Replies to post #8017 on Rambus (RMBS)

[Threejack]

re: Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc. Docket 714 file links


Docrew,

Great stuff, thanks for posting. The host server works fine; loaded the pdfs in no time.

Agree with NicdaGreek, the Rambus brief on transferring the Micron case to Judge Whyte is very compelling. Won't surprise me one little bit if he agrees to the transfer. Nice chart in the brief on the patents and claims involved in each of the litigations. Perhaps will aid the discussion between calbiker and JMONTIM.

Reading the Exhibits like a trip down memory lane, having been around since the beginning of the litigations. Have to say, the tone to Judge Whyte's remarks to counsel about the need for a business resolution to the litigations seemed squarely aimed at Rambus and, by implication, Micron. My inference is Samsung and Hynix were at least involved in settlement discussions with Rambus. Seems personal between Micron and Rambus, but maybe my imagination. Mr. Hughes has no history with Mr. Appleton relative to Rambus, does he?

Also struck by the tone of Judge Whyte's remarks about Judge Payne's decision on the unclean hands issue and potential at the time to retain the Samsung case. Seemed more willing to defer to Judge Payne than I previously thought. No wonder Rambus surrendered its patents at suit to escape Judge Payne. Think Judge Whyte might have let him proceed to make a further mess of things.

Just my opinion.

Threejack

[msaba]

Hi Docrew, I could not see the PDF files, I get the following message:

"User Account Exceeded Bandwidth"

If you email the files to me at [e-mail], I'll post them in chat room I where some 670 people have access.

TIA

[docrew0]

Patents at Issue in the Rambus Cases

The March 6th Hynix trial will only chip away at a much larger iceberg.

It’s easy to get confused over what's at issue. Fortunately for us the Rambus legal team simplified the following in its recent opening brief and exhibits to The Honorable Judge Jordan. As explained in the opening brief the scope of infringement grows with an ever-expanding array of new products. Having all the cases consolidated within one court will simplify the discovery time, expense and minimize contradictory decisions.

I’m glad to see that Rambus and so many Long Term Longs will finally get to see their day in court. I trust that Judge Whyte will push through Hynix’s last-ditch efforts to delay justice and Judge Jordan will transfer his case to California.

Best of luck to all.

Regards,

Docrew

===============================================================

Patents at Issue in Rambus Cases



Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc. Civil Action No. 00-792-KAJ_(D. Del.)
USPTO Patent No. 6,378,020_(“‘020”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,915,105_(“‘105”)
USPTO Patent No. 6.324.120_(“‘120”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,038,195_(“‘195”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,032,214_(“‘214”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,032,215_(“‘215”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,953,263_(“‘263”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,995,443_(“‘443”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,954,804_(“‘804”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,452,863_(“‘863”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,426,916_(“‘916”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,034,918_(“‘918”)

Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GgmbH v. Rambus, Inc. Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW_(N.D. Cal.)
USPTO Patent No. 6,378,020_(“‘020”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,915,105_(“‘105”)
USPTO Patent No. 6.324.120_(“‘120”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,101,152_(“‘152”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,038,195_(“‘195”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,032,214_(“‘214”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,032,215_(“‘215”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,953,263_(“‘263”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,035,365_(“‘365”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,995,443_(“‘443”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,067,592_(“‘592”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,954,804_(“‘804”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,452,863_(“‘863”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,426,916_(“‘916”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,034,918_(“‘918”)

Rambus, Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P., Nanya Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation USPTOA., and Inotera Memories, Inc.
Case No. C 05 00334 RMW_(N.D. Cal.)
USPTO Patent No. 6,378,020_(“‘020”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,584,037_(“‘037”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,314,051_(“‘051”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,260,097_(“‘097”)
USPTO Patent No. 6.324.120_(“‘120”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,182,184_(“‘184”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,564,281_(“‘281”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,266,285_(“‘285”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,697,295_(“‘295”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,807,598_(“‘598”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,751,696_(“‘696”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,493,789_(“‘789”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,452,863_(“‘863”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,496,897_(“‘897”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,426,916_(“‘916”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,701,446_(“‘1,446”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,715,020_(“‘5,020”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,546,446_(“‘6,446”)

Rambus, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P. Case No. C 05 02298 RMW_(N.D. Cal.)
USPTO Patent No. 6,378,020_(“‘020”)
USPTO Patent No. 5,915,105_(“‘105”)
USPTO Patent No. 6.324.120_(“‘120”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,101,152_(“‘152”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,038,195_(“‘195”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,067,592_(“‘592”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,452,863_(“‘863”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,426,916_(“‘916”)

Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. Case No. C 06 00244 WHA_(N.D. Cal.)
USPTO Patent No. 6,378,020_(“‘020”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,584,037_(“‘037”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,314,051_(“‘051”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,260,097_(“‘097”)
USPTO Patent No. 6.324.120_(“‘120”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,182,184_(“‘184”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,564,281_(“‘281”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,266,285_(“‘285”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,697,295_(“‘295”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,807,598_(“‘598”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,751,696_(“‘696”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,493,789_(“‘789”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,452,863_(“‘863”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,496,897_(“‘897”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,426,916_(“‘916”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,701,446_(“‘1,446”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,715,020_(“‘5,020”)
USPTO Patent No. 6,546,446_(“‘6,446”)

Sources:
CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ
02/14/2006 712 MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California - filed by Rambus Inc., Rambus Inc.. (Graham, Mary) (Entered:_02/14/2006)
http://investor.rambus.com/downloads/2006-02-14%20Rambus%20Brief%20in%20Support%20of%20Motion%20to%2...

02/14/2006 714 APPENDIX re 712 MOTION to Transfer Case to Northern District of California, 713 Opening Brief in Support (Exhibits A through U) by Rambus Inc., Rambus Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 # 2)(Graham, Mary) (Entered:_02/14/2006)
Multiple Documents
Part Description
1__Main Document 98 pages
2__64 pages
3__50 pages
http://h1.ripway.com/Docrew0/Micron_show_case_doc_7149740MAGIC09903781.pdf
http://h1.ripway.com/Docrew0/Micron_show_case_doc_7149741MAGIC09903781.pdf
http://h1.ripway.com/Docrew0/Micron_show_case_doc_7149742MAGIC09903781.pdf

If you want to research the patents yourself see Post # 6221 for methods on searching the USPTO database. http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=8566652

[docrew0]

Micron Technology v. Rambus Inc. Docket 715
U.S. District Court
District of Delaware (Wilmington)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:00-cv-00792-KAJ


02/23/2006 715 Letter to Honorable Kent A. Jordan from Frederick L. Cottrell, III regarding enclosing copy of RICO complaint filed by Micron against Rambus in Eastern District of Virginia - re Scheduling Conference. (Attachments: # 1 copy of RICO complaint)(Cottrell, Frederick) (Entered: 02/23/2006)



http://h1.ripway.com/Docrew0/Micron_RICO_show_case_doc_7159741MAGIC09903821.pdf

RICO complaint
http://h1.ripway.com/Docrew0/Micron_show_case_doc_7159740MAGIC09903821.pdf