CMC Notes - 6/9/06
Courtesy mtsugawa at YMB who attended, transcribed, and posted.
======================
Arrived at 10:30AM. Met TDoX, Michael Cohen, TwoByteBus, Arno & Infringeon out in the hallway in front of JW courtroom. Early morning session was still in progress. Lots
of new faces in suits hanging out in hallway. Assume they are the Samsung/Micron/Nanya legal teams. Early session adjourns. Break until 11:00AM.
11:00AM. Enter courtroom. Extremely crowded! Standing Room Only. Lots of suits!
Rambus CMC not the only case on the docket. Rambus CMC involves 5 separate legal
teams (Rambus, Hynix, Micron, Samsung and Nanya) plus interested observers. Must have
been over 50 people in the gallery. Managed to find a seat next to TwoByte. Other
notable attendees besides those mentioned earlier: Danforth, Stone, Charred Water.
11:06AM JW enters carrying a stack of folders at least 16" high. First case that is
called is Intuit v H&R Block. Has to do with some ad that H&R has shown in the past
and may run again. Didn't pay much attention.
11:20 Court calls Rambus v Hynix, Micron, Samsung and Nanya. Stone, Monohan and two
other women lawyers sit at Rambus's table. A bunch of lawyers at the Defendent's table. The ones that I recognized, Nissly, Brown and Jones for Hynix.
JW starts by proposing the following:
1. Stay all actions until completion of the Hynix conduct trial.
2. Depositions from previous, related litigation (i.e., Infineon & Hynix cases) will be allowed into this trial.
3. If a party was not a party of the litigation at the time of the deposition,
they'll be allowed to take further deposition with respect to the issues not covered in the prior depositions.
JW: Why doesn't this make sense?
Stone: I don't have a problem with your proposals with 1 exception. We would like to
file a single consolidated complaint organized by the patents-in-suit. This will
allow your Honor to better manage the case and more easily see which parties and defenses are involved with which patents. We can live with the stay, even though we originally opposed it.
Samsung Lawyer (Reynes?): We are in a different boat than the other defendents. We were brought into this suit late. There are 4 patents at issue in our cases that are not affected by the other cases. We want to proceed with our defenses. We've waited almost a year to present our case.
JW: We haven't stayed your case.
SL: No, but we keep getting delayed due to these other cases. Our client's rights are being affected.
JW: How are their rights are being affected?
SL: (Didn't catch his response). SL continues on about their counterclaims related to Steinberg's fiduciary duty. (Didn't catch most of this dialogue. I
did note that the SL was almost combative with JW. Whenever JW interrupted him and asked a question, the SL would start responding before JW had finished
asking the question. Didn't seem very respectful toward JW, IMO.)
Nissly for Hynix: I'll be quick. We have no problem wrt your proposals. We do object to Mr. Stone's suggestion of a consolidated complaint.
Bob Roe (Micron): No objections to JW's proposals. Object to Stone's consolidated complaint.
Nanya Lawyer: Same. O.K. to stay. No consolidated complaint.
Stone: There are 8 patents involved in this suit, not 4 as claimed by SL. Not sure what Samsung is suggesting. Go forward on 4 of the patents and leave the other 4 for later with the other defendents? We don't want to carve out a portion of the case for Samsung only. Samsung is already proceeding with
discovery in the DE case. DE case will probably go to trial before this one.
Stone continues: Defendents want to say that prior discovery can be used against Rambus since Rambus was party to those cases. However, prior discovery cannot be used against them since they were not party to those cases. This is unfair and should not be allowed. We should allow the depositions from the previous cases into this record.
JW: Any legal issues with that?
Stone: I don't think so. The only possible issue would be when a prior witness was unavailable for follow-up deposition. But, I think we could handle that on a case-by-case basis should such a situation arise.
JW: Isn't there a 'scope of license' issue in regards to the Samsung contract?
Stone: Yes
JW: Did Steinberg negotiate the contract with Samsung?
Stone: No, I don't think so. No.
JW: Isn't there an issue on the scope of the contract?
Stone: Yes
JW: Isn't that severable?
Stone: Yes, as far as trial is concerned, but I don't think it should be as far as discovery is concerned.
SL: We also have a breach of contract counterclaim that relates to the 'extension of contract on reasonable terms' clause.
JW: Who would you depose?
SL: People who negotiated the contract. We want to proceed with the 4 patents not included in the other cases.
GS: That's interesting. I see what he's suggesting now. I'm not sure how he envision discovery proceeding. Does he want to depose on just the 4 patents and then again for the other 4 patents? He just wants to do everything two times.
GS: In regards to my suggestion of a single, consolidated complaint, I just want to have a single complaint organized by the patents-in-suit that lists which patents are being asserted against which parties and which defenses go with with patents and parties. I think this would allow your Honor to manage
the case better.
JW: O.K., I'm going to stay the case until October 6th. As far as discovery goes, all discovery from the other cases listed in the motions can be used in this case with the understanding that follow-up will be allowed when required. If any party has an objection to this, they can file a brief 5 days before
the next CMC.
As an exception to the stay, I'll allow Samsung to go forward with written discovery related to the 'scope of the license' and 'breach of fiduciary duty' issues.
I'm not going to order a single consolidated complaint, but I understand and agree with Mr. Stone's rationale for wanting this. I want each party to submit a statement listing the patents involved and the claims and defenses related to each patent.
GS: Your Honor, in regards to the exception to the stay, will Rambus also be allowed to go forward on discovery as to those same issues?
JW: Yes.
JW: My intent would be to order the Rambus v Hynix case to Judge Seeborg for mediation. Unless someone tells me that that is a complete waste of time and they won't go... well, I guess they'd have to go if I ordered them to...but if they tell me that it is futile...I think each side has some real issues that can be problematic. To be blunt, Rambus, the written description issue is a tough one. And the opinion in the Infineon case...(I didn't understand what JW was
referring to here.) And, Hynix, they have a real issue wrt the damages award. Things have not been going well so far. And then, there will be appeals and further costs...it just seems that someone with a business mind needs to look at all these issues.
Nissly: Your Honor, mediation requires a reasonable attitude on both sides...however, we're willing to go back to mediation...(he sounded like he didn't want to go back to mediation).
Stone: Your Honor, we'd be honored to attend mediation.
JW: OK
Stone: Your Honor? I think both Mr. Nissly and I would like to make you aware that there are some summary judgement motions outstanding?
JW: I'm well aware of this. (Laughter in the courtroom). I was hoping that you wouldn't embarass me in public about them. (More laughter)
Stone: I never raised the issue!
11:50AM End of hearing.
============================
Thanks, Mark!
