Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 1
Filed: 10/21/2013
2013-1224 (Reexamination Nos. 95/001,106 & 95/001,131) 2013-1228 (Reexamination Nos. 95/000,108 & 95/001,132) ____________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT _____________________
RAMBUS, INC., Appellant, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Appellee. _________________________ Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board. _________________________
RAMBUS INC.S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE APPEAL NOS. 2013-1224 AND 2013-1228 FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
I.
Introduction Appellant Rambus Inc. (Rambus) respectfully moves to consolidate
Appeal No. 2013-1224 with Appeal No. 2013-1228 for purposes of oral argument. As explained below, these two appealsboth arising from inter partes reexamination proceedings of patents in the same familyinvolve similar issues,
Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 2
Filed: 10/21/2013
which would be most efficiently addressed by the same panel during a consolidated oral argument. Counsel for Appellee Micron Technology, Inc.
(Micron) has indicated that Micron does not oppose consolidation of these two appeals for oral argument. II. Background A. Appeal No. 2013-1224
Appeal No. 2013-1224 is fully briefed but for the submission of the joint appendix, which is due on October 22, 2013. In this appeal, Rambus raises two issues concerning the decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 (the 285 patent): 1. Whether the Board had jurisdiction to consider Microns appeal of the Examiners decision not to adopt a proposed rejection of claims 15 and 16 of the 285 patent over Bennett. (Rambus Blue Br. 2; Micron Red Br. 1.) 2. Alternatively, whether the Board erred in finding that claims 15 and 16 of the 285 patent are anticipated by Bennett. (Id.) Micron raises an additional issue as an alternative ground for affirmance: 3. Whether the Board erred in determining that claims 15 and 16 of the 285 patent had priority to the 898 application, rendering JEDEC and Park unavailable as prior art. (Micron Red Br. 1.)
Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 3
Filed: 10/21/2013
B.
Appeal No. 2013-1228
Appeal No. 2013-1228 is fully briefed but for the submission of the joint appendix, which is due on October 28, 2013. In this appeal, Rambus raises two issues concerning the decision of the Board in an inter partes reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 6,314,051 (the 051 patent): 1. Whether the Board had jurisdiction to consider Microns appeal of the Examiners decision not to adopt a proposed rejection of claim 27 of the 051 patent over Bennett. (Rambus Blue Br. 2; Micron Red Br. 1.) 2. Alternatively, whether the Board erred in finding that claim 27 of the 051 patent is anticipated by Bennett. (Id.) Micron raises an additional issue as an alternative ground for affirmance: 3. Whether the Board erred in determining that claim 27 of the 051 patent had priority to the 898 application, rendering JEDEC and Park unavailable as prior art. (Micron Red Br. 1.) III. Argument As explained above, certain issues raised in Appeal No. 2013-1224 and Appeal No. 2013-1228 are similar. The two patents involved are from the same family and have the same relevant specification. Both appeals are from inter partes reexamination proceedings involving the same parties, Rambus and Micron.
Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 4
Filed: 10/21/2013
Both appeals involve the question of whether the Board had jurisdiction to hear Microns appeal of the Examiners decision affirming certain claims over Bennett. Both appeals also involve the alternative question of whether Bennett anticipates certain claims requiring a stored value that is representative of a number of clock cycles. Thus, there is substantial factual overlap on this issue. Finally, both appeals involve the issue raised by Micron, i.e., whether the patents-at-issue are entitled to the filing date of the 898 application, rendering JEDEC and Park unavailable as prior art. Given the substantial factual overlap of these issues and the similar legal arguments raised by both parties in both appeals, judicial efficiency favors consolidating these appeals for oral argument. Such consolidation is within this Courts inherent case-management powers, cf. Fed. R. App. P 3(b)(2), and would not unduly delay or complicate either appeal. IV. Conclusion For the reasons explained above, Rambus respectfully requests that the Court consolidate Appeal No. 2013-1224 with Appeal No. 2013-1228 for oral argument. Micron does not oppose this motion.
Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 5
Filed: 10/21/2013
Dated: October 21, 2013
Respectfully submitted, /s/ James R. Barney J. Michael Jakes James R. Barney Aidan C. Skoyles Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 901 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 408-4000 Attorneys for Appellant Rambus Inc.
Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 6
Filed: 10/21/2013
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rules 26.1 and 47.4, counsel for Appellant Rambus Inc. certify the following: 1. The full name of every party or amicus represented by us is: Rambus Inc. 2. The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption is not the real party in interest) represented by us is: Rambus Inc. 3. All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10 percent or more of the stock of any party represented by us are: None 4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the parties now represented by us in the trial court or are expected to appear in this court are: J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen Daley, James R. Barney, Naveen Modi, Molly R. Silfen, Aidan C. Skoyles FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
Case: 13-1224
Document: 41
Page: 7
Filed: 10/21/2013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing RAMBUS INC.S UNOPPOSED MOTION
TO
CONSOLIDATE APPEAL NOS. 2013-1224
AND
2013-1228
FOR
ORAL
ARGUMENT were served upon registered counsel by operation of the Courts CM/ECF system on this 21st day of October, 2013.
Henry A. Petri Novak Druce Connolly Bove, LLP 1875 I Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 [Link]@[Link] /s/ Kay Wylie Kay Wylie