Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 2

TOWNSEND Palo Alto

and 379 Lytton Avenue


Palo Alto, California 94301-1431
TOWNSEND Tel 650.326.2400
Fax 650.326.2422
and
CREW
Theodore G. Brown, III
LLP
650324.6353
tg brown iQtownsend. com

December 9,2008

VIA E-Mail and Hand Delivery

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte


United States District Court
San Jose Division
2112 U.S. Courthouse
280 S. First Street
Courtroom 6, 4th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113

Re: Rambus v. Hynix, et al., U.S.D.C. N.D. CaL., CV -05-00334 RMW


Rambus v. Sam sung, et al., U.S.D.C. N.D. CaL., CV-05-02298 RMW
Rambus v. Micron, et al., U.S.D.C. N.D. CaL., CV-05-00244 RMW
Our Reference No. 000939-090100

Dear Judge Whyte:

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.

To that end, on December 4,2008, the Manufacturers proposed to Rambus a very


ambitious schedule of supplemental contentions, expert reports, and expert depositions that
would have allowed at least some orderly consideration of these new issues, all without affecting
the current trial date. (See the Raz letter attached to Rambus's letter.) Rather than even discuss
this schedule with the Manufacturers, however, Rambus has simply dismissed the need for any
further development of these new issues or any adequate notice prior to trial of Ram bus's
positions.

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.

Very truly yours,

Theodore G. Brown, III


TGB/amg
cc: Gregory P. Stone (via e-mail gregory.stone(fmto.com)
Peter A. Detre (via e-mail peter. detre(fmto. com)
61383936 vI

You might also like