DOC, THANKS FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS.
TRY THIS ON FOR SIZE - I HAVE RE-ORDERED FROM MY EARLIER POST:
............... No. 1 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED](4) that Samsung asserts that this action qualifies an exceptional case because Rambus prosecuted herein claims that the patents-in-suit are infringed by Samsung, notwithstanding that, in March 2005, the Court found that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus was guilty liable for, unclean hands that barred its access to the Court, and that, by clear and convincing evidence, Rambus had committed spoliation of evidence warranting the severe sanction of dismissal;
<<<READ WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT SAMMY'S CONTENTION>>>
................ No. 2 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED]((8) the fact that Rambus by now has twice had a full trial on the merits of the issues of spoliation and unclean hands (in this Court and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California);
<<<READ WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT BAD BOY RMBS>>>
................ No. 3 ................
[I HAVE CONSIDERED]((9) that, on the exceptional case issue, Samsung is prepared to proceed on the factual record on spoliation and unclean hands in the hearing held on February 21 through 2005, in Rambus v. Infineon
<<<READ WHAT HE SAYS ABOUT HOW THIS "SHOULD PROCEED">>>
................ No. 4 ................
it is hereby ORDERED that the adjudication of Samsung's claim for attorney's fees under 35 U.S.C § 285 shall proceed in accordance with the following protocol and procedures and on the following schedule:
<<<I AM GONNA HAVE A NEW "JP PROCEEDING">>>
................ No. 5 ................
(1) the Court finds that no further discovery on the issue of spoliation or unclean hands based on spoliation is needed by either party in order to be able fully and fairly to try, or for the Court to determine, the issue whether this is an exceptional case, as posited by Samsung, and therefore no further discovery will be permitted;
<<<I AM GONNA "TRY" THE ISSUE OF "whether this is an exceptional case, as posited by Samsung" - NOW REFER BACK UP TO No. 1 ABOVE>>>
................ No. 6 ................
(2) In order to decide whether this is an exceptional case:
(a) copies of the record of proceedings in Rambus v. Infineon held on February 21 through February 25, 2005, including all testimony taken and all exhibits introduced therein, shall be made a part of the record in this action;
<<<THE RECORD OF THE KANGAROO CT PROCEEDINGS FROM 2/05 WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW JP PROCEEDING>>>
................ No. 7 ................
(c) Samsung shall be responsible for assuring that the materials identified in paragraphs 1 (a) and (b) are physically placed into the record in this action, and shall do so not later than November 15, 2005;
made a part of the record in this action;
<<<SAMMY IS TO BE SURE THE RECORD AND EXHIBITS OF THE KANGAROO CT PROCEEDINGS FROM 2/05 WILL BE MADE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE NEW JP PROCEEDING>>>
................ No. 8 ................
(e) the parties shall file briefs respecting whether this is an exceptional case on following schedule:
<<<THE BRIEFS WILL ADDRESS EXCEPTIONAL CASE ISSUE - IGNORING RMBS' POSITION THAT YA CAN'T GET TO THAT ISSUE UNTIL YOU FIND THAT SAMMY WAS A PREVAILING PARTY>>>
.
