Case3:10-cv-04017-JSW Document54

Filed09/16/11 Page1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Barbara Clarke McCurdy (Admitted pro hac vice) barbara.mccurdy@finnegan.com Naveen Modi (Admitted pro hac vice) naveen.modi@finnegan.com FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 408-4000 Facsimile: (202) 408-4400 Tina E. Hulse (CA Bar No. 232936) tina.hulse@finnegan.com FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304-1203 Telephone: (650) 849-6600 Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 Attorneys for Defendant RAMBUS INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, Plaintiff,

Case No. C 10-04017-JSW (Related Case: C 10-03736-JSW) DECLARATION OF TINA E. HULSE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT RAMBUS INC.S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Date: Time: Place: Judge: December 2, 2011 9:00 am Courtroom 11, 19th Floor The Honorable Jeffrey S. White

19 v. 20 RAMBUS INC., 21 Defendant. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

HULSE DECL. ISO RAMBUS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 10-04017 JSW

Case3:10-cv-04017-JSW Document54

Filed09/16/11 Page2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I, Tina E. Hulse, declare as follows: 1. I am an associate at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P.,

counsel for Defendant Rambus Inc. (Rambus). I submit this declaration in support of Rambuss Notice of Motion and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Defendant Rambus Inc.s Motion for Summary Judgment. I make this declaration of my own personal knowledge and will competently testify thereto if called upon to do so. 2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

October 10, 2006, Transcript of Telephone Conference, in Perego v. Drehmel, Interference No. 105,467 (the Interference) before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board). 3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the Request for Declaration

of Interference (Request), without the attached exhibits, filed on April 13, 2006, by applicant Drehmel during the prosecution of involved U.S. Application No. 11/203,652. 4. In its Request, Drehmel requested an interference with Rambuss four patents and

eleven applications. Ex. B at 2. By the time of filing Rambuss Motion for Summary Judgment, ten of the eleven Rambus applications had issued as U.S. patents and one had been abandoned. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Declaration -

Bd. R. 203(b) [Paper 1] filed on August 15, 2006, by the Board in the Interference, declaring an interference between Junior Party Richard E. Perego, Stefanos Sidiropoulos, and Ely Tsern (Patent No. 6,502,161) and Senior Party Robert Allen Drehmel, Kent Harold Haselhorst, Russell Dean Hoover, and James Anthony Marcella (U.S. Application No. 11/203,652). 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the Drehmel List of

Intended Motions (Motions List) filed on October 3, 2006, by Drehmel in the Interference. 7. In its Motions List, Plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (IBM)

sought authorization to file six motions seeking to add six different Rambus patents to the Interference, and nine motions seeking to add nine different Rambus applications to the Interference. Ex. D at 3-5.

HULSE DECL. ISO RAMBUS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 10-04017 JSW

Case3:10-cv-04017-JSW Document54

Filed09/16/11 Page3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the OrderMotion

TimesBd. R. 104(c) [Paper 22] filed on October 11, 2006, by the Board in the Interference. 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the JudgmentMerits

Bd. R. 127 [Paper 156] filed on June 24, 2010, by the Board in the Interference. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the July 8, 2010, Transcript

of Teleconference in the Interference before the Board. 11. On information and belief, IBM is the assignee of U.S. Application No. 11/706,156

(the 156 reissue application), which is currently pending before the PTO. 12. According to documents I retrieved from the PTOs Public Patent Application

Information Retrieval (Public PAIR) website, the 156 reissue application includes claims copied from the fourteen issued Rambus patents that IBM requested be added to the Interference. In each amendment adding the copied Rambus claims, IBM stated that the amendment served as notice that the claims variously correspond to the claims of the Rambus patents. 13. According to the PTOs Public PAIR website, prosecution has been suspended in the

156 reissue application and no claims have been allowed. Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the Letter of Suspension sent by the PTO in the 156 reissue application on August 12, 2011. 14. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the transcript of the Case

Management Conference held on January 14, 2011, for Case Nos. C-10-03736 JSW and C-10-04017 JSW. 15. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the Standing Order [Paper 2]

filed on August 15, 2006, by the Board in the Interference. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 16th day of September, 2011, in Palo Alto, California.

/s/ Tina E. Hulse Tina E. Hulse

HULSE DECL. ISO RAMBUS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CASE NO. C 10-04017 JSW