Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Townsend and Townsend and Crew: VIA E-Mail and Hand Delivery
Townsend and Townsend and Crew: VIA E-Mail and Hand Delivery
December 9,2008
I write in response to Peter Detre's December 8, 2008 letter to the Court on behalf of
Rambus regarding the Court's clarified, and significantly different, construction of the term
"memory device." This revised construction introduces a number of new issues into the
litigation that have not previously been addressed by any of the parties in the infringement and
invalidity contentions, expert reports and depositions, or infringement summary judgment
motions. Fairness and orderly trial management as reflected in the Local Patent Rules, require
that the new issues raised by the revised construction be propedy framed prior to triaL.
The revised construction raises a number of new issues, including whether a "memory
device" must be smaller than any prior art memory board, including prior art memory modules
San Francisco I Palo Alto I Walnut Creek I San Diego I Denver I Seattle I Washington, DC I Tokyo
www.townsend.com
TOWNSEND
and
The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
December 9, 2008
TOWNSEND
and Page 2
CREW
LLP
(and, if so, by how much); what the other components of a memory subsystem can comprise;
how to determine which "memory devices" have "low power dissipation"; and what level of
power dissipation would allow close spacing of the memory device to the other components of
the memory subsystem. None of these issues have previously been addressed in any of the
parties' contentions, expert reports or depositions, or infrngement summary judgment papers.
This is understandable, since no party suggested or contemplated these characteristics of a
"memory device" and all of the parties' prior submissions preceded the Court's clarification of
the term. All of these new issues must be properly framed before trial, for both infringement and
validity, to avoid the unfair trial by surprise that the rules of discovery and disclosure are
intended to avoid.
Mr. Detre's December 8 letter amounts to little more than an un-noticed motion for
clarification of the Court's construction, and blithely takes the position that the additional
limitations of the Court's construction are irrelevant to whether the Manufacturers infrnge,
while carefully reserving both Rambus's positions as to whether these new limitations are met in
the prior art and its ability to hamstring the Manufacturers' expert testimony at triaL. Rambus's
selective quotations from the Court's Order of November 21,2008 and one-sided interpretations
of the Court's revised construction set out in this Order demonstrate the fundamental fairness of
the provisions in the Local Patent Rules providing for additional infrngement and invalidity
contentions after a new and unanticipated claim construction is issued
The Manufacturers will be prepared to discuss these issues furher at the December 10
hearing.