Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2310 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 1 of 4

1 ROBERT E. FREITAS (STATE BAR NO. 80948)

CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (STATE BAR NO. 159458)
2 VICKIE L. FEEMAN (STATE BAR NO. 177487)
THERESA E. NORTON (STATE BAR NO. 193530)
3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
4 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: 650-614-7400
5 Facsimile: 650-614-7401
6 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and
7 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
RAMBUS INC., Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF KRISTIN S.
13 CORNUELLE IN SUPPORT OF
v. NANYA TECHNOLOGY
14 CORPORATION’S AND NANYA
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
15 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., USA’S REPLY TO RAMBUS’
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR OPPOSITION TO ITS MOTION TO
16 MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., COMPEL RAMBUS TO PRODUCE A
WITNESS TO TESTIFY ON 30(B)(6)
17 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., TOPICS 35 AND 36 (RAMBUS’
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, COMMUNICATIONS WITH
18 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, OTHERS)
INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN
19 SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P., Date: October 1, 2008
Time: 8:30 a.m.
20 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Location: Telephonic Hearing
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION Judge: Hon. Read A. Ambler (Ret.)
21 U.S.A.,
22 Defendants.
23
AND RELATED ACTIONS.
24

25

26

27

28
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE
NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON TOPICS 35 AND 36
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2310 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 I, Kristin S. Cornuelle, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
3 counsel of record for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Nanya Technology Corporation
4 (“Nanya”) and Nanya Technology Corporation USA (“Nanya USA”). I have personal
5 knowledge of the following facts and if called as a witness I could and would testify
6 competently to them.
7 2. I have read the deposition of Geoff Tate in the Micron Technology, Inc. v.
8 Rambus Inc. case, No. 00-792-JJF, dated March 30, 2001. This deposition transcript has been
9 designated “Confidential-Outside Counsel Only” pursuant to the Protective Order entered into
10 in the above-captioned case on June 21, 2007, because it contains information regarding
11 licensing meetings, discussions and negotiations. See Protective Order at ¶ 20.
12 3. Mr. Tate testifies in a 30(b)(6) capacity intermittently throughout pages 507:3 –
13 554:23 of the deposition. The subject matter he covers as a 30(b)(6) witness relates solely to
14 Rambus’ SDRAM and DDR licensing negotiations with various manufacturers.
15 4. Exhibit B to the Declaration of Rollin A. Ransom in Support of Rambus Inc.’s
16 Opposition to Nanya and Nanya USA’s Motion to Compel on 30(b)(6) Topics 35 and 36
17 (“Ransom Declaration”) is an excerpt from the deposition transcript of Andrew Heller, a
18 representative of Kleiner Perkins, taken in the Infineon action on January 25, 2001. Mr. Heller
19 is asked if he had a good understanding of Rambus’ intentions. See Ransom Decl., Exh. B at
20 12:8-9. Mr. Heller testifies that he understood why an approach based on Rambus’ ideas would
21 be valuable. Id. at 13-15. Mr. Heller is then asked about what Rambus’ presentation showed
22 and testifies as to what he remembers regarding its contents. Id. at 12:16-13:10. Mr. Heller is
23 not asked further questions about communications between Kleiner Perkins and Rambus, nor
24 asked any follow-up questions about what Rambus told him or Kleiner Perkins specifically
25 about Rambus’ inventions during the presentation.
26 5. Exhibit D to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
27 of Bruce Dunlevie, a Merrill Pickard representative, taken in the Micron ‘792 action on July 25,
28 2001. Mr. Dunlevie is asked about whether, based on his layman understanding of Rambus’
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE
1 NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON TOPICS 35 AND 36
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2310 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 3 of 4

1 technology, he considered the technology fundamental or revolutionary. See Ransom Decl.,

2 Exh. D at 59:6-15. Mr. Dunlevie responds that he thought the technology was innovative, but
3 not fundamental or revolutionary. Id. Mr. Dunlevie was not asked further questions about the
4 substance of any communications between Merrill Pickard and Rambus, nor what Rambus told
5 him or Merrill Pickard specifically about Rambus’ inventions.
6 6. Exhibit F to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
7 of Michael Farmwald, founder of Rambus, taken in the FTC action on January 7, 2003. Mr.
8 Farmwald authenticates and explains some of the handwritten notes he took during meetings
9 with third parties, including potential investors. See Ransom Decl., Exh. F at 96:19-99:1;
10 100:21-104:25. His notes suggest that Andy Heller, a representative of Kleiner Perkins whom
11 he met with, thought the Rambus technology would work sooner than expected. Id. at 99:2-8.
12 Mr. Farmwald also wrote down in his notes that the “Key to success is establishing de facto
13 standard.” Id. at 99:16-21. He is asked if he remembers who made this statement, and Mr.
14 Farmwald testifies that either Andy Heller or someone else at Kleiner probably said something
15 to this effect and he wrote it down. Id. at 99:22-100:4.
16 7. Exhibit G to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt from the deposition transcript
17 of Gary Harmon, the former CFO of Rambus, taken in the FTC action on January 8, 2003. Mr.
18 Harmon testifies that Morgan Stanley, the underwriter for Rambus’ IPO, pitched to Rambus
19 that it could help the company despite the fact that Rambus was an IP company that was going
20 to make its money off royalties rather than selling a product. See Ransom Decl., Exh. G at
21 156:3-4. Mr. Harmon was then asked whether Morgan Stanley expressed any concerns about
22 this business model, to which Mr. Harmon said that they did. Id. at 156:22-157:8. Mr. Harmon
23 does not further discuss the substance of communications between Rambus and Morgan
24 Stanley surrounding the IPO, nor was Mr. Harmon asked any such questions.
25 8. Exhibit H to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt of the deposition transcript of
26 James Mannos, a colleague of Michael Farmwald involved in early Rambus presentations,
27 taken in the Hynix ‘905 action on October 4, 2001. Mr. Mannos is asked whether any venture
28 capital firm told him or suggested to him that Rambus’ success would be based on whether
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE
2 NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON COMMUNICATION
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2310 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 4 of 4

1 Rambus obtained a standard which was dependent on its patents. See Ransom Decl., Exh. H at
2 73:11-13. Mr. Mannos responds affirmatively, that someone expressed that the success of
3 Rambus’ business model would be dependent on Rambus’ technology being standardized and
4 adopted by the bulk of the users and producers of DRAM. Id. at 73:14-74:8. Mr. Mannos does
5 not discuss the substance of any further communications between Rambus and venture capital
6 firms, nor is he asked such questions. The majority of the excerpt is devoted to Mr. Mannos
7 identifying, authenticating and explaining presentations.
8 9. Exhibit I to the Ransom Declaration is an excerpt of the deposition transcript of
9 William Davidow, a Mohr Davidow representative, taken in the Infineon action on January 31,
10 2001. Mr. Davidow is asked what he meant in regards to a previous comment he had made that
11 Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz were smart enough to make the technology work. See
12 Ransom Decl., Exh. I at 17:12-14. Mr. Davidow responds that it seemed improbable that they
13 could have developed such technology. Id. at 17:15-23. Later Mr. Davidow is asked one
14 question about how Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz explained their vision, and he testifies
15 that Mr. Farmwald explained to him that the “bus structure” could be used in computers and
16 televisions. Id. at 21:8-13. Mr. Davidow was then asked to clarify his understanding of what
17 he meant by “bus structure” and to confirm his understanding of Rambus’ technology. Id. at
18 21:14-22:9. Mr. Davidow was not asked further questions about the substance of the
19 communications with Mr. Farmwald and Mr. Horowitz or what they told him or Mohr
20 Davidow specifically about their inventions.
21 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the Unites States of America that the
22 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
23 Executed this 29th day of September, 2008 in Menlo Park, California.
24

25 /s/ Kristin S. Cornuelle

Kristin S. Cornuelle
26

27
OHS West:260522549.1
28
CORNUELLE DECLARATION ISO REPLY TO OPPOSITION RE
3 NANYA’S MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON COMMUNICATION
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW