Investment Newsletter Advice
First of all, I highly recommend the following newsletter in order to help you understand the legal issues better:
This weekly investment letter has a virtually perfect track record of
predicting all the legal outcomes in this highly complex litigation
around Rambus. I don't know any serious Rambus investor who does not subscribe to Fred Hager.
Summary and Outlook (Current)
Note: Everything from here on can be outdated and serves mainly as an archive
- Very good overview by Rambus
- The story of Rambus, introduction to Virginia Trial 1
- 5-year Patent License Agreement with Intel
- Siemens "deadly menace" documents (pdf)
- RMBS Litigation Primer:
- Aug 01 RMBS vs IFX: Judge Payne (District court of Virgina - "rocket docket") wrote:
"The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rambus knew, or should have known, that its patent-infringement suit was baseless, unjustified and frivolous - one which reasonably intelligent people should have known would have no chance of success"
- Jun 02 FTC CC issues a complaint against Rambus, based on Payne's findings
- Jan 03 RMBS vs IFX: CAFC (nation-wide patent experts) wrote:
"In sum, the district court erred in its construction of each of the disputed terms. In light of the revised claim construction, this court vacates the grant of JMOL of noninfringement and remands for the district court to reconsider infringement." "In sum, substantial evidence does not support the jury's verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy. Infineon did not show the first element of a Virginia fraud action and therefore did not prove fraud associated with the SDRAM standard. No reasonable jury could find otherwise. The district court erred in denying JMOL of no fraud on the SDRAM verdict. Because of these holdings, the new trial and injunction issues are moot."
- Oct 03 RMBS vs IFX: Supreme Court (highest court of the U.S.) confirmed the CAFC.
- After 54 days of hearings, 44 live witness records, 1,770 admitted exhibits, 12,000 pages of trial transcript and 3 extensions of time later...
Feb 04 FTC ALJ wrote:
"Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden of proof with respect all three of the violations alleged in the Complaint. A review of the three violations alleged in the Complaint shows that although Respondent is in possession of monopoly power in the relevant markets, Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in a pattern of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct which subverted an open standards process, or that Respondent utilized such conduct to capture an unlawfl monopoly in the technology-related markets. Analyzing the challenged conduct under established principles of economics and antitrust law and utilizing the preponderance of evidence standard, Complaint Counsel have not proven the elements necessary to support a finding of liability."
- Apr 04 FTC CC Appeal:
"The importance of this case justifies careful Commission review. The outcome will determine whether Rambus can continue to assert monopoly power, through its patents, over technologies incorporated in the supposedly open JEDEC standards that govern the worldwide DRAM memory chip industry. The royalties collected by Rambus would apply to virtually all DRAMs sold by the $20 billion memory industry. DRAM chips are used throughout the economy in products including personal computers, mainframe computers, consumer electronics products, and telecommunications routers and switches. Rambus has also sought royalties on memory controllers and other components that interface with DRAMs. Rambus estimates that these royalties could amount to $1-3 billion, a cost likely to be imposed on consumers. Of equal concern is the potential harm to the ability of JEDEC to continue to set open consensus-based standards. Members failure to participate in JEDEC in good faith or to observe the JEDEC patent disclosure policy could destroy the work of JEDEC because JEDEC will no longer have companies willing to join the work of creating standards. CX2384. The activities of other standard-setting organizations also are likely to be hurt. The Commission should correct the mistakes of law contained in the Initial Decision. Although the ALJ s erroneous interpretation of the scope of Section 5 is of utmost concern, his standards for causation and anticompetitive harm also could have serious implications if followed by other judges or courts and could set dangerous precedent if not corrected by the Commission. For the reasons set forth above, Complaint Counsel believe that the Commission should vacate the initial decision in this matter, substitute its own findings and decision holding that Rambus violated Section 5 of the FTC Act, and adopt the proposed Order."
- FTC Rambus docket 9302
- Official Rambus Litigation Update Page
- Closing arguments
- 02/24/04 FTC Initial Decision: FTC dissmisses complaint against Rambus!
Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden
of proof with respect all three of the violations alleged in the Complaint.
A review of the three violations alleged in the Complaint shows
that although Respondent is in possession of monopoly power in the relevant
markets, Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged
in a pattern of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct which subverted an open
standards process, or that Respondent utilized such conduct to capture an
unlawfl monopoly in the technology-related markets. Analyzing the challenged
conduct under established principles of economics and antitrust law and
utilizing the preponderance of evidence standard, Complaint Counsel have not
proven the elements necessary to support a finding ofliability.
- 03/01/04 Notice of Appeal
- 03/26/04 Order granting extensions of time to file appellate briefs and increase in word count limits
- 04/22/04 Appeal brief
- 04/15/04 Brief Amicus Curiae of Economics Professors and Scholars (paid by Hynix)
- 04/16/04 Brief of Amici Curiae Micron Technology, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., and Infineon Technologies AG
- 04/16/04 Amicus Curiae Brief of JEDEC Solid State Technology Association in Support of Complaint Counsel's Appeal of Initial Decision
- 04/21/04 Andrew's amici curiae brief
- 04/30/04 Order Granting Motions For Leave to File Briefs Amicus Curiae and Scheduling Oral Argument
- Citizens for Voluntary Trade to file pro-Rambus amicus brief with the FTC
- 05/12/04 Amicus Curiae Brief of The American Antitrust Institute in Support of Neither Party
- 05/25/04 Third-Party Infineon Technology's Motion For Clarification Of The August 2, 2002 Protective Order
- 06/02/04 Rambus files Appeal Brief with the FTC!
- 06/02/04 Citizens for Voluntary Trade files Amicus Brief (pro-Rambus) with the FTC
- 06/04/04 Response of Rambus Inc. to Motion of Third-Party Infineon Technology for Clarification of the August 2, 2002 Protective Order
- 06/04/04 Declaration of Gregory P. Stone in Response to Motion of Third-Party Infineon Technology for Clarification of the August 2, 2002 Protective Order
- 07/02/04 Motion to Compel Production Of, and to Reopen the Record to Admit, Documents Relating to Respondent Rambus Inc.'s Spoliation of Evidence
- 07/09/04 Reply brief of FTC Complaint Counsel
- 07/12/04 Rambus's Opposition to Complaint Counsel's Motion to Reopen the Record to Include "Evidence That Corrects Misrepresentation in Answering Brief"
- 12/09/04 Report from the FTC Commission Appeal oral arguments
- 02/23/09 Supreme Court slams down FTC case
Department of Justice: Antitrust Investigation
ITC case against many manufacturers and systems companies (NVidia)
Civil antitrust case against Micron, Hynix, Infineon and Siemens - Superior Court of California
- Superior Court of California Docket
- 05/05/04 press release
- 05/05/04 civil complaint
- 05/05/04 Antitrust Special Conference Call mp3 (5 MB)
- 10/02/02 Micron DRAM Price-Fixing Amnesty Agreement
- 10/20/04 Infineon DRAM Price-Fixing Guilty Plea
- 10/20/04 Infineon DRAM Price-Fixing Sentencing Memorandum
- 05/11/05 Hynix DRAM Price-Fixing Guilty Plea
- 04/21/05 Hynix DRAM Price-Fixing Sentencing Memorandum
- 11/30/05 Samsung DRAM Price-Fixing Guilty Plea
- 11/30/05 Samsung DRAM Price-Fixing Sentencing Memorandum
- 03/22/06 Elpida DRAM Price-Fixing Guilty Plea
- 03/08/06 Elpida DRAM Price-Fixing Sentencing Memorandum
- 06/02/06 THE 12 E-MAILS
- 03/12/09 Brand-new Dynamite Evidence from the Antitrust case
- See all documents at rambus.org archive
- Some evidence from the FTC trial:
- 513. In an April 1999 email exchange among Micron Vice President Bob Donnelly, Micron DRAM Marketing Manager Jeff Mailoux, and Micron JEDEC representatives Kevin Ryan and Terry Lee, an article was attached describing Samsung s plans to produce as much as forty millon Rambus devices in 1999. (R 1444 at 3). In response, Ryan complained that Samsung had "broken ranks with the other suppliers and sold their soul to the devil." (R 1444 at 1). One of the recipients of the email, Mike Seibert, responded that "(tJhese guys (Rambus) are big trouble for us all. If this thing gets into an oversupply mode with RDRAM things could get really ugly." (RX 1444 at 1). Seibert then asked Micron Vice-President Bob Donnelly if Samsung understood "what the Rambus/Intel biz model wil do to our autonomy?" (RX 1444 at 1). Vice-President Donnelly responded that he had "certainly made the point with the offcers that Intel. . . ultimately could control the DRAM industry." (R 1444 at 1).
- 526. In September 1996, Hyundai executive and SyncLink Consortium chairman Farhad Tabrizi wrote an email that expressed a concern that "the real motive of Intel is to control DRAM manufacturers. . . ." According to Tabrizi, Intel' s actions would give it "control of DRAMs and other CPU makers. We will become a foundry for all Intel activities and Intel would like and desires to do business with us then we may get a small share of their total demand. " (RX 778 at 1). Tabrizi concluded his email stating: "I urge you to please educate others and get their agreement to say 'NO TO RAMBUS AN NO TO INTEL DOMINATION. '"
- 529. At that same meeting, the assembled manufacturers agreed to hold a meeting of DRAM manufacturer executives in Japan in January 1997. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9041). Prior to the meeting, Tabrizi sent an email to other DRAM manufacturers that stated that the "Intel decision to go on a Rambus route was pure political and domination and control over the DRAM suppliers and not technical." (R 802 at 3; Tabrizi, Tr. 9041-42). He then stated: "As I have mentioned many times before, Intel does not make DRAMs, we do. And if all of us put our resources together, we do not have to go on this undesirable path. The path of control and domination by Intel." (R 802 at 3). He urged the DRAM manufacturers to "stick together on this matter. (R 802 at 3; Tabrizi, Tr. 9042-43).
- 533. In February 1998, Jeff Mailloux of Micron wrote an email to Tabrizi stating that Mailloux had spoken to a reporter for an industry publication called EE Times. (RX 1105 at 1). Mailloux stated that "I told him that at any density, and any process that is available in 1999 RDRAM is at least 30% cost adder for Micron " and then encouraged Tabrizi to call the reporter with Hyundai' s views. (RX 1105 at 1).
- Long version: Jeff Mailloux, a senior Micron executive, subsequently wrote Farhad Tabrizi, his counterpart at Hyundai (now Hynix), stating, "I am tired of Intel or Rambus giving my customers cost estimates, so we called Anthony [Cataldo, author of an article in EE Times] and I talked to him for about an hour and gave him Micron's story on it and encouraged him to call other suppliers. In short I told him that at any density, and any process that is available in 1999, RDRAM is at least 30% cost adder for Micron. Just giving you a heads up and would encourage you to call him and give Hyundai's view on it." The email continued: "Here is what I basically told him, if you forward the article to anybody else, remove this part." After summarizing this conversation, Mailloux concluded his e-mail stating: "Anyhow, please visit me if I end up in jail, but felt it was important and timely enough to get our message out there that 5% is not realistic in our opinion."
- 535. In April 1998, Bert McComas, an industry consultant, gave an exclusive seminar for DRAM manufacturers about Intel's selection of RDRAM. (R 1138 at 1; Tabrizi, Tr. 9061-62). McComas pre-cleared his seminar invitation and list of topics with Tabrizi. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9064). 536. McComas s invitation asked its recipients not to forward the invitation to Rambus or Intel. (R 1138 at 1). 537. During his April 1998 seminar presentation to the DRAM manufacturers, McComas stated that a manufacturer that chose to build RDRAM was making a "guaranteed bad bet for margin enhancement " and he stated that RDRAM deepens the manufacturer s financial dilemma. (RX 1482 at 12 26). As a "possible strateg(y)," McComas suggested that DRAM manufacturers (t)ape out but do not fully productize or cost reduce" the RDRAM device, in an effort to "resist popular deployment" of RDRAM. (R 1482 at 34-35).
- 541. During his presentation at the June 1998 "Executive Summit " McComas suggested that the DRAM manufacturers share their RDRAM production plans to determine whether there would be a demand-supply imbalance. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9073-74).
- 553. Tabrizi admitted at trial that he had told Sang Park, then the President and Chief Operating Officer of Hyundai, that he wanted to "kill" Rambus and force RDRAM from the market. (Tabrizi, Tr. 9105-07). Tabrizi subsequently testified that what he meant by "killing Rambus was really just "Rambus suicide, (with) me watching on the sideline. " (Tabrizi Tr. 9109). In his June 2000 email to Park, Tabrizi stated: " (i)f Intel does not invest in us, I really want to ask you to let me go back to my old mode of RDRAM killing. I think we were very close to achieving our goal until you said we are absolutely committed to this baby." (R 1661 at 2).
- Even the jurors hate Micron's exec: "Mr. Sadler, we all felt, was a lying sack of shit."
- Amigos comment:
- Micron: "Rambus failed in the marketplace because of excessive manufacturing costs and minimal RDRAM demand," said Micron spokesman Dave Parker. "It is unfortunate that Rambus is trying to blame the market failure of its RDRAM technology on others, like Micron, who ultimately responded to marketplace demands."
- Infineon: "Rambus' allegations made against Infineon in this complaint are old news and without merit. The failure of RDRAM in the marketplace was the result of high costs and technical issues with Rambus' products as well as strong competition from superior DRAM products provided by Infineon and other DRAM manufacturers," said Christoph Liedtke, an Infineon spokesman, in a statement.
- Hynix: A spokesman for Hynix said, "Rambus is harassing DRAM makers after its business started having difficulties."
Litigation against Infineon - Eastern District of Virginia
First jury trial
Judge Payne wrote:
"The clear and convincing evidence shows that Rambus knew, or should have known, that its patent-infringement suit was baseless, unjustified and frivolous - one which reasonably
intelligent people should have known would have no chance of success"
- Official Rambus Litigation Update Page
- Judge Payne's Weekly Schedule
- Local Rules for the US District Court Eastern District of Virgina
- Read about Payne's past record "I don't know Judge Payne personally. But I don't think it's necessary to know much about him to conclude that this is an evil man, with either no respect for the law or no knowledge of it."
- Links to overturned rulings by Payne (thanks to jaw_nee_gee):
- Payne is sitting with the 4th Circuit
- Payne is still sitting with the 4th Circuit
- Payne is affirmed by the 4th Circuit
- Payne was an associate of McGUIRE, WOODS in 1971-74, and a partner from 1975-92
- Payne in 2003 visits his buddies from McGUIRE WOODS LLP - which accidentally represent IFX in his court NOW...
- Rambus rises as case
- 1/8/04 Hearing transcripts (thanks to jpstackiii and gyro48)
- 1/14/04 Telephonic Hearing transcript (thanks to jpstackiii, ownerofbusiness, stk_hawk, long_and_leaping and gyro48) pdf (600kB)
- 2/2/04 Telephonic Hearing transcript (thanks to meonthebus and jpstackiii) txt (300kB) pdf (300kB)
Judge Payne: "There was at the time a crime -- a scheme to defraud that was shown, and the other requisites of that relief were satisfied, as explained in the order that's already been
reviewed by the Federal Circuit."
- 02/17/04 Rambus Memo Supporting Motion to Dismiss Infineons SEC. 17200 Counterclaim
- 02/18/04 Order Granting Motion for Leave to File Ammended Answer and Counterclaims
- 02/19/04 Rambus Notice of Subpoena to Slater & Matsil
- 02/26/04 Order requesting Rambus to produce documents
- 03/03/04 Rambus has filed the interlocutary Appeal on Document Retention Policy!
"Rambus intends to file a petition for writ of mandamus or interlocutory appeal to the Federal Circuit seeking relief from this paragraph of the Court's order. That petition or appeal will be filed early next week."
- 03/03/04 Transcript of conference call pdf txt (thanks to CachingBaby!)
Judge Payne: "Well, you make sure this, Mr. Stone: If you have a motion for summary judgment on infringement, given the posture of this case and what I already know about the evidence in it, it better be good because I don't want to spend any time over something like that only to realize that it's really right back where we were with just a few little twists on it by virtue of the federal circuit's opinion. Maybe there's something there. Maybe there's not. But I don't really see that that would be a prudent move on your part."
- 03/17/04 Order Setting Trial Date
- Mitsubishi Evaluation of Rambus Patent Agreement (from 1993) thanks to jpstackiii and twelvesoutherners! (200 kB pdf)
- 04/26/04 Rambus Motion Filed in Chicago requesting Mitsubishi Subpoena thanks to froland0! (2 MB pdf)
- 05/18/04 Order re Motion to Compel Production of Documents
- 05/18/04 Judge Payne pierces Rambus's Attorney-Client Privilege
He claims to personally have read all the 4,673 privileged Rambus documents in only 2 months... (p.33) That's 5 minutes per document if he hadn't been involved in any other business at all! Funnily, he doesn't seem to point onto some crime that he found in those documents... (maybe that's why the FTC ID was so favorable to Rambus?) And the fact that he could even read those documents still leads him to the conclusion that Rambus has destroyed them... Payne only cites his own ruling from 2001 as the case law that settles the fact that Rambus is guilty of spoliation (p.26, p.42) The FTC Initial Decision is left out, he just cites ALJ Timony (who left after the CAFC had ruled). Infineon's own spoliation or other misconduct is not even mentioned, as if it is completely irrelevant.
Rambus is appealing Payne's orders.
- 05/19/04 Order re In Camera Review
- 05/21/04 Scheduling Order
- 05/26/04 Judge Payne wants to be educated about Kindsdown Instruction
but he already knows that
AMENDING PATENTS IS LEGAL!! CAFC (Kingsdown 1988): It should be made clear at the outset of the present discussion that there is nothing improper, ilegal or inequitable in filing a patent application for the purpose of obtaining a right to exclude a known competitor s product from the market; nor is it in any manner improper to amend or insert claims intended to cover a competitors product the applicant's attorney has learned about during the prosecution of a patent application.
Kenneth Starr for Infineon at the CAFC Appeal hearing:
CAFC: "You of course are not arguing that amending applications, as long as you are within the scope of your original disclosure, is somehow inappropriate?
STARR: "Not at all, and that's why.."
CAFC: "Or any impropriety in acquiring information to make those amendments by virtue of your participation in JEDEC?"
STARR: "That is exactly right."
Payne refused to do a Kingsdown instruction in 2001 and together with Desmarais he led the Virginia Jury to believe that Rambus was illegally amending the patents, therefore the (wrong) fraud conviction. This was reversed by the CAFC in 2003 "Infineon did not show the first element of a Virginia fraud action and therefore did not prove fraud associated with the SDRAM standard. No reasonable jury could find otherwise."
- 05/26/04 Order re Motion In Limine re Federal Circuit Fraud Decision
"... that it would be improper to inform the jury of the substance of the decision of the CAFC on the issue of common law fraud, and considering that to inject that issue would create confusion and undue prejudice..."
- 05/26/04 Order re Motion In Limine re Evidence of Alleged Conspiracies
"... that the introduction of evidence or questioning respecting the Plaintiff's allegations respecting illegal conspiracies between the Defendants and any other DRAM manufacturer would create confusion and undue prejudice..."
- 05/28/04 Payne grants Infineon's oral motion to prevent Rambus from filing a motion to compel discovery of Infineon's legal law firm, Kirkland & Ellis
- 06/02/04 Order re Motion in Limine to Exclude FTC ALJ Decision
".. the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and oral argument would not aid the decisional process." RIGHT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THE FTC ID, YOU ALREADY KNOW THE TRUTH!
- 06/07/04 Infineon Opposition to Summary Judgment re Equitable Defenses
Infineon admits their awareness of Rambus business model and '703 patent, but still it didin't know about SDRAM infringment??
- 06/11/04 Rambus's memo re Kingsdown Instruction
- 06/16/04 Rambus Reply on Summary Judgment re Section 17200 - Fradulent Conduct
- 06/16/04 Rambus Reply on Summary Judgment re Section 17200 - Unlawful Conduct
- 06/16/04 Rambus Reply on Summary Judgment re Equitable Defenses
- 06/18/04 Infineon Opposition to Rambus Memorandum re Kingsdown
- 06/22/04 Rambus Reply on Kingsdown
Payne forgot about some details:
A.) From priviledge log Rambus believes IFX reasonably anticipated litigation in the 1990/1991 timeframe.
B.) By 1992, RMBS has IFX emails produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX acknowledges possible infringement of RMBS patents.
C.) RMBS has a 1993 IFX email produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX indicates concern about Rambus's #703 patent.
D.) RMBS has a 1994 IFX email produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX indicates concern about patent problems with SDRAM.
E.) RMBS has a 1995-1996 IFX emails produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX inquires about Rambus patents.
F.) RMBS has a 1995-1996 IFX emails produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX acknowledges studying Rambus patents.
G.) At a 1/1997 SYNCLINK meeting in Yokahama, Japan, Von Zitzewitz was described by 3rd partys as having spoken eloquently about Rambus yet Von Zitzewitz couldn't remember about Rambus in VA1 deposition. Rambus has obtained from 3rd partys copies of the slides Von Zitzewitz used in his Yokahama presentation never produced to Rambus by IFX. In his VA2 deposition last week, Von Zitzewitz testified he didn't produce the slides because nobody asked him to.
H.) RMBS has 1997 IFX emails produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX acknowledges patent problems with DDR.
I.) RMBS has a 1997 IFX email produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX advises other companies to collect prior art and share it in case one of us has to defend against Rambus.
J.) RMBS has a 1997 IFX email produced by 3rd partys but not produced by IFX where IFX advises other companies "Not to learn too much about Rambus".
K.) By 2000, IFX was well aware of RMBS patents via Hitachi litigation
- 07/14/04 CAFC Order re Infineon Motions
- 07/21/04 Opinion re Motion for Summary Judgment re Monopolization
Just because it would be "manifest injustice", Payne refuses to apply case law and contrarily denies SJ on Monopolization!
Is it not a manifest injustice to exclude 48 of the 51 patent claims that were thrown out due to the incorrectly issued Markman? Would Rambus not expect that by appealing the Markman ruling and the subsequent complete reversal of the initial findings that the impacted claims would be included in the infringement remand?
- 08/12/04 Order denying Kingsdown Instruction
- Writ of mandamus rules
- 7-day settlement window rule
- Study: Is the CAFC Succeeding?
- 03/14/04 Rambus's Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Prohibition and Other Appropriate Relief
- 03/16/04 CAFC orders Infineon to respond within 14 days
- 03/17/04 Payne reverses himself on Feb 26th order
- 03/19/04 Rambus Motion to Hold in Abeyance
- 03/24/04 Infineon Motion to CAFC to Dismiss Petition
- 04/05/04 Rambus Reply re Motion to Hold in Abeyance
- 04/08/04 Rambus Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Mandamus Petition
- 04/12/04 Infineon Reply re Motion to Dismiss Mandamus Petition as Moot
- 05/14/04 Rambus's letter to court regarding pending writ of mandamus Thanks to charred_water!
- 05/27/04 Rambus Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ re Document Retention and Waiver
- 06/04/04 Infineon Response to Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ of Mandamus
- 06/07/04 Rambus Reply re Motion to Supplement Petition for Writ of Mandamus
- 06/15/04 CAFC Order re Petition for Writ of Mandamus
- 06/22/04 Rambus' Writ for Mandamus!
Payne altered a citation (footnote 16, p.26 (pdf) )... Read here what CAFC Judge Bryson has to say about this:
"A first cousin to this point, and perhaps even more important, is to be scrupulous about avoiding overstatement or distortion in characterizing the facts or the law. We really do look at appendix citations, and we really do read cases that the parties represent as strongly favoring their positions. When we find that a party's appendix cites or cases do not live up to their billing, it does enormous damage to that party's credibility. This happens a lot. I don't know whether such distortions occur because the lawyer so wishes that the case or the transcript excerpt in question said what the lawyer would like it to say that the lawyer becomes persuaded that it actually does say that, or whether the lawyer just has a extremely broad view of justifiable inference, OR WORSE. BUT WHATEVER THE REASON, IT POISONS THE WELL AND MAKES THE COURT SKEPTICAL OF EVERYTHING THE LAWYER IS TRYING TO SELL."
- 07/07/04 Infineon's Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus
- 07/14/04 CAFC Order re Infineon Motions
- 07/19/04 Rambus CAFC Writ Petition Reply
- 07/19/04 Rambus CAFC Motion For Leave To File Reply re Writ Petition
- 07/21/04 Infineon CAFC Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief
- 08/18/04 Rambus' motion to file reply in support of Writ GRANTED BY CAFC
- 08/19/04 CAFC denies petition for writ of mandamus
- 08/19/04 Rambus Petition to CAFC for Writ of Mandamus re 17200, Monopolization and Equitable Estoppel
- 08/20/04 Order Staying Production of Privileged Documents
- 08/24/04 CAFC Order Requesting Briefing from Infineon on Rambus's Petition for Writ of Mandamus re 17200, Monopolization and Equitable Estoppel
- 08/25/04 Rambus Petition for En Banc Review of CAFC Order re Waiver and Spoliation
- 08/31/04 CAFC Order re Panel Rehearing re Spoliation and Waiver
- 09/01/04 CAFC Order re Rehearing En Banc re Waiver and Spoliation
- 09/10/04 Infineon CAFC Opposition to Rambus Petition for Writ of Mandamus re 17200, Monopolization and Equitable Estoppel
- 09/14/04 Rambus CAFC Reply on Petition for Writ of Mandamus re Monopolization 17200 and Equitable Estoppel
- 09/15/04 Infineon CAFC Opposition to Rehearing En Banc
- 09/20/04 Infineon CAFC Opposition to Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief re Monopolization 17200 and Equitable Estoppel
- 10/22/04 CAFC Order re Petition for Writ re 17200 Antitrust Equitable Estoppel: DENIED
- yada yada yada... CASE SETTLED on 03/21/05! Judge Payne got away!
Litigation against Hynix - Northern District of California
Litigation against Micron
Disclaimer: This WebSite is not connected with Rambus inc. All brands and company names are the property of their respective holders. Rambus.org disclaims any proprietary interest in the marks and names of others. Rambus, RDRAM, XDR and the Rambus logo are registered trademarks of Rambus inc. Direct Rambus, Direct RDRAM, RIMM, SO-RIMM, RaSer and QRSL are trademarks of Rambus inc. All information posted on this site is assumed to be accurate and not misleading. Posted messages on the message board are only the opinion of the poster. Nothing on this site is a substitute for your own research. Information on this site should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose. Never assume that you are anonymous and cannot be identified by your posts. Your IP is 188.8.131.52.