Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3154 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 1 of 6

1 Gregory P. Stone (SBN 078329) Rollin A. Ransom (SBN 196126)

Andrea Weiss Jeffries (SBN 183408)
2 Fred A. Rowley, Jr. (SBN 192298)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
3 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560
4 Telephone: (213) 683-9100
Facsimile: (213) 687-3702
5 Email: gregory.stone@mto.com
Email: andrea.jeffries@mto.com
6 Email: fred.rowley@mto.com
7 Peter A. Detre (SBN 182619)
Rosemarie T. Ring (SBN 220769)
8 Jennifer L. Polse (SBN 219202)
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
9 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
10 Telephone: (415) 512-4000
Facsimile: (415) 512-4077
11 Email: peter.detre@mto.com
Email: rose.ring@mto.com
12 Email: jen.polse@mto.com
13 Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000
Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
Telephone: (213) 896-6000
Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
Email: rransom@sidley.com
Pierre J. Hubert (Pro Hac Vice)
Craig N. Tolliver (Pro Hac Vice)
McKOOL SMITH PC
300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: (512) 692-8700
Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
Email: phubert@mckoolsmith.com
Email: ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com

15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

16 RAMBUS INC., CASE NO. 05-00334 RMW

17 Plaintiff, RAMBUS INC.’S MOTION FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO EXCEED
18 vs. APPLICABLE PAGE LIMITATIONS
(LOCAL RULE 7-11)
19 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al.,
Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
20 Trial Date: Feb. 17, 2009
Dept: Courtroom 6, 4th Floor
21 Defendant.
22
RAMBUS INC., CASE NO. C 05-02298 RMW
23 Plaintiff,
24 v.

25 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

26 et al.,
Defendants.
27

28
RAMBUS INC.'S ADMIN MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITS NOS. 05-00334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-00244
RMW; 00-20905 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3154 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 2 of 6

1 CASE NO. C-06-00244 RMW

RAMBUS INC.,
2 Plaintiff,
3 vs.

4 MICRON TECHNOLOGY INC., et al.,

5 Defendants.

6 CASE NO. CV 00-20905 RMW

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., et al.,
7 Plaintiffs,
8 vs.
9 RAMBUS INC.,
10 Defendant.
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
RAMBUS INC.'S ADMIN MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITS NOS. 05-00334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-00244
RMW; 00-20905 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3154 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 3 of 6

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 7-11, Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) respectfully requests that the Court
2 permit Rambus to file an omnibus opposition brief of 38 pages to the following motions filed by
3 Hynix Semiconductor Inc., Hynix Semiconductor America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
4 Manufacturing America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd., Hynix Semiconductor
5 Deutschland GmbH; Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc.; Nanya
6 Technology Corporation, Nanya Technology Corporation U.S.A.; and Samsung Electronics Co.,
7 Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc., Samsung Austin
8 Semiconductor, L.P. (collectively, the “Manufacturers”):
9 • Samsung: Notice of Motion and Motion for Entry of Judgment of Unenforceability of
10 Rambus’s Asserted Patents as Against Samsung and Dismissal of Rambus’s Patent
11 Infringement Claims Against Samsung or, in the Alternative, for Summary
12 Judgment (“Samsung CE Mot.”), 26 pages;
13 • Samsung: Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion to Take Judicial Notice and to Re-
14 open the Record of the Unclean Hands September Trial Solely to Admit Evidence
15 Related to Collateral Estoppel (“Samsung Reopen Mot.”), 7 pages;
16 • Micron: Micron’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Unenforceability Based on
17 Collateral Estoppel (“Micron CE Mot.”), 23 pages;
18 • Nanya: Nanya Technology Corporation’s and Nanya Technology Corporation USA’s
19 Motion for Summary Judgment on Unclean Hands Defense (“Nanya SJ Mot.”), 11
20 pages;
21 • Nanya: Nanya Technology Corporation’s and Nanya Technology Corporation USA’s
22 Motion for Application of Issue Preclusion (“Nanya CE Mot.”), 21 pages; and
23 • Hynix: Notice of Motion and Motion of Hynix for Summary Judgment of Unclean
24 Hands, for Relief from Order Under FRCP 60(b), for Entry of Judgment under
25 FRCP 54(b), and for Stay of Remaining Proceedings (“Hynix CE Mot.”), 23
26 pages.
27 Under Local Rule 7-3, Rambus is permitted to file an opposition brief of up to 25 pages to
28 each of the Manufacturers’ Motions, for a total of 150 pages. Rambus proposed a stipulation to
RAMBUS INC.'S ADMIN MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
-1- LIMITS NOS. 05-00334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-00244
RMW; 00-20905 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3154 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 4 of 6

1 the Manufacturers that would allow Rambus to file one consolidated opposition brief not to
2 exceed 45 pages, instead of six separate briefs. (See Declaration of Rosemarie T. Ring in Support
3 of Rambus Inc.’s Motion for Administrative Relief to Exceed Page Limitations, Ex. A.) The
4 Manufacturers agreed to allow Rambus to file an omnibus opposition brief not to exceed 45
5 pages, but subject to terms which, as set forth below, would defeat the efficiencies Rambus was
6 attempting to achieve in proposing an omnibus opposition brief. Id.
7 Rambus respectfully submits that it should be granted leave to exceed the page limitation
8 applicable to opposition briefs under Local Rule 7-3(a), and to file an omnibus opposition to the
9 Manufacturers’ Motions, which consume a combined 111 pages. At 38 pages, the brief is a mere
10 13 pages longer than a conventional opposition provided for in Local Rule 7-3(a). This relief is
11 warranted for the following reasons, among others:
12 First, Rambus believes that a single brief that sets forth an overall framework for
13 analyzing these issues and situates individual arguments within this framework will avoid wasting
14 the Court’s time by repeating the same point over and over again. At the same time, this
15 approach would avoid the risk of key distinctions being lost in generally duplicative briefing.
16 Several of the arguments advanced by Rambus against the application of collateral estoppel cut
17 across the Manufacturers, and it would waste the Court’s time to present the arguments severally.
18 For example, Rambus contends that all of the Manufacturers fail the mandatory requirement that
19 the Delaware Court ruling address issues identical to those presented here. As to the non-mutual
20 Manufacturers—Hynix, Nanya, and Samsung—Rambus argues that the inconsistency between
21 the Delaware ruling and this Court’s spoliation order in Hynix I weighs against the application of
22 the doctrine here. Individual oppositions addressing both the general arguments and the
23 particular assertions made by Micron, Hynix, Samsung, and Nanya would make for longer,
24 repetitive, confusing, and inherently less helpful briefing.
25 Second, while there are many common arguments that lend themselves to consolidation,
26 Rambus must necessarily devote portions of the brief to arguments that are more limited in scope.
27 Many of the Manufacturers’ motions make arguments that are specific to the individual
28 manufacturer, requiring individualized responses. Some examples of this are Nanya’s issue
RAMBUS INC.'S ADMIN MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITS NOS. 05-00334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-00244
RMW; 00-20905 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3154 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 5 of 6

1 preclusion motion, which makes particularized collateral estoppel arguments that the other
2 Manufacturers do not advance. (Nanya CE Mot., at 10-20); Samsung’s contention that the
3 persuasive value of the Delaware Court ruling weighs in favor of reopening the record in the
4 Samsung spoliation trial (Samsung CE Mot., at 25; Samsung Reopen. Mot.); the invocation by
5 Hynix and Samsung of the last-in-time rule (Samsung CE Mot., at 24; Hynix’s CE Mot., at 17-
6 18); and Hynix’s argument that the Delaware ruling justifies reconsideration of the Court’s
7 spoliation Order (Hynix CE Mot., at 19). Even when the Manufacturers make overlapping
8 arguments in their papers, they cite different authorities, emphasize different themes and points,
9 and highlight different facts. Some examples of this are Samsung’s heavy reliance on the vacated
10 orders in Infineon and Samsung (Samsung CE Mot., at 3-4); the various cases discussed by the
11 Manufacturers in characterizing the application of collateral estoppel here as defensive (compare,
12 e.g., Hynix CE Mot., at 16 (citing Delgado v. United States, 536 F. Supp. 2d 1328 (Ct. Int’l Trade
13 2007), and Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. FAG Bearings Corp., 335 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2003)), with
14 Samsung CE Mot., at 21-22 (citing State of Idaho Potato Comm’n v. G&T Terminal Packaging,
15 Inc., 425 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2005)); and Micron’s argument that the “the actions do not need to be
16 identical for collateral estoppel to apply” (Micron CE Mot., at 19).
17 Third, the Manufacturers’ main objection—that Rambus should be permitted no more
18 pages than it would receive were it to file individual oppositions—ignores the efficiency and
19 basic fairness of Rambus’s approach. To begin with, synthesizing arguments and points is
20 beneficial to the Court and the parties as a whole, but may require a longer discussion in some
21 instances. The more salient point, however, is that Rambus’s request for an additional 13 pages is
22 rendered no less reasonable by the fact that its arguments as to any particular Manufacturer may
23 add up to more than 25 pages, and it is difficult in any event to allocate the “overhead” pages of
24 briefing on general points to specific Manufacturers. The issues before the Court are important.
25 In order to give the parties more time to address it, this Court continued the trial date in the
26 coordinated cases. Rambus requires the additional pages to thoroughly address the
27 Manufacturers’ arguments, including the following:
28 • To show that the issues are not identical, and to aid the Court in its analysis, Rambus
RAMBUS INC.'S ADMIN MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITS NOS. 05-00334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-00244
RMW; 00-20905 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3154 Filed 01/27/2009 Page 6 of 6

1 must engage in a particularized and record-driven analysis of whether the litigation

2 misconduct relied upon by the Delaware Court would have any prejudicial effect here.
3 This analysis alone takes approximately five pages.
4 • To show that the Manufacturers raise unique issues not addressed by the Delaware
5 Court’s ruling, Rambus must engage in a product-based and defendant-by-defendant
6 analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the pertinent claims and defenses.
7 This analysis takes approximately pages.
8 • To show that the non-mutual Manufacturers are wrong in arguing that this Court lacks
9 discretionary authority to impose collateral estoppel, Rambus must engage in a detailed
10 analysis of collateral estoppel principles. This occupies approximately seven pages.
11 • Finally, to rebut the Manufacturers’ contentions that the Delaware Ruling has persuasive
12 force, Rambus must engage in a detailed analysis of its defects. This occupies an
13 additional six more pages of the brief.
14 For the foregoing reasons, Rambus respectfully requests leave to file a 38-page
15 Consolidated Opposition to Motions of Manufacturers for Summary Judgment Based Upon
16 Collateral Estoppel.
17
DATED: January 26, 2009 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
18
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
19

20
By: /s/ Rosemarie T. Ring
21

22 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-

Defendant RAMBUS INC.
23

24

25

26

27

28
RAMBUS INC.'S ADMIN MOTION TO EXCEED PAGE
LIMITS NOS. 05-00334 RMW; 05-2298 RMW; 06-00244
RMW; 00-20905 RMW