to arguments contained in the existing
24 four rebuttal expert reports with respect to the Manufacturers’ respective accused products. The
25 Manufacturers should not benefit from violating the JCMO by making new arguments in a
26 consolidated report developed after the deadline for filing rebuttal expert reports.
27 ///
28 ///
6056782.1 -1- REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORTS ON INFRINGEMENT
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 I. BACKGROUND
2 In an effort to “avoid cumulative testimony,” the JCMO limits Rambus and,
3 collectively, the Manufacturers, to one testifying expert on any particular issue, unless leave is
4 given by the Court to offer additional experts upon a showing of prejudice. The JCMO provides,
5 in relevant part, as follows:
6 Rambus shall disclose only one testifying expert on any particular

issue. The Manufacturers shall agree on, disclose, and offer only
7 one testifying expert on any particular issue common to one or
more of the Manufacturers that is to be the subject of expert
8 testimony, so as to avoid cumulative testimony. If the
Manufacturers are unable to agree on a single expert for a particular
9 issue, they may seek leave of court to offer more than one expert
upon a showing of prejudice to one or more party’s interests.
10 Rambus may similarly seek leave to offer more than one expert on
a subject matter upon a showing of prejudice if it were not allowed
11 to do so.
12 JCMO ¶ 6(b). On July 16, 2008, the Court entered a scheduling order for the patent trial in this
13 litigation, which set the deadline for opening expert reports as September 5, 2008, and the
14 deadline for rebuttal expert reports as September 26, 2008.
15 On the issue of infringement, Rambus served its opening expert report on
16 September 5, 2008. Declaration of Peter Detre, ¶ 2. On September 26, 2008, Micron, Nanya,
17 and Samsung served three separate rebuttal expert reports on infringement. Detre Decl., Ex. A
18 (Micron’s Expert Report of William K. Hoffman, or “Hoffman Report”); Detre Decl., Ex. B
19 (Nanya’s Expert Report of Nader Bagherzadeh, or “Bagherzadeh Report”); Detre Decl., Ex. C
20 (Samsung’s Expert Report of Michael Runas, or “Runas Report”). On September 29, 2008,
21 pursuant to an extension of time agreed to by the parties, Hynix served a fourth rebuttal expert
22 report on infringement. Detre Decl., Ex. D (Hynix’s Expert Report of David L. Taylor, or
23 “Taylor Report”). Hereinafter, the four rebuttal expert reports on infringement served by the
24 Manufacturers shall be referred to, collectively, as the “Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports”.
25 Upon receipt of the fourth rebuttal expert report on infringement, Rambus objected
26 to the Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports as violating the JCMO’s requirement that the
27 Manufacturers each offer only one testifying witness on any particular issue and requested that
28 the Manufacturers inform Rambus as to which of the four experts they would offer as their
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 testifying expert on infringement. 1 Detre Decl., ¶ 9. Rambus further informed the Manufacturers
2 that, until such steps were taken to comply with the JCMO, Rambus would not be in a position to
3 complete expert discovery, as Rambus would take only the deposition of the expert designated by
4 the Manufacturers as their testifying expert on infringement. Id.
5 On September 30, 2008, the parties met and conferred in good faith regarding
6 Rambus’s objections. Detre Decl., ¶ 10. The Manufacturers stated their position that the JCMO
7 permits them to offer four separate experts on the issue of infringement. Id. Rambus indicated its
8 intent to bring an emergency motion to preclude the Manufacturers’ rebuttal expert reports and
9 related trial testimony on infringement and the parties stipulated to extend the expert discovery
10 cut-off to allow Rambus to depose the Manufacturers’ infringement expert or experts after the
11 Court resolves Rambus’s motion. Id. This motion follows.
12 II. DISCUSSION
13 A. The Manufacturers’ Service of Four Rebuttal Reports On Infringement
Violates the JCMO Because Infringement Is an Issue Common to All of the
14 Manufacturers.
15 As Rambus recently set forth in its Consolidated Opposition to the Motions of
16 Manufacturers for Separate Trials, filed on August 22, 2008, the issue of infringement is common
17 to all of the Manufacturers because of the acknowledged similarities among the Manufacturers’
18 accused products. As a result, the infringement analysis in this case turns on a common set of
19 features used in the accused products—which, by the Manufacturers’ own account, are generally
20 based upon the same JEDEC standards and use the same patented features—not issues specific to
21 each defendant such as manufacturing, importation, and sales conduct.2
22 ///
23 ///
24 1
The Manufacturers have likewise served rebuttal reports from four separate damages experts.
Because the Court has not yet ruled on consolidation of the damages issues for a single trial,
25 Rambus has not objected to proceeding forward with depositions of the Manufacturers’ damages
experts. Should the Court order a coordinated damages proceeding, Rambus reserves the right to
26 object to the Manufacturers’ offering separate expert testimony on duplicative damages issues.
2
27 While Micron’s RLDRAM II is not a JEDEC-standard product, and the parties dispute whether
gDDR2 fully complies with the JEDEC DDR2 standard, the features accused of infringement in
28 these products mirror the features in the JEDEC-standard products.
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 There is substantial overlap among the Manufacturers’ accused products at issue in

2 the upcoming patent trial: for Hynix and Samsung, DDR2 and gDDR2, DDR3 and GDDR3, and
3 GDDR4; for Micron, DDR2, DDR3 and GDDR3, and RLDRAM II; and, for Nanya, DDR2 and
4 DDR3. In Rambus’s opening expert report on infringement, Rambus’s expert, Mr. Robert J.
5 Murphy, opines that the accused products infringe the elected claims of Rambus’s patents
6 essentially because each of the products incorporate all or some of the six features that the parties
7 and the Court have been referring to by the shorthand names programmable burst length,
8 programmable read latency, auto-precharge, dual-edge clocking, on-chip DLL, and
9 programmable write latency. As one would expect in light of the similarities among the products
10 accused of infringement, the Manufacturers have treated the accused products collectively with
11 respect to the infringement issue and, when necessary, through the testimony of a single expert.
12 During the conduct trial, the Manufacturers made no attempt to draw distinctions
13 among their DRAM products, including the accused products at issue in the upcoming patent
14 trial. To the contrary, their core factual theory—which the jury rejected—was that Rambus had
15 engaged in anticompetitive conduct by obtaining patent protection on features incorporated into
16 JEDEC standards, and that the Manufacturers consequently became “locked in” to the continued
17 use of these patented features when they began manufacturing products that complied with the
18 JEDEC standards. The express premise of this argument is that the Manufacturers’ accused
19 products incorporated the common set of DRAM features standardized by JEDEC and covered by
20 Rambus patents.
21 The Manufacturers argued that each of them designed their DRAM devices based
22 upon the JEDEC standards. Hynix, they argued, “manufactures these JEDEC standard DRAMs”
23 (Conduct Tr. 235 (opening statement)), and Nanya purportedly “was just relying on that JEDEC
24 process to create an open standard” (id. at 234). JEDEC was so central to their products that the
25 Manufacturers took the position that “[a]lthough JEDEC is not here today, it’s kind of a party in
26 many ways.” Id. at 232 (emphasis added). The Manufacturers also echoed a point made by their
27 expert in that trial about the evolutionary nature of JEDEC-standard designs. Id. at 310-12.
28 SDRAM, they noted, incorporated programmable burst length, programmable read latency, and
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 auto-precharge. Id. With their next generation DRAM device, DDR, JEDEC integrated on-chip
2 DLL and dual-edge clocking. Id. DDR2, they explained, “has these other technologies, and a
3 bunch of other technologies as well,” including programmable write latency. Id.
4 In opposing Rambus’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement, the
5 Manufacturers, likewise, did not distinguish among their respective accused products but instead
6 treated infringement as a common issue. Detre Decl., Ex. E (Joint Opposition to Rambus’s
7 Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement). The Manufacturers joint opposition was
8 supported by a single expert declaration, see Detre Decl. Ex. F (Declaration of Joseph A.
9 McAlexander, Oct. 31, 2007), and, treating the accused products of all of the Manufacturers
10 collectively, made eleven infringement arguments with respect to the Farmwald/Horowitz
11 patents-in-suit:
12 (1) The commands received by the accused products do not identify the type of
13 read or write to perform;
14 (2) The accused products receive commands not requests;
15 (3) The accused products do not receive bits that specify a read, write, or any
16 other type of action;
17 (4) The burst length value received by the mode register of the accused
18 products does not specify the total amount of data transferred on the data
19 bus;
20 (5) Write operations performed by the accused products do not have a known
21 timing relationship with respect to an external clock;
22 (6) Read operations performed by the accused products do not have a known
23 timing relationship with respect to an external clock;
24 (7) The accused products do not output data (for read operations) as a result of
25 a rising or falling edge transition of an external clock;
26 (8) The accused products do not sample an operation code as a result of a
27 rising or falling edge transition of an external clock;
28 ///
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 (9) The accused products do not receive an external clock signal which
2 governs the timing of read and write operations;
3 (10) The accused products do not receive or output data before a delay time
4 expires;
5 (11) Rambus does not offer any evidence of indirect infringement. .
6 Detre Decl., Ex. E, at i (Table of Contents listing non-infringement arguments A.1 through A.10,
7 and C). In light of the admitted similarities among the products accused of infringement, the
8 Manufacturers decision to treat them collectively, at least until now, makes perfect sense.
9 Although they have now apparently decided to treat infringement as an individual issue, requiring
10 four testifying experts at trial, the Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports confirm that the
11 Manufacturers’ initial assessment of infringement as a common issue was correct no matter how
12 appealing it may now be as a tactical matter to characterize it as an individual issue.
13 In the Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports, the Manufacturers make the same
14 arguments that they made through the testimony of one joint expert in their Joint Opposition to
15 Rambus’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Literal Infringement, but now they make them using
16 the testimony of four separate experts. After similar background sections, each of the
17 Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports makes some subset of the same arguments that the
18 Manufacturers made jointly before. The numbers in the first column of the following table
19 correspond to the eleven infringement arguments listed above. The paragraph cites indicate
20 where each infringement expert makes one of the above arguments with a blank indicating that
21 that particular expert did not make the argument at issue. 3
22
Mfrs Past Bagherzadeh Hoffman Runas Taylor
23 Infringement (Nanya) (Micron) (Samsung) (Hynix)
Arguments
24
1 ¶¶ 115-120 ¶¶ 51-60 ¶¶ 75-86
25 2 ¶¶ 97-101 ¶¶ 27-46 ¶¶ 61-72 ¶¶ 62-72
26
3
27 Dr. Bagherzadeh and Mr. Taylor organize their reports on a claim-by-claim basis, and repeat the
same arguments with respect to different claims. The table cites to the first occurrence of the
28 argument.
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1
3 ¶¶ 91-96
2 4 ¶¶ 77-90
3 5 ¶¶ 102-109 ¶¶ 48-56, 64-67 ¶¶ 73-84
4 6 ¶¶ 141-144 ¶¶ 57-63 ¶¶ 85-97
7 ¶¶ 155-157 ¶¶ 68-80 ¶¶ 98-107 ¶¶157-164
5
8 ¶¶ 202-204 ¶¶ 81-88 ¶¶ 108-117
6
9 ¶¶ 132-135 ¶¶ 89-98 ¶¶ 118-128 ¶¶ 103-111
7
10 ¶¶ 121-123 ¶¶ 99-105 ¶¶ 129-138 ¶¶ 87-91, 146-156
8 11 ¶¶ 139-140
9 In support of these arguments, the four infringement experts do not rely on unique
10 features of the Manufacturers’ respective accused products, but features common to all. 4
11 Likewise, the experts generally rely solely on features apparent from the Manufacturers’ highly
12 similar datasheets to make their infringement arguments, rather than any part-specific circuitry. 5
13 And the Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports make similar arguments to rebut Mr. Murphy’s
14 conclusions. For example, each of the Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports reproduces the same
15 figure from the book “Memory Systems” by Bruce Jacob et al., in an attempt to rebut Mr.
16 Murphy’s citation of that book to show, contrary to non-infringement argument no. 2, that the
17 terms “request” and “command” are used interchangeably. Bagherzadeh Report ¶ 100; Hoffman
18 Report ¶ 44; Runas Report ¶ 70; Taylor Report ¶ 69.
19
20 4
The only arguable exception is Mr. Hoffman’s reference to the “separate input data clock signal
(DKx/DK) in RLDRAM II, rather than the “DQ strobes” in the other products with respect to
21 argument no. 5 (write operations performed by the accused products do not have a known timing
relationship with respect to an external clock.) Compare Hoffman Report ¶¶ 64-67 with id. ¶¶
22 48-56. But, even here, Mr. Hoffman makes the same non-infringement argument, namely that, in
the accused products the timing reference used for data input is a signal, be it the input data clock
23 in RLDRAM II or the DQ strobes in the other products, that does not have a sufficiently tight
timing relationship with respect to the external clock to meet the claim limitation.
24 5
The only references to specific circuitry in the accused products are Mr. Hoffman’s and Mr.
25 Taylor’s citations to Micron and Hynix schematics, respectively, in support of argument no. 7
(that the accused products do not output data as a result of a rising or falling edge transition of an
26 external clock). Hoffman Report ¶ 71; Taylor Report ¶¶ 160-161. The other two experts make
the same argument – namely that the accused products output data based on the crossing points of
27 the differential clock’s complementary signals rather than as a result of rising and falling edges of
a single clock signal – without feeling the need to resort to schematics. See Bagherzadeh Report
28 ¶¶ 155-157; Runas Report ¶¶ 98-107.
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 The above table includes all of the infringement arguments made by the
2 Manufacturers’ four infringement experts with but one exception: Mr. Runas argues that the
3 accused Samsung products do not meet certain limitations that, according to Mr. Runas, require
4 action by controllers. Runas Report ¶¶ 141-144. However, n making this argument, Mr. Runas
5 does not rely on any feature unique to the accused Samsung products. Id.
6 As a preview of what the Manufacturers intend to present at trial on the issue of
7 infringement, the overlapping and duplicative testimony in the Infringement Rebuttal Expert
8 Reports embody the reason for the provision of the JCMO limiting each side to offering one
9 testifying expert on common issues. Consistent with the Manufacturers’ own treatment of the
10 infringement issue to date, and the stated objective of the JCMO “to avoid cumulative testimony,”
11 only one rebuttal report and testifying expert on infringement should be permitted.
12 B. Rambus Would Be Severely Prejudiced If the Manufacturers Were Permitted
to Proceed with Multiple Infringement Experts.
13
14 In addition to the significant time at trial that would wasted if the Manufacturers
15 were permitted to offer four testifying experts on the common issue of infringement, Rambus
16 would be severely prejudiced, both in its ability to prepare for trial and to present its arguments
17 on infringement at trial. First, allowing four experts to testify at trial regarding the overlapping
18 issues addressed in the Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports may, at best, confuse the jury, and,
19 at worst, create the impression that, in a “battle of the experts,” the party with the greatest number
20 of experts has the better of the argument. Given the Manufacturers’ own conduct to date in
21 treating infringement as a common issue, showing that it is not only possible but proper to do so,
22 it would be manifestly unfair to Rambus to allow the Manufacturers to change course now simply
23 to gain a tactical advantage at trial.
24 Second, Rambus would be prejudiced in its ability to prepare for trial by having to
25 take the depositions of four experts, instead of one, all of whom would testify to essentially the
26 same overlapping issues addressed in their respective expert reports. Ensuring the fair and
27 efficient conduct of trials is only one reason to preclude duplicative testimony. A corollary to this
28 sound rule of judicial administration, as expressly adopted by this Court in the JCMO, is to allow
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
1 parties to prepare for trial without wasting time and resources addressing and responding to such
2 testimony. While working to meet aggressive deadlines for filing pre-trial motions and otherwise
3 preparing for trial, Rambus would be put at a significant disadvantage if it were required to
4 prepare for and take four, largely duplicative expert depositions.
5 III. CONCLUSION
6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Rambus’s motion to preclude the
7 four rebuttal expert reports on infringement served by the Manufacturers and related trial
8 testimony. If this motion is granted, and the Court permits the Manufacturers to serve a single
9 rebuttal expert report on the issue of infringement consistent with the JCMO, any such new report
10 should be limited to arguments contained in the existing Infringement Rebuttal Expert Reports
11 with respect to the Manufacturers’ respective accused products.
12
13 DATED: October 3, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
14 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
15 McKOOL SMITH P.C.
16
17 By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring

ROSEMARIE T. RING
18
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW

2344

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

2344

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2344 Filed 10/03/2008 Page 1 of 12

14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

26 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

2 CASE NO.: C 06-00244 RMW

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

12 DATED: October 3, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

16 By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

5 in relevant part, as follows:

6 Rambus shall disclose only one testifying expert on any particular

14 deadline for rebuttal expert reports as September 26, 2008.

15 On the issue of infringement, Rambus served its opening expert report on

1 There is substantial overlap among the Manufacturers’ accused products at issue in

13 DATED: October 3, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

14 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP

15 McKOOL SMITH P.C.

17 By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring

You might also like