Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1963 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 1 of 5

1
2 E-filed: 7/16/2008

3
4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6 SAN JOSE DIVISION
7
8
RAMBUS INC., No. C-05-00334 RMW
9
Plaintiff, PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
10
v. [Re Docket No. 1950]
11
United States District Court

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX

SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,
For the Northern District of California

12
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
13 MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.,
14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
15 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
16 L.P.,
17 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
18 U.S.A.,
19 Defendants.
20
RAMBUS INC., No. C-05-02298 RMW
21
Plaintiff, [Re Docket No. 955]
22
v.
23
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
24 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
25 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
L.P.,
26
Defendants.
27
28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW
TSF
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1963 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 2 of 5

1
RAMBUS INC., No. C-06-00244 RMW
2
Plaintiff, [Re Docket No. 1391]
3
v.
4
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., and
5 MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS,
INC.
6
Defendants.
7
8 Having considered the comments and proposals presented by the parties in their July 9 joint
9 case management statement, the court provides the following case management order.
10 A. Schedule for the Patent Trial
11
United States District Court

Case Milestone Rambus's Proposal Manufacturers' Proposal Court's Order

For the Northern District of California

12 Final Infringement July 25, 2008 August 11, 2008 August 1, 2008
Contentions.
13
Final Invalidity August 11, 2008 September 2, 2008 August 22, 2008
14 Contentions.

15 Close of fact discovery. August 15, 2008 September 8, 2008 August 29, 2008

16 Opening expert reports (on August 11, 2008 September 19, 2008 September 5, 20081
all issues as to which a
17 party bears the burden of
proof).
18 Rebuttal expert reports. September 10, 2008 October 3, 2008 September 26, 2008
19 Close of expert discovery. September 26, 2008 October 17, 2008 October 10, 2008

20 Last day to file dispositive October 3, 2008 October 24, 2008 October 17, 2008
motions and Daubert
21 motions.

22 Last day to file oppositions October 17, 2008 November 7, 2008 October 31, 2008
to dispositive motions and
23 Daubert motions.

Last day to file replies to October 24, 2008 November 14, 2008 November 7, 2008
24 dispositive motions and
Daubert motions.
25
26
27 1
The court expects that the Manufacturers will have significantly narrowed the number
of prior art references supporting their invalidity contentions.
28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW
TSF 2
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1963 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 3 of 5

1 Hearing on dispositive November 7, 2008 December 5, 2008 November 21, 2008

motions.
2
Last day to file motions in (none) (none) November 26, 2008
3 limine.

4 Last day to file oppositions (none) (none) December 5, 2008

to motions in limine.
5
Last day to file replies to (none) (none) December 10, 2008
6 motions in limine.

Pretrial conference. December 12, 2008 January 5, 2009 December 19, 2008
7
Start of trial. January 19, 2009 (none) January 19, 2008
8
9 Given these cases' histories, a few deadlines may require clarification. A "dispositive

10 motion" is a motion for summary judgment that disposes of a portion of the case. The court will not

11 entertain any dispositive motion that turns on an issue of claim construction. Such motions were
United States District Court

supposed to be filed on October 5, 2007. See Joint Case Management Order, Attachment C (Apr.
For the Northern District of California

12
13 24, 2007). A "Daubert motion" is any motion based on the reliability of any expert testimony. A

14 "Daubert motion" is not a motion in limine that merely challenges the relevance of an expert's

15 testimony.

16 The parties have previously encountered difficulties with the procedure surrounding expert

17 reports, yet have retained the same mechanism for exchanging expert reports. To be clear, this

18 mechanism will require the Manufacturers to produce their expert reports related to invalidity on

19 September 5 while Rambus will have to produce its expert reports on infringement and damages on

20 September 5. The parties are encouraged to reach an agreement regarding the anticipated scope of

21 the inventors' testimony and what, if any, disclosure obligations that testimony will entail.

22 This schedule proceeds on the expectation of holding a consolidated trial. If a Manufacturer

23 has good cause for severance, it must file a motion requesting severance by August 1, 2008.

24
25
26 DATED: 7/16/2008
RONALD M. WHYTE
27 United States District Judge
28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW
TSF 3
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1963 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 4 of 5

1 Notice of this document has been electronically sent to counsel in: C-05-00334, C-05-02298, C-06-00244.

2 Counsel for Rambus Inc., all actions Counsel for Hynix entities, C-00-20905 and C-05-00334
3 Burton Alexander [Link]@[Link] Allen Ruby ruby@[Link]
Gross
4
Carolyn Hoecker [Link]@[Link] Belinda Martinez Vega bvega@[Link]
5 Luedtke

6 Catherine Rajwani crajwani@[Link] Daniel J. Furniss djfurniss@[Link]

Craig N. Tolliver ctolliver@[Link] Geoffrey Hurndall Yost gyost@[Link]

7
David C. Yang [Link]@[Link] Jordan Trent Jones jtjones@[Link]
8
Douglas A. Cawley dcawley@[Link] Joseph A. Greco jagreco@[Link]
9
Erin C. Dougherty [Link]@[Link] Kenneth Lee Nissly kennissly@[Link]
10
Gregory P. Stone [Link]@[Link] Kenneth Ryan korourke@[Link]
11 O'Rourke
United States District Court

Jennifer Lynn Polse [Link]@[Link] Patrick Lynch plynch@[Link]

For the Northern District of California

12
Keith Rhoderic Dhu [Link]@[Link] Susan Gregory svankeulen@[Link]
13 Hamilton, II VanKeulen

14 Kelly Max Klaus [Link]@[Link] Theodore G. Brown, III tgbrown@[Link]

15 Miriam Kim [Link]@[Link] Tomomi Katherine tharkey@[Link]

Harkey
16 Peter A. Detre detrepa@[Link] Counsel for Micron entities, C-06-00244
17 Pierre J. Hubert phubert@[Link] Aaron Bennett Craig aaroncraig@[Link]

18 Rosemarie Theresa [Link]@[Link] David J. Ruderman davidruderman@[Link]

Ring
19
Scott L Cole scole@[Link] Harold Avrum Barza halbarza@[Link]
20 Scott W. Hejny shejny@[Link] Jared Bobrow [Link]@[Link]
21 Sean Eskovitz [Link]@[Link] John D Beynon [Link]@[Link]

22 Steven McCall [Link]@[Link] Leeron Kalay [Link]@[Link]

Perry
23
Thomas N Tarnay ttarnay@[Link] Linda Jane Brewer lindabrewer@[Link]
24 William Hans wbaumgartner@[Link] Rachael Lynn Ballard rachaelmccracken@quinnemanuel.c
Baumgartner, Jr McCracken om
25
Robert Jason Becher robertbecher@[Link]
26
Yonaton M yonirosenzweig@[Link]
27 Rosenzweig m

28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW
TSF 4
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 1963 Filed 07/16/2008 Page 5 of 5

1 Counsel for Nanya entities, C-05-00334 Counsel for Samsung entities, C-05-00334 and C-05-
02298
2
Chester Wren-Ming Day cday@[Link] Ana Elena Kadala [Link]@[Link]
3
Craig R. Kaufman ckaufman@[Link] Claire Elise Goldstein [Link]@[Link]
4 m

5 Glenn Michael Levy glevy@[Link] David J. Healey [Link]@[Link]

Jan Ellen Ellard jellard@[Link] Edward Robert Reines [Link]@[Link]

6
Jason Sheffield Angell jangell@[Link] Matthew D. Powers [Link]@[Link]
7
Kaiwen Tseng ktseng@[Link]
8
Mark Shean mshean@[Link]
9
Robert E. Freitas rfreitas@[Link]
10 Vickie L. Feeman vfeeman@[Link]
11
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12 Counsel for intervenor, Texas Instruments, Inc., C-05-00334

13 Kelli A. Crouch kcrouch@[Link]

14 Counsel for intervenor, United States Department of Justice, C-00-20905

Eugene S. Litvinoff [Link]@[Link]

15
May Lee Heye [Link]@[Link]
16
Nathanael M. Cousins [Link]@[Link]
17
Niall Edmund Lynch [Link]@[Link]
18 Counsel for intervenor, Elpida Memory, Inc., C-00-20905 and C-05-00334
19 Eric R. Lamison elamison@[Link]

20 John J. Feldhaus jfeldhaus@[Link]

21 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not
registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program in each action.
22
23 Dated: 7/16/2008 TSF
Chambers of Judge Whyte
24
25
26
27
28
PATENT TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER
C-05-00334 RMW; C-05-02298 RMW
TSF 5