Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document109 Filed08/24/12 Page1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

(All parties and counsel listed on signature page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. LSI CORPORATION,

Case No. 10-cv-05446-RS DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CASE NOS. 10-CV-05446-RS, 10-CV-05449-RS

Defendant. RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants. Case No. 10-cv-05449-RS

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document109 Filed08/24/12 Page2 of 4

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

Pursuant to Local Rules 7-3(d) and 7-11, Defendants LSI Corp., STMicroelectronics N.V., and STMicroelectronics, Inc. (collectively Defendants) respectfully file this Unopposed Administrative Motion for Leave to File Defendants Sur-reply (the Administrative Motion) to Plaintiffs Reply Brief on Claim Construction (Doc. No. 107) (the Reply Brief), stating as follows: I. INTRODUCTION Pursuant to the Stipulation and Order re Case Schedule (Doc. No. 78), on August 8, 2012, Defendants filed their Responsive Brief on Claim Construction (Doc. No. 101) (the Response Brief). One week later, on August 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion in In re Rambus Inc., Appeal No. 2011-1247 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (the Appellate Opinion), attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Appellate Opinion resulted from an ex parte reexamination of a Farmwald/Horowitz patent asserted in this litigation U.S. Patent No. 6,034,918 and offers important and helpful analysis to this Court regarding the meaning of at least two disputed claim terms: (1) controller/controller device; and (2) synchronous dynamic random access memory device. The Appellate Opinion issued one week after Defendants Response Brief was filed and, thus, it was impossible for Defendants to address the Appellate Opinion in its claim construction papers. However, Plaintiff was able to address the Appellate Opinion and did cite to this opinion in its Reply Brief. Reply Brief at 12 and n.7. Defendants file this Administrative Motion for the limited purpose of addressing the substance of and Plaintiffs characterization of the Appellate Opinion.1 Given the timing of the Appellate Opinion, and Plaintiffs discussion of the same in its Reply Brief, Defendants respectfully submit that good cause exists for this Court to grant Defendants leave to file a Sur-reply to Plaintiffs Reply Brief. A copy of Defendants proposed Sur-Reply to Plaintiffs Reply Brief on Claim Construction is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

By filing this Administrative Motion Defendants are not agreeing with any positions taken or arguments made by Plaintiff in its Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc. No. 99) or Reply Brief.
DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CASE NO. 10-CV-05446-RS

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document109 Filed08/24/12 Page3 of 4

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

II.

ARGUMENT Courts exercise their discretion in favor of allowing a sur-reply where a valid reason for

such additional briefing exists. Hill v. England, 2005 WL 3031136, *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2005); Landmark Screens, LLC v. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95735, *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2010) (surreply is an appropriate response to arguments made by Defendants for the first time in their reply brief). Here, compelling reasons exist in favor of this Court allowing Defendants to file their Sur-reply. Specifically, Defendants Motion should be granted to allow Defendants an opportunity to address a new opinion by the Federal Circuit regarding the meaning and interpretation of the Farmwald/Horowitz patents and claim terms at issue in this litigation. The Administrative Motion should be granted in order to provide Defendants with an opportunity to discuss the Appellate Opinion which was issued after Defendants Response Brief as filed, and rebut Plaintiffs characterization of the same. Defendants have moved diligently in filing this Administrative Motion. Defendants are moving within seven business days of receipt of Plaintiffs Reply Brief and the Appellate Opinion. On August 22 and 23, 2012, Defendants counsel conferred with Plaintiffs counsel via email regarding the substance of this Motion. Plaintiffs counsel indicated they will not oppose this Motion. III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant their Administrative Motion.

DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CASE NO. 10-CV-05446-RS

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document109 Filed08/24/12 Page4 of 4

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: August 24, 2012

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

By: /s/ John D. Cadkin DAVID E. SIPIORA (State Bar No. 124951) DANIEL S. YOUNG (pro hac vice) JOHN D. CADKIN (pro hac vice) 1400 Wewatta Street, Suite 600 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: (303) 571-4000 Facsimile: (303) 571-4321 Email: dsipiora@kilpatricktownsend.com Email: dyoung@kilpatricktownsend.com Email: jcadkin@kilpatricktownsend.com Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff LSI CORPORATION

DATED: August 24, 2012

K&L GATES, LLP

By: /s/ Michael J. Bettinger MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (State Bar No. 122196) STEPHEN EVERETT (State Bar No. 121619) Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 882-8200 Fax: (415) 882-8220 Email: mike.bettinger@klgates.com Email: stephen.everett@klgates.com Attorneys for Defendants STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. and STMICROELECTRONICS INC.

FILERS ATTESTATION I, John D. Cadkin, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this DEFENDANTS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION. In compliance with General Order 45.X.B., I hereby attest that the above-named signatories concur in this filing. DATED: August 24, 2012 /s/ John D. Cadkin
64497734v.2

DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SURREPLY TO PLAINTIFFS REPLY BRIEF ON CLAIM CONSTRUCTION CASE NO. 10-CV-05446-RS