Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2533 Filed 11/12/2008 Page 1 of 5

1 Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126)

Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408)
2 Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
3 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
4 Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
5 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com
Email: andrea.jeffries@mto.com
6 Email: fred.rowley@mto.com
7 Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619)
Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769)
8 Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 219202)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
9 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
10 Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
11 Email: peter.detre@mto.com
Email: rose.ring@mto.com
12 Email: jen.polse@mto.com
13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
14
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 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)
McKOOL SMITH PC
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 692-8700
Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com
Email: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO. C 05-00334 RMW
17
Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION TO STRIKE
18 MANUFACTURERS’ MOTIONS FOR
v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOS. 1 AND 2
19
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Date: December 11, 2008
20 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Defendants. Ctrm: 6 (Hon. Ronald M. Whyte)
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 TO STRIKE MANUFACTURERS’
6326167.1 MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1 AND 2
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2533 Filed 11/12/2008 Page 2 of 5

2 CASE NO. C 06-00244 RMW

RAMBUS INC.,
3
Plaintiff,
4
v.
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 STRIKE MANUFACTURERS’
6326167.1 MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOS. 1 AND 2
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2533 Filed 11/12/2008 Page 3 of 5

1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:

2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Rambus Inc. hereby moves to strike the
3 Manufacturers’ Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity based on U.S. Patent No. 4,734,909
4 (“the Bennett patent”), designated as “MSJ No. 1,” and Motion for Summary Judgment of
5 Invalidity based on U.S. Patent 4,663,735 (“the Novak patent”), designated as “MSJ No. 2.” This
6 motion shall be heard on December 11, 2008, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom 6 of the above-
7 referenced court, located at 280 South First Street, San Jose, California 95110.
8 This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached
9 Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the papers and pleadings on file in this action, and such
10 other and further evidence as may subsequently be presented to the Court.
11

12 DATED: November 12, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
13 McKOOL SMITH PC

14

15
By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring
16 ROSEMARIE T. RING
17 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
RAMBUS’S MOTION TO STRIKE MANUFACTURERS’
MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOS. 1 AND 2
6326167.1 C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2533 Filed 11/12/2008 Page 4 of 5

1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2
Rambus Inc. respectfully submits this motion to strike two motions for summary
3
judgment filed by the Manufacturers on October 24, 2008, because these motions turn on issues
4
of claim construction and, therefore, violate the Court’s scheduling orders setting October 5, 2007
5
as the deadline for filing such motions.
6
In the Joint Case Management Order dated April 24, 2007 (“JCMO”), the Court
7
set October 5, 2007 as the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment that depend on
8
claim construction issues. JCMO, Attachment C. On July 16, 2008, the Court entered the Patent
9
Trial Scheduling Order for the upcoming patent trial in which it set the deadline for filing
10
Daubert motions and dispositive motions as October 17, 2008, which the parties modified by
11
stipulation to October 24, 2008. To avoid disputes regarding which “dispositive” motions were
12
subject to the October 5, 2007 deadline, and therefore were not to be filed on October 24, 2008,
13
the Court addressed the issue directly:
14
Given these cases’ histories, a few deadlines may require
15 clarification. A “dispositive motion” is a motion for summary
judgment that disposes of a portion of the case. The court will not
16 entertain any dispositive motion that turns on an issue of claim
construction. Such motions were supposed to be filed on October
17 5, 2007.
18 Patent Trial Scheduling Order at 3 (citing the JCMO, Attachment C) (emphasis in original).
19 Despite the Court’s clear admonition, the Manufacturers filed two motions for
20 summary judgment on October 24, 2008, that turn on claim construction and, therefore, violate
21 the JCMO and the Patent Trial Scheduling Order: (1) Motion for Summary Judgment of
22 Invalidity based on U.S. Patent No. 4,734,909 (“the Bennett patent”), designated as “MSJ No. 1,”
23 and (2) Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity based on U.S. Patent 4,663,735 (“the Novak
24 patent”), designated as “MSJ No. 2.” That the Manufacturers’ MSJ No. 1 and MSJ No. 2 turn on
25 issues of claim construction that were disputed in the Markman hearing is plain, and, indeed, the
26 Manufacturers come right out and admit as much, stating in MSJ No. 1: “Rambus asked the
27 Court to construe its claims broadly. Under the constructions it requested, and which the Court
28
RAMBUS’S MOTION TO STRIKE MANUFACTURERS’
6326167.1 -1- MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOS. 1 AND 2
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2533 Filed 11/12/2008 Page 5 of 5

1 adopted, the five claims at issue on this motion indisputably read directly on the Bennett prior
2 art.” MSJ No. 1, at 7(emphasis added).1 In arguing that the claims at issue are anticipated by the
3 Bennett patent, the Manufacturers repeatedly rely on the Court’s construction of terms that were
4 disputed during the Markman proceedings. MSJ No. 1, at 15, 17, 19, 20-21, 23. Likewise, in
5 MSJ No. 2, the Manufacturers argue that the Novak patent anticipates the claims at issue, citing
6 repeatedly to the Court’s construction of various disputed terms. MSJ No. 2, at 4, 10, 14, 16-17,
7 20-21, 23.
8 The Court’s directive in the Patent Trial Scheduling Order that dispositive motions that
9 turn on claim construction were not to be filed on October 24, 2008 is clear, and so is the
10 Manufacturers’ decision to ignore that directive. Because the Manufacturers’ MSJ No. 1 and
11 MSJ No. 2 turn on issues of claim construction, and therefore were to be filed over a year ago, on
12 October 5, 2007, Rambus’s motion to strike these motions should be granted.
13
DATED: November 12, 2008 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
14 SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
McKOOL SMITH PC
15

16

17 By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring

ROSEMARIE T. RING
18
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 1
MSJ No. 1 does not appear to have internal pagination. Page cites are to the Court’s stamp at
28 the top of the pages.
RAMBUS’S MOTION TO STRIKE MANUFACTURERS’
6326167.1 -2- MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT NOS. 1 AND 2
C 05-00334 RMW; C 05-02298 RMW; C 06-00244 RMW