4239-a

7/29/2019 4239-a

1/10

EXHIBIT B

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4239-2 Filed01/25/13 Page1 of 10

7/29/2019 4239-a

2/10

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

- - -

ICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

RAMBUS INC.,

Defendant.

---------------------------

RAMBUS INC.,

Counterclaim

Plaintiff

vs.

ICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

ICRON ELECTRONICS, INC.,

and ICRON SEMICONDUCTOR

PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

::

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 00-792 (SLR)

- - -

Wilmington, Delaware

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

5:16 o'clock, p.m.

- - -

BEFORE: HONORABLE SUE L. ROBINSON, U.S.D.C.J.

- - -

Valerie J. Gunning

Official Court Reporter


7/29/2019 4239-a

3/10

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

2

APPEARANCES:

RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER

BY: FREDERICK L. COTTRELL, III, ESQ.

-and-

WEIL GOTSHAL & ANGES LLP

BY: JARED BOBROW, ESQ.

(Redwood Shores, California)

-and-

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

BY: WILLIAM PRICE, ESQ.

(Los Angeles, California)

Counsel for icron Technology, Inc.

ORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

BY: ARY B. GRAHAM, ESQ.

-and-

UNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

BY: GREGORY P. STONE, ESQ.

(Los Angeles, California)

Counsel for Rambus Inc.

- - -


7/29/2019 4239-a

4/10

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

3

P R O C E E D I N G S

(REPORTER'S NOTE: The following telephone was

held in chambers, beginning at it's 5:16 p.m.)

THE COURT: Good afternoon, counsel. Thank you

for letting me get through my pretrial conference. I

appreciate your patience.

We do have Valerie here as our Court Reporter.

It would be helpful if you identified yourselves when you

spoke.

I have reviewed the status, the joint status

report, and my feeling about all of this is as follows.

I entered judgment promptly the last time

around. Since then, the Federal Circuit has taken great

pains to review both this case and the California case

together.

Now, I don't think that I have an obligation to

wait forever for Judge White to enter his companion opinion,

but it strikes me perhaps that it might make sense for me to

wait 30 days to give him an opportunity to do something so

that there is perhaps more of a likelihood that these

appeals will be heard together again by the Federal Circuit.

I'm happy to hear from everyone. If 30 days

doesn't make any sense, I'm not really willing -- I need a


7/29/2019 4239-a

5/10

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

4

date certain. I'm not going to wait and, you know, an

indefinite amount of time.

So let's hear from plaintiff's counsel first and

then from defendant's counsel.

R. BOBROW: Good afternoon, your Honor. This

is Jared Bobrow for icron, the plaintiff in the matter.

I think that it does make sense certainly to

have a date certain of the type that you propose and the

difference between, you know, 14 days and 30 days, I'm not

going to stand before you on the telephone and say that that

is a huge difference. I don't think, though, that we,

frankly, need to pay quite as much attention perhaps as the

Federal Circuit did the last time because I think the

posture of the case is now different.

The last time your Honor ruled on this matter,

two different courts, yours and Judge White's, came to a

very different conclusion on the issue of spoliation and the

underlying predicate for this, and those courts came to

different conclusions and now there is unanimity on that.

The Federal Circuit ruled and Judge White has said there

was spoliation. He also said there was bad faith and

prejudice.

And so there is only one issue that remains

where it appears that your Honor and Judge White had

different views, and that's as to the issue of the sanction,


7/29/2019 4239-a

6/10

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

5

your Honor finding the patents unenforceable vis--vis

icron and Judge White looking into an evidentiary penalty

to say in a sense that Rambus should not be allowed to

recover more than a reasonable and non-discriminatory

royalty. That matter I understand is still under

submission. It was understand submission I believe as of

the 11th of January and I don't believe Judge White has

given any sort of a timetable for resolution of that

matter.

And so, yes, we, on behalf of icron, we are

concerned that this matter, that judgment be entered

promptly, that the matter be in a posture so that Rambus, if

it wishes, can appeal your Honor's latest ruling. And

having a date certain on that we do think is important.

Certainly, I don't think that any more than 30 days would be

warranted. We'd request less, but as I said before, as long

as there's a date certain in the near time, I think that

should be fine.

THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Let me hear from

defendant's counsel.

R. STONE: Good afternoon, your Honor. This is

Gregory Stone on behalf of Rambus.

I think the Court's proposal of 30 days is

appropriate and reasonable. We would undertake to advise

Judge White of whatever your ultimate ruling is today so


7/29/2019 4239-a

7/10

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

6

that he can be aware of it and if he communicates to us any

particular timetable with respect to his ruling. And Hynix,

in our case, filed a series of motions, including a summary

judgment motion, motions for new trial in conjunction with

the last hearing we had with Judge White.

So when he took matters under submission, he had

a number of different motions that he -- that had been filed

by Hynix and one motion by Rambus in addition to the hearing

on the issues that he had set based on the briefs that had

been filed.

So he did take a number of different matters

under submission. And if he gives us any indication after

we advise him of whatever ruling the Court makes here, if he

gives us any indication of his timetable, we will certainly

notify your Honor so that you can consider that, give it

whatever consideration you think appropriate given the

circumstances.

THE COURT: All right. I would propose at this

point to file, submit an order, docket an order saying that

the Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment 30 days

hence and then go through the judgment and stay the

proceedings in the meantime, although I guess I shouldn't --

well, I don't know whether I should stay before we enter

judgment or not. I don't know.

Anyway, I would propose to enter some kind of


7/29/2019 4239-a

8/10

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

7

order giving direction so that in 30 days I don't have to do

anything, but judgment, consistent with my order, will be

entered.

So that's my proposal. And I guess one question

I have, I don't know how long the Federal Circuit will take

in its review, but in addition to staying, I would also

suggest that the case be administratively closed so that I

don't have reportable, a reportable case when I can't do

anything about it.

Would there be any objection to that?

R. BOBROW: For icron, your Honor, there's no

objection to that.

R. STONE: There's no objection on the part of

Rambus to your provisionally closing the case, your Honor,

while it's up on appeal.

THE COURT: All right. All right. And do you

think there's any problem with, in my order, going ahead and

detailing what the judgment should say and saying that the

matter is certified for immediate appeal once judgment is

entered so that, again, I don't have a step two? I can just

enter the order and a consistent judgment would enter

30 days?

R. BOBROW: For icron, Jared Bobrow.

I think that's fine. I think your Honor's

order, judgment from the last time would be a good roadmap


7/29/2019 4239-a

9/10

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

8

for that where I think you did certify under 54(b) and a

procedure of the type you're envisioning where that would

automatically go into effect in 30 days I think is

appropriate.

R. STONE: This is Greg Stone, your Honor.

There's no objection from Rambus to the proposal

you make. I only paused on your question about whether you

should make the stay effective now or make the stay

effective or find entry of your judgment, but I reflected on

that and I frankly don't see any issue in that regard.

Either whether you make the stay effective now or make the

stay effective later, I think it's immaterial, so I don't

think that makes much difference either.

S. GRAHAM: Your Honor, this is ary Graham.

One thing I just want to make clear because

something that r. Stone said, I'm not sure if he's clear

about. I don't think it's an issue, but the administrative

closure you're proposing would happen basically now, as soon

as you would enter an order of the type we've just been

talking about. Is that right?

THE COURT: No. I think it couldn't be entered

until judgment was entered.

S. GRAHAM: Okay.

THE COURT: And it is just administratively

closing. I don't even have to include that in my order.


7/29/2019 4239-a

10/10

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

9

It's something that we do when there are -- you know, when

things happen that basically make the case impossible for us

to work on, because that takes it off all of the

reportables. So it would not be administratively closed

after judgment is entered.

S. GRAHAM: Okay. And, yes, it has always been

my understanding that administrative closures, although I

don't know that I've ever heard a Judge articulate it, but

it is certainly a non-merit closing. It just means that for

administrative purposes, it isn't being reported or the

like.

THE COURT: Right. Right. Strictly that. It

has nothing to do with the merits of anything. It just

takes it off our radar because we can't do anything about

it.

All right, counsel. Thank you very much

for your time this evening. Have a good rest of your

evening.

(Counsel respond, "Thank you, your Honor.")

THE COURT: Bye-bye now.

(Telephone conference concluded at 5:25 p.m.)

- - -


4239-a

Documents

Transcript of 4239-a