Transcript of conf call of Dec 2
1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
2 RICHMOND DIVISION
3 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
:
4 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD. :
:
5 Plaintiff, :
:
6 v. : Civil No.
: 3:05CV406
7 RAMBUS, INC. :
: December 2, 2005
8 Defendant. :
:
9 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _:
10
11
12
13
COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT OF CONFERENCE CALL
14 BEFORE THE HONORABLE ROBERT E. PAYNE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 DIANE J. DAFFRON, RPR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
25
2
1 APPEARANCES: (All via telephone)
2
Brian C. Riopelle, Esq.
3 McGUIRE WOODS LLP
901 East Cary Street
4 Richmond, VA 23219
(804)775-1084
5
6 David J. Healey, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES
7 700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, Texas 77002
8 (713)546-5111
9
Harris D. Butler, III, Esquire
10 BUTLER, WILLIAMS & SKILLING
1309 E. Cary Street
11 Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 648-4848
12
Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiff
13
14 R. Braxton Hill, Esq.
CHRISTIAN & BARTON
15 909 E. Main Street, Suite 1200
Richmond, VA 23219
16 (804)697-4100
17
Gregory P. Stone, Esq.
18 Daniel Beck, Esq.
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
19 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
20 (213)683-9100
21 Counsel on behalf of the Defendant
22
23
24
25
3
1
2 (The proceedings in this matter commenced at 4:30
3 p.m.)
4 THE COURT: Hello.
5 MR. RIOPELLE: Hello, Your Honor. It's Samsung v.
6 Rambus.
7 THE COURT: This is No. 3:05CV406. I have a court
8 reporter. Who's here for whom?
9 MR. RIOPELLE: This is Brian Riopelle with
10 McGuireWoods for Samsung, Your Honor.
11 MR. HEALEY: David Healey at Weil, Gotshal &
12 Manges, counsel for Samsung, Your Honor.
13 MR. STONE: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Gregory
14 Stone for Rambus.
15 MR. HILL: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Braxton
16 Hill with Christian & Barton for Rambus.
17 THE COURT: All right.
18 MR. BECK: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Daniel
19 Beck from Munger, Tolles for Rambus.
20 THE COURT: All right. Thank you for being
21 available on relatively short notice.
22 MR. BUTLER: Your Honor, Harris Butler also for
23 Samsung. I just plugged in.
24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
25 I have gotten this notice of Rule 68 offer of
4
1 judgment, and I'm not sure when it has to be accepted.
2 I haven't studied it for that purpose. I don't know
3 when it was served on Samsung.
4 MR. HEALEY: This is Dave Healey. By my
5 calculations, I believe the return date would be
6 Tuesday, December 13.
7 THE COURT: All right.
8 MR. HEALEY: And I defer to Munger, Tolles if they
9 have calculated it differently, but I believe that is
10 correct.
11 THE COURT: All right. Well, is that what you
12 think it is, Mr. Stone, too?
13 MR. STONE: I think that's right, Your Honor.
14 THE COURT: All right. Well, the last line of the
15 first page of the notice that was given to me says that
16 because it no longer has subject matter jurisdiction,
17 the Court should not proceed further with this action,
18 the lawsuit should be dismissed, and the briefing and
19 hearing on Samsung's motion for attorneys' fees should
20 not proceed further.
21 I know what Rambus's position is. What is your
22 position, Mr. Healey, on that?
23 MR. HEALEY: Our position, Your Honor, is that
24 that is incorrect. The cases cited by Rambus, none of
25 them are cases that involve certainly the specific
5
1 statute such as 285, but more importantly, none of them
2 involve the issue that Your Honor discusses in its
3 November 8th order that this is not simply a matter of
4 collection of dollars. This is a matter of the Court
5 determining whether or not the counterclaims originally
6 were brought in bad faith, whether we can proceed in
7 bad faith, and whether or not the litigation conduct
8 here was such that it would merit an award of
9 attorneys' fees under Section 285.
10 It's not simply a cost-shifting statute, as you
11 noted in your November 8 order, rather it is a statute
12 that also deals with the integrity of the judicial
13 process, and, therefore, we think the cases cited by
14 Rambus are inapplicable and, in effect, this is an
15 attempt to reargue what has already been argued and
16 decided on November 8, albeit it will moot some but not
17 all of the Court's reasoning in coming to its
18 conclusion in the November 8th order.
19 Therefore, for the reasons stated in the
20 November 8th order, particularly at the end of that
21 order, the third reason, essentially, that the Court
22 found for going forward notwithstanding the settlement
23 offer by Rambus, we think that that reasoning continues
24 to apply regardless of the offer of judgment, and the
25 Court should go forward as it previously determined
6
1 that it would in its November 8 opinion.
2 THE COURT: Mr. Stone.
3 MR. STONE: Yes, Your Honor. Obviously, our
4 providing a Rule 68 offer to Samsung in this context
5 eliminates any dispute before this court. This court
6 pursuant to the Rule 68 offer should determine that the
7 issues here are moot.
8 THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Stone.
9 MR. STONE: Yes.
10 THE COURT: Excuse me. I don't know what's
11 happening, but we can't really hear you.
12 MR. STONE: I'm sorry.
13 THE COURT: It sounds like you're driving in a
14 convertible and just went from 0 to 60.
15 MR. STONE: I didn't, Your Honor, but I am driving
16 my car, unfortunately, trying to get to the airport.
17 Let me try again, and if it's a problem and I need to
18 pull over, I will.
19 THE COURT: Just keep going.
20 MR. STONE: Our view, as we laid out, is that
21 there is no longer any dispute between Rambus and
22 Samsung in this case, and we have offered the remedy to
23 Samsung that it seeks, and that eliminates any further
24 case or controversy.
25 What I think Mr. Healey's argument reveals is that
7
1 what Samsung seeks is not an award that will benefit
2 them in this case. We have offered them that. They
3 seek a ruling that they hope will have collateral
4 consequences in other litigation. That is not a basis
5 for this court to retain jurisdiction. Indeed, it's an
6 improper attempt on Samsung's part to create a case or
7 controversy that injects this court unnecessarily into
8 other proceedings.
9 We think we've satisfied the law and have
10 responded to the concern the Court raised about the
11 sufficiency of our prior settlement offer. So we
12 think, and have earlier argued, and the reasons we have
13 summarized in the notice we provided the Court, that
14 this Court, in fact, should not proceed because there
15 is nothing in dispute in this case between Rambus and
16 Samsung that needs to be resolved.
17 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Healey, do you have
18 anything else to say?
19 MR. HEALEY: Your Honor, quite simply that Rambus
20 made the deliberate decision to go forward in response
21 to Samsung's original complaint in this court in the
22 counterclaim, which it litigated through a motion to
23 transfer venue, which it litigated through a full
24 summary judgment briefing, and almost to the day of the
25 hearing before it made a procedural surrender to try to
8
1 avoid this Court's potential ruling.
2 That's gaming the system. It's bad faith
3 litigation in trying to enforce the patents. What
4 Rambus wants to do is escape the consequences of a
5 sanction by simply paying the potential penalty.
6 The issue here is having the 285 ruling on
7 Rambus's litigation conduct and that that issue is one
8 that has collateral consequences for Rambus. Whether
9 it has collateral consequences in other pending
10 lawsuits is yet to be determined and will be determined
11 by the judges in those law suits, but it certainly is
12 an admonition to Rambus about what kinds of conduct it
13 may and may not engage in in litigation, and it is a
14 warning to other litigants about what kind of conduct,
15 including litigants who would confront Samsung with
16 these types of lawsuits, and especially this litigant
17 that did put Samsung to the cost and burden of
18 litigating, in, in fact, having the Samsung vice
19 president fly to testify in person before this Court.
20 THE COURT: Excuse me. I understand you-all
21 contest the effect of the Rule 68 offer of judgment.
22 It seems to me that Samsung has, under the rule, a
23 certain number of days to either accept or decline and
24 nothing that I should do here should cut off those
25 rights.
9
1 Rambus has said in its filing that it thinks that
2 the Court has no further jurisdiction in the matter,
3 and you have until the 13th, or whatever date you have,
4 to accept or reject. If at the end of that period you
5 have not accepted, then you need to file a paper
6 responsive to whether the Court has any further
7 jurisdiction.
8 I would think that the way to do this is for you
9 to go ahead and do it, file that pleading on
10 December 14, the day after your acceptance is due. For
11 if you choose to accept it and there's no further
12 matter to be decided, then nothing needs to be done.
13 If you choose to fight it or to say there's something
14 left, then you need to explain why.
15 In the meantime, Rambus should go ahead and
16 proceed and file its papers as per the November 8th
17 order. We will have the hearing on December the 15th.
18 Samsung will have to file its reply under the
19 November 8th order. Rambus will have a right of reply
20 to what you file on December the 14th, and it can file
21 its reply on December the 21st.
22 If you-all subsequently determine and if it's
23 necessary to have an argument on that issue, we'll
24 assess that after we get the papers.
25 Just so everybody knows, that's how we'll proceed.
10
1 We will proceed in that fashion. And then if it is
2 determined that there isn't any jurisdiction, then
3 you-all will have gone to some effort you didn't need
4 to go to, but if it is determined there is
5 jurisdiction, we can continue to proceed to resolve the
6 matter as promptly as possible.
7 Anybody have anything else you-all need to say or
8 do?
9 MR. HEALEY: Nothing further, Your Honor.
10 MR. STONE: Nothing further on Rambus's part, Your
11 Honor. Thank you.
12 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Stone, I hope somebody
13 is driving you. I don't want to be responsible under
14 California law if you have an accident while you're
15 talking on the phone.
16 MR. STONE: I appreciate that, Your Honor. Nobody
17 wants that more than I do either. So I think we're
18 okay in that regard.
19 THE COURT: What I don't really want is for you to
20 have an accident and be hurt.
21 MR. STONE: I appreciate that, Your Honor.
22 THE COURT: All right. Thank you all very much.
23 MR. STONE: Thank you, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Bye.
25
11
1 I, Diane J. Daffron, certify that the foregoing
2 transcript is a correct record of the proceedings taken
3 and transcribed by me to the best of my ability.
4
5 __________________________ ________
DIANE J. DAFFRON, RPR, CCR DATE
6
