Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4197 Filed11/27/12 Page1 of 3

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

KENNETH NISSLY (SBN 77589) knissly@omm.com SUSAN VAN KEULEN (SBN 136060) svankeulen@omm.com SUSAN ROEDER (SBN 160897) sroeder@omm.com MISHIMA ALAM (SBN 271621) malam@omm.com O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 2765 Sand Hill Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 473-2600 Facsimile: (650) 473-2601 KENNETH OROURKE (SBN 120144) korourke@omm.com OMELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, California 90071-2899 Telephone: (213) 430-6000 Facsimile: (213) 430-6407 [Additional counsel listed on signature page.] Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH, Plaintiffs, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant.

Case No. CV 00-20905 RMW SK HYNIXS RESPONSE TO RAMBUSS OPPOSITION TO SK HYNIXS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO RAMBUSS BRIEF REGARDING THE COURTS DETERMINATION OF A RAND RATE PURSUANT TO ITS SEPTEMBER 21, 2012 ORDER Hearing Date: Time: Place: Judge: TBD TBD Courtroom 6, 4th Floor Hon. Ronald M. Whyte

SK HYNIXS RESPONSE TO RAMBUSS OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY CV 00-20905 RMW

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4197 Filed11/27/12 Page2 of 3

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

Hynix1 responds to Rambuss opposition (D.E. 4196) to SK hynixs Administrative Motion for Leave to File Reply to Rambuss Brief Regarding the Courts Determination of a RAND Rate Pursuant to Its September 21, 2012 Order (D.E. 4192) (Administrative Motion). In its September 21, 2012 Order (D.E. 4160) (Sept. 21 Order), the Court instructed the parties to submit supplemental briefs addressing what a reasonable, non-discriminatory royalty rate would be with respect to the patents-in-suit. Sept. 21 Order 65:15-17. The Court ordered one round of briefing, with Hynix to submit its brief first and Rambuss brief due two weeks later. Id. at 65:18-66:1. Hynix filed its brief on October 30, 2012, allowing Rambus, in its brief filed November 13, 2012, both to respond to Hynixs arguments and, unexpectedly, bring new arguments and submit new evidence, including a declaration from a new damages consultant. See Administrative Motion 1:3-2:13. As stated in its Administrative Motion, Hynix must be permitted to respond to these new arguments by submitting a reply brief. See id. While Rambus notes that Civil L.R. 7-11 requires submission of a stipulation or a declaration that explains why such a stipulation could not be obtained, this requirement cannot apply here, because this Court has ordered a briefing schedule that the parties cannot simply stipulate to alter. Hynixs reply thus may only be filed with leave of the Court. But even if the parties could stipulate to the submission of additional briefs, it is clear from Rambuss opposition brief that it would have imposed conditions on any such stipulationthat is, it would have demanded leave to file its own supplemental brief. See Rambuss Opposition to Hynixs Application Under L.R. 7-11 For Leave To File An Additional Brief On RAND Issues (D.E. 4196) 1:28-2:2. Rambus cannot argue that it will be prejudiced by Hynixs reply brief, because Hynix informed Rambus and the Court in its opening brief that it reserved the right to file a reply brief. SK hynixs Brief Regarding Sanctions for Rambuss Spoliation (D.E. 4176) 9 n. 8. But Hynix will be prejudiced if it is unable to respond to Rambuss new evidence and arguments. See On October 5, 2012, the parties formerly collectively referred to as Hynix filed an Administrative Motion informing the Court of changes to the those parties names. As of the date of filing this motion, the Administrative Motion had not been granted. For purposes of this motion, these parties continue to be referred to as Hynix.
SK HYNIXS RESPONSE TO RAMBUSS OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY CV 00-20905 RMW
1

Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4197 Filed11/27/12 Page3 of 3

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

Administrative Motion 2:7-13. The Court should thus grant Hynixs Administrative Motion and permit Hynix to file a Reply in Support of SK hynixs Brief Regarding Sanctions for Rambuss Spoliation.

Dated: November 27, 2012 By: /s/ Kenneth L. Nissly Kenneth L. Nissly KENNETH L. NISSLY SUSAN van KEULEN SUSAN ROEDER MISHIMA ALAM OMELVENY & MYERS LLP KENNETH R. OROURKE OMELVENY & MYERS LLP THEODORE G. BROWN III KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP Attorneys for Plaintiffs HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
OMM_US:71147179.1

-2-

SK HYNIXS RESPONSE TO RAMBUSS OPPOSITION TO ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY CV 00-20905 RMW