Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 1 of 11

1 [Attorney list on signature page]

6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
9
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW
10 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX MANUFACTURERS’ OPPOSITION
11 SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH, TO RAMBUS INC.’S DAUBERT
MOTION NO. 2 AND MOTION IN
12 Plaintiffs, LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN
v. TESTIMONY OF PETER HEUSER
13
RAMBUS, INC., Date: December 11, 2008
14 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Defendant. Location: Courtroom 6
15
Judge: Hon. Ronald M. Whyte
16

17 RAMBUS INC., Case No. CV 05-00334 RMW

18 Plaintiff, Hon. Judge Ronald M. Whyte
19 v.
20 HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX
SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX
21 SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING
AMERICA INC.,
22
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
24 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
L.P.,
25
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
26 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
USA,
27 Defendants.
28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298 RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 2 of 11

1
RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
2 Plaintiff,
Hon. Judge Ronald M. Whyte
3 v.

4 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
5 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR,
L.P.,
6
Defendants.
7

8 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW

Plaintiff,
9 Hon. Judge Ronald M. Whyte
v.
10
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON
11 SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.,

12 Defendants.

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 3 of 11

1 I. INTRODUCTION.

2 Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) does not object to

3 Mr. Heuser’s testimony based on his methodology, reliability or qualifications. Rather, Rambus

4 seeks to exclude Mr. Heuser’s testimony based on erroneous assumptions about his role.

5 Rambus’s promises regarding the scope of its argument and evidence it will present at trial are

6 insufficient given the history of the misleading arguments consistently raised by Rambus in each

7 trial. In light of this history, the Court should permit the Manufacturers to present Mr. Heuser’s

8 testimony, should it be necessary to rebut either incorrect or misleading arguments made by

9 counsel, incorrect or misleading testimony from fact witnesses, or incorrect or misleading

10 testimony from Rambus’s technical expert, Mr. Murphy.

11 The prosecution history of the Farmwald patents-in-suit is, to say the least,

12 complex. Against this backdrop of complexity, Rambus’s counsel, and its expert witness Mr.

13 Murphy have made statements about various aspects of the prosecution, including about the

14 restriction requirements made by the patent examiner. For example, during the opening

15 statement of the conduct trial, counsel for Rambus implied that the PTO spent 18 months

16 “looking at” the Farmwald application before it issued the eleven-way restriction requirement –

17 a notion that is facially implausible to those knowledgeable regarding PTO practice and,

18 unexplained, might be confusing to a lay jury. Similarly, Mr. Murphy’s report contains facially

19 misleading statements about the eleven-way restriction requirement. Leaving aside the fact that

20 Mr. Murphy is not qualified, by virtue of his education, training or experience, to testify about

21 PTO practice as further set forth in Manufacturers’ Daubert No. 2, should the Court permit him

22 to testify regarding PTO practices, the Manufacturers should be free to introduce rebuttal

23 evidence from a witness who is indisputably qualified to do so.

24 II. MR. HEUSER’S EXPECTED TESTIMONY WILL NOT USURP THE COURT’S
ROLE TO EXPLAIN THE LAW.
25
Rambus advances two arguments in its quest to exclude Mr. Heuser’s testimony,
26
neither of which is persuasive. Rambus’s initial argument is that Mr. Heuser should not be
27
permitted to testify because his anticipated testimony would invade the province of the Court by
28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-1- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 4 of 11

1 testifying about legal matters. Notably, Rambus does not attack Mr. Heuser’s qualifications to

2 provide testimony on this issue. As a patent attorney with more than 30 years of experience, Mr.

3 Heuser has the training, education and experience to provide such testimony – a fact that

4 Rambus has not challenged. Polse Decl. Ex. A at ¶¶ 4-10.

5 Rambus’s arguments regarding “legal conclusions” do not warrant exclusion of

6 Mr. Heuser’s testimony. Mr. Heuser will explain PTO procedures, in particular those

7 procedures relating to restriction requirements to the jury, as necessary in the context of the

8 arguments and evidence introduced at trial.1 For example, Mr. Heuser may testify as to what a

9 restriction requirement is, as well as the process for making them and why the PTO makes them.

10 See Polse Decl. Ex. A at ¶¶ 11-15; see also Cornuelle Decl. Ex. A at 17:13-24; 28:3-32:9; 40:10-

11 41:24. Mr. Heuser’s testimony concerning restriction requirements is not simply an

12 “explanation of legal authorities,” but is rather an explanation of difficult procedural issues that

13 can be misused if not explained properly. The fact that he has cited case authority showing that

14 his explanations of the PTO processes are correct and accurate does not convert his testimony

15 into an excludable “legal conclusion.”

16 Indeed, expert testimony from patent lawyers like Mr. Heuser regarding PTO

17 procedures and patent prosecution is common in patent cases and frequently allowed, despite

18 challenges under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. See, e.g., Chamberlain Group,

19 Inc. v. Interlogix, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6998 at *3-4 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (denying plaintiff’s

20 motion to strike defendant’s expert report as “legal conclusions disguised as expert testimony,”

21 holding that “expert testimony on prior art, prosecution history, and PTO operations can be

22 helpful to an understanding of the issues in a patent infringement action”); Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

23 v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 79 F. Supp. 2d 252, 255-56 (W.D.N.Y. 2000) (court denied motion to

24 exclude expert witness’s testimony regarding patent applications and how they are examined, as

25 well as testimony relating to the “nature and purpose” of interference and reexamination practice

26 1
The Manufacturers understand that the Court sometimes uses the Federal Judicial Center video that explains
27 patents and patent prosecution to educate the jury on these matters. This video, however, does not contain any
explanation regarding restriction requirements, how they are made, or how they fit into the context of patent
28 prosecution or this case. Cornuelle Decl. ¶ 9.
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-2- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 5 of 11

1 and procedure); Cameco Indus., Inc. v. Louisiana Cane Manuf., Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

2 11294 at *11 (E.D. La. 1995) (court allowed expert testimony about “patent application process,

3 the operations and functions of the patent and trademark office, and the materiality of relevant

4 prior art”); Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268, 274 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (court

5 allowed patent lawyer to testify regarding file wrapper). Consequently, Mr. Heuser’s testimony

6 should be admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 as helpful to the trier of fact in

7 understanding restriction requirements as they pertain to the patent process.

8 Finally, should the Court accept Rambus’s argument that the issues discussed in

9 Mr. Heuser’s report are legal issues that are within the province of the Court, then the same

10 procedures should apply to all parties. The Court should provide instruction on these issues, and

11 Rambus should not be permitted to present arguments or testimony from its witnesses in

12 contravention of these instructions.

13 III. MR. HEUSER’S TESTIMONY IS RELEVANT.

14 Rambus’s second argument is that Mr. Heuser’s potential testimony should be

15 excluded as irrelevant. The basis for Rambus’s irrelevance arguments is an unsupported

16 “promise” that Mr. Murphy will not provide misleading testimony about the prosecution history

17 at trial. In effect, Rambus asks the Court to exclude Mr. Heuser’s rebuttal testimony as

18 irrelevant because of vague promises about the scope of future testimony and or arguments.

19 Rambus’s vague promises, however, do not warrant excluding Mr. Heuser’s testimony.

20 Contrary to Rambus’s assertions, Mr. Heuser’s testimony is relevant and is

21 therefore admissible. One purpose of Mr. Heuser’s expert testimony is to rebut any

22 misrepresentations that Rambus’s fact witnesses, or its technical expert, Mr. Murphy, may make

23 at trial.2 Mr. Murphy is not qualified to testify about PTO procedures, and should not be

24 permitted to testify about them. 3 However, he discusses the prosecution history and the eleven-

25 2
In the past, Rambus has asked fact witnesses in prior cases about restriction requirements in order to present
26 disingenuous information regarding PTO practices. See Cornuelle Decl. Ex. B at 21:9-23; 24:4-13; 76:7-23; see id.
Ex. C at 35:19-36:5; see id. Ex. D at 3077:6-14; 3106:12-16; see id. Ex. E at 4429:7-22.
3
27 The Manufacturers have moved to preclude Mr. Murphy from testifying regarding PTO procedures for precisely
this reason. See DE 2422, Manufacturers’ Daubert Motion No. 2 (To Preclude Testimony of Robert Murphy
28 Regarding PTO Procedure and Patent File Histories).
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-3- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 6 of 11

1 way restriction requirement in his expert report. Polse Decl. Ex. C at. ¶ 42. For example, Mr.

2 Murphy’s expert report misleadingly implies that the ten patents-in-suit are individual inventions

3 that correspond to the ten divisional applications filed after the restriction requirement. Polse

4 Decl. Ex. C at ¶ 42. To the extent that Rambus offers testimony by Mr. Murphy that misleads

5 the jury as to the nature of restriction requirements and the facts of the Farmwald patent

6 prosecution, the Manufacturers’ should properly be able to present rebuttal testimony correcting

7 these errors or misimpressions. See Crowley v. Chait, 322 F. Supp. 2d 530, 550-51 (D.N.J.

8 2004) (court admitted expert rebuttal testimony because rebuttal evidence is properly admissible

9 when it explains, counteracts or disproves the evidence of the adverse party); see Micro Chem.,

10 Inc. v. Lextron, Inc., 317 F.3d 1387, 1392 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (court found expert testimony

11 admissible even though it was based on one party’s version of contested facts, holding that

12 adverse party had ample opportunity to present its competing theory through testimony of its

13 own expert witness based on its own version of the facts).

14 Rambus also contends that Mr. Heuser should not be able to present testimony to

15 correct incorrect or misleading arguments presented by counsel. Rambus Br. at 5. Rambus is

16 presumably seeking the opportunity – consistent with its practice in prior trials – to present

17 misleading arguments about PTO procedure and the restriction requirements, without the

18 opportunity for effective rebuttal. See Cornuelle Decl. Ex. F at 32:2-16; 54-16-25; 171:9-21; see

19 id. Ex. G at 114:5-17; 115:15-21; 116:6-117:3; 3291:21-3293:19; 3409:2-5; see id. Ex. H at

20 6018:9-15. For example, during the conduct trial, Rambus’s counsel argued as follows:

21 As you will hear, that’s an extraordinary number. And it’s

extraordinary because there were so many inventions described in
22 the application. In fact, when the patent examiner was looking at
the application, they looked at it for 18 months, until September of
23 1991, before they did anything. And then, in September of 1991,
they said to the inventors, you need to divide this up 11 ways.
24 There’s at least 11 distinct inventions here, and it has to be divided
up. And then they told them later to divide it up five more times.
25
Polse Decl. Ex. A at ¶ 14 (2/4/08 Trial Tr. at 324:13-25). As an example, this quote is
26
misleading at least because it suggests that the PTO spent 18 months “looking at” the ’898
27
application before they did anything with it. The obvious suggestion is that the patent examiner
28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-4- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 7 of 11

1 spent 18 months working on the restriction requirement – a notion that is utterly ludicrous to

2 anyone with experience with the patent system, but one that might be plausible to a lay jury if

3 unexplained.

4 Rambus contends that the Manufacturers should be limited to responding to

5 Rambus’s incorrect and misleading arguments with their own arguments, and that expert

6 testimony should not be used to demonstrate the fallacy of Rambus’s arguments. Rambus Br. at

7 5. Rambus’s reliance on United States v. Brodie, 858 F.2d, 492, 496 (9th Cir. 1988) overruled

8 in part on other grounds by United States v. Morales, 108 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 1997) is

9 unavailing. Nothing in Brodie stands for the notion that it is inappropriate to use an expert to

10 present testimony in response to an argument or assertion made by counsel in opening statement

11 or otherwise. The Manufacturers should not be limited to Rambus’s choice of rebuttal

12 mechanisms in responding to Rambus’s incorrect or misleading arguments. Rather, the

13 Manufacturers should be permitted to present testimony – from someone who is undisputedly

14 qualified to do so – to explain how the PTO issues restriction requirements, and the limitations

15 and importance of restriction requirements. Invitrogen Corp. v. Clontech Labs., Inc., 429 F.3d

16 1052, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Unsubstantiated attorney argument regarding the meaning of

17 technical evidence is no substitute for competent, substantiated expert testimony.”).

18 IV. CONCLUSION.
19 For the foregoing reasons, the Manufacturers respectfully request that the Court

20 deny Rambus’s Daubert No. 2 Motion to exclude the testimony of Mr. Heuser.

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-5- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 8 of 11

1 Dated: November 14, 2008 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

2 By: /s/ Sven Raz

Sven Raz
3 SVEN RAZ (Bar No. 222262)
Email: sven.raz@weil.com
4 JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712)
Email: jared.bobrow@weil.com
5 WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
6 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3034
7 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100

8 ELIZABETH STOTLAND WEISWASSER

Email: elizabeth.weiswasser@weil.com
9 DAVID LENDER
Email: david.lender@weil.com
10 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
New York Office
11 767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
12 Telephone: (212) 310-8000

13 WILLIAM C. PRICE (Bar No. 108542)

Email: williamprice@quinnemanuel.com
14 HAROLD A. BARZA (Bar No. 80888)
Email: halbarza@quinnemanuel.com
15 JON R. STEIGER (Bar No. 229814)
Email: jonsteiger@quinnemanuel.com
16 ROBERT J. BECHER (Bar No. 193431)
Email: robertbecher@quinnemanuel.com
17
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART OLIVER &
18 HEDGES, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
19 Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
20 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
21 Attorneys for Defendants MICRON
TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON
22 SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC.
23

24

25

26

27

28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
1 CASE NO. C 05 00334; CASE NO. C 05 02298;
CASE NO. C 06 00244
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 9 of 11

1 By: /s/ Theodore G. Brown III

Theodore G. Brown III
2
DANIEL J. FURNISS (Bar No. 73531)
3 Email: djfurniss@townsend.com
THEODORE G. BROWN III (Bar No. 114672)
4 Email: tgbrown@townsend.com
JORDAN TRENT JONES (Bar No. 166600)
5 Email: jtjones@townsend.com
TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW LLP
6 379 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
7 Telephone: (650) 326-2400
Facsimile: (650) 326-2422
8
KENNETH L. NISSLY (Bar No. 77589)
9 Email: knissly@omm.com
SUSAN van KEULEN (Bar No. 136060)
10 Email: svankeulen@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
11 2765 Sand Hill Road
Menlo Park, California 94025
12 Telephone: (650) 473-2600
Facsimile: (650) 473-2601
13
KENNETH R. O’ROURKE (Bar No. 120144)
14 Email: korourke@omm.com
WALLACE A. ALLAN (Bar No. 102054)
15 Email: tallan@omm.com
O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
16 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, California 90071-2899
17 Telephone: (213) 430-6000
Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
18 Attorneys for Defendants
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX
19 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., and
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR
20 MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC.
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-2- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 10 of 11

1 By: /s/ Craig R. Kaufman

Craig R. Kaufman
2
ROBERT E. FREITAS (Bar No. 80948)
3 Email: rfreitas@orrick.com
CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (Bar No. 159458)
4 Email: ckaufman@orrick.com
VICKIE L. FEEMAN (Bar No. 177487)
5 Email: vfeeman@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
6 1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
7 Telephone: (650) 614-7400
Facsimile: (650) 614-7401
8 Attorneys for Defendants
NANYA TECHNOLOGY
9 CORPORATION, and NANYA
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
10

11
By: /s/ Anne Cappella______
12 Anne Cappella
13
MATTHEW D. POWERS
14 Email: matthew.powers @weil.com
STEVEN S. CHERENSKY
15 Email: steven.cherensky@weil.com
ANNE CAPPELLA
16 Email: anne.cappella@weil.com
WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
17 201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
18 Telephone: (650) 802-3034
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
19
ROBERT S. BEREZIN
20 Email: robert.berezin@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
21 New York Office
767 Fifth Avenue
22 New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
23
Attorneys for Defendants
24 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
25 SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.
26

27

28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-3- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2538 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 11 of 11

1 ATTESTATION CLAUSE RE SIGNATURES

2 Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, §X(B), I attest under

3 penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its

4 signatory.

5 Dated: November 14, 2008 Respectfully Submitted

6

7 /s/ Craig R. Kaufman

Craig R. Kaufman
8 Attorneys for Defendants
Nanya Technology Corporation and
9 Nanya Technology Corporation USA
10

11
OHS West:260550981.1
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MFG’S OPPO. TO RAMBUS’ DAUBERT MTN NO. 2 AND
MTN IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY
-4- CASE NO. C 05 00334 RMW; CASE NO. C 05 02298RMW;
CASE NO. C 06 00244 RMW