Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(COUNSEL IDENTIFIED ON SIGNATURE PAGE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RAMBUS INC., Case No. C-08-03343 SI Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant. CMC Date: January 13, 2012 Time: 3:00 p.m. Judge: The Hon. Susan Illston Rambus Inc. (Rambus) and NVIDIA Corporation (NVIDIA) submit this supplemental Case Management Statement and Proposed Order for the January 13, 2012 case management conference, pursuant to the Local Rules of this District and Rules 26(f) and 16(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. CASE MANAGEMENT PROPOSALS The parties request that the Court consider the following matters at the case management conference. I. The Parties Jointly Request That the Case Management Conference Be Held Telephonically The parties respectfully request that the Case Management Conference scheduled for JOINT SUPPLEMENTAL CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT, REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE TO BE TELEPHONIC, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

26 January 13, 2012 be handled telephonically, particularly given the limited number of issues for 27 28
Austin 65391v5 Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI McKool 406579v1

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page2 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

consideration and Rambuss counsel being out-of-state. Should the Court prefer an in person conference, however, both parties are available to attend. II. Markman Hearing Duration Rambuss Position: Rambus submits that two hours, split equally between Rambus and NVIDIA, will be adequate for the Markman hearing, but is not opposed to the Court allowing three hours as NVIDIA proposes, so long as each party is allocated equal time. NVIDIAs Position: NVIDIA requests that the parties be allocated three hours for the Markman hearing. III. Markman Hearing Order of Presentation Rambuss Position: Rambus proposes that it, as Plaintiff, proceed with its tutorial and

12 claim construction positions first, followed by Defendant NVIDIA. 13 NVIDIAs Position: NVIDIA proposes that the Court determine the order for the parties 14 to proceed with their respective tutorial and claim construction positions. 15 IV. 16 The parties jointly propose that each party wishing to provide a technology tutorial be 17 required to provide it to the Court and the other party two weeks before the Markman hearing. 18 The parties also propose that each side can submit a technology tutorial on DVD if that party 19 deems it appropriate. The parties believe it is not necessary to limit running time or numbers of 20 slides. Rather, the parties should be expected to efficiently present the technical information they 21 feel is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the technology at issue. 22 V. 23 Rambuss Position: Rambus proposes that the parties not offer live testimony from 24 experts or other witnesses during tutorials or the Markman hearing. Rambus intends to ask the 25 expert whom Rambus disclosed in its Patent Local Rule 4 claim construction filings to attend the 26 hearing, however, as a resource to the Court should the Court have any technical questions. 27 Rambus notes that NVIDIA did not disclose any expert in its Patent Local Rule 4 claim 28
Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI

Joint Proposal Regarding Technology Tutorial

Availability of Experts at the Markman Hearing

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page3 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

construction filings for any purpose whatsoever, so Rambus reserves all rights with regard to NVIDIAs still undisclosed expert responding to questions at the Markman hearing. NVIDIAs Position: NVIDIA does not believe that any live testimony by experts is necessary. However, if the Court would like experts available during the Markman hearing as proposed by Rambus, NVIDIA may make one available as well. NVIDIA proposes that the Court conduct the claim construction hearing and, following the hearing, determine whether live testimony is required. VI. Rescheduling of Remaining Markman Briefing and Hearing Dates On August 31, 2011, the Court revised the schedule for certain Markman proceedings,

9 10 setting a Markman hearing for March 7, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. (Dkt. No. 248.) NVIDIA has 11 proposed that the Markman hearing be rescheduled in view of a scheduling conflict of one of 12 NVIDIAs outside counsel. 13 Assuming the Courts schedule can accommodate a slightly later date, the parties jointly 14 propose that the Markman hearing be rescheduled for the week of April 23, 2012. If the 15 16 Markman briefing would be as follows: 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI

Markman hearing is rescheduled for the week of April 23rd, then the new dates for the associated

Event

Current dates per 8/31/2011 Order 2/3/2012

if Markman rescheduled for week of 4/23/12 3/23/12

Rambus opening Claim Construction Brief (P.L.R. 4.5(a)) NVIDIAs Claim Construction Brief (P.L.R. 4.5(b)) Rambuss Reply Claim Construction Brief (P.L.R. 4.5(c)) Markman/Claim Construction Hearing (P.L.R. 4.6)

2/17/2012 2/24/2012

4/6/2012 4/13/2012

3/7/2012 @ 3:30p.m.

week of 4/23/2012

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page4 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

VII.

Trial Date and Additional Pre-Trial Dates Rambuss Proposal: This case has been pending since July 2008. Since the prior case management conference,

held on June 24, 2011, the parties have been moving forward with discovery and claim construction proceedings under the Federal Rules and Patent Local Rules in accordance with the Courts orders and with the assistance of Discovery Master Infante. Rambus proposes that the Court set the following schedule for the six Farmwald/Horowitz and four Barth II patents that are not subject to the 1659 stay pending resolution of the ITC appeal. At the last case management conference several months ago, the Court indicated that it would revisit setting a trial schedule at the next case management conference, namely, the current case management conference. NVIDIAs arguments for delaying setting a trial schedule are the same arguments NVIDIA has repeatedly raised previously to delay these proceedings, which arguments the Court has already rejected in denying NVIDIAs prior proposals and ordering this case to proceed. Rambuss Summary of Proposed Dates:

Event Advice of counsel disclosures (P.L.R. 3-7) Fact discovery cutoff

Rambuss Date 21 days after claim construction ruling (est. June 8) 5 weeks after claim construction ruling (est. June 22) + 2 weeks (July 6) + 4 weeks (Aug. 3) + 4 weeks (Aug. 31) + 3 weeks (Sept. 21) + 6 weeks (Nov. 2) + 1 week (Nov. 9) Monday 3 weeks after

NVIDIAs Date No counterproposed date

No counterproposed date

Opening expert reports Rebuttal expert reports Expert discovery cutoff Dispositive motion filing deadline Pretrial conference statement Pretrial conference Trial

No counterproposed date No counterproposed date No counterproposed date No counterproposed date No counterproposed date No counterproposed date No counterproposed date

Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page5 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Event

Rambuss Date pretrial conference (Dec. 3)

NVIDIAs Date

NVIDIAs Proposal: NVIDIAs recollection of the scheduling discussion at the prior case management conference is different than Rambuss recollection, and it believes that the Court did not state that a trial date would be scheduled. NVIDIA believes scheduling a trial date is premature. Much of this case is stayed and the case is currently in discovery as to matters not stayed. The patents not subject to a stay are also currently in reexamination proceedings and may be subject to preclusive effects from other pending cases. Given the number of patents that are stayed, the ongoing reexaminations, the pendency of the spoliation proceedings in other cases and the many outstanding issues between the parties such as Rambuss argument that discovery on NVIDIAs counterclaim is partially stayed, NVIDIA believes it is premature to discuss scheduling of dates. NVIDIA believes that this issue was raised before by Rambus and was rejected by the Court as premature. NVIDIA believes that further scheduling should occur following the claim construction hearing and order. VIII. Anticipated Motions Rambuss Position: Rambus anticipates filing one or more summary judgment motions (and seeking leave as necessary) on various issues raised by the parties claims and defenses. As to NVIDIAs proposed summary judgment motion regarding the Barth II patents, Rambus believes that summary judgment practice at this stage is premature. The parties continue to meet and confer regarding the facts underlying NVIDIAs non-infringement position, and allowing the further exchange of material during discovery could narrow the disputed issues. Rambus is amenable to discussing a reduction in asserted claims as NVIDIA proposes, but any reduction in claims should be accompanied by a reciprocal reduction in prior art

Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page6 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

references. The parties also should continue to meet and confer on whether NVIDIA is willing to limit the number of purported prior art references upon which it intends to rely. NVIDIAs Position: The parties are currently meeting and conferring on two significant issues: (1) whether Rambus is willing to withdraw its claims that NVIDIA infringes the Barth II patents; and (2) whether Rambus will limit the number of claims in dispute. Should the parties not be able to reach a quick and satisfactory resolution, NVIDIA anticipates filing two motions tied to these two issues. First, NVIDIA requests that the Court grant it leave to file a motion for summary judgment on the Barth II issue. NVIDIA requests that this necessary motion would be excepted from the Courts one dispositive motion rule. Second, NVIDIA anticipates needing to file a motion to limit the claims in dispute should the parties not come to a resolution to limit the number of claims in dispute. NVIDIA is happy to provide additional information on either of these anticipated motions and/or NVIDIAs position to the Court, should the Court feel it is necessary. Respectfully submitted, Dated: January 6, 2012 McKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C. CROWELL & MORING LLP By: /s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert 300 West 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Phone: 512/692-8700 Facsimile: 512/692-8744 Email: phubert@[Link]

Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.

Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document290 Filed01/06/12 Page7 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: January 6, 2012

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP By: /s/ Neel Chatterjee Neel Chatterjee 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Phone: 650/614-7400 Facsimile: 650/614-7401 Email: nchatterjee@[Link]

Attorneys for Defendant NVIDIA CORPORATION

Filers Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, X(B), I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory. Dated: January 6, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

By:

/s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert

Joint Supp. Case Management Statement and [Proposed] Order Case No. C-08-03343 SI