Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 1 of 7

1 [Attorneys Listed On Signature Page]

2

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9 SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
11
Plaintiff, SAMSUNG’S NOTICE OF MOTION
12 AND MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL
v. NOTICE AND TO RE-OPEN THE
13 RECORD OF THE UNCLEAN HANDS
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., SEPTEMBER TRIAL SOLELY TO
14 ADMIT EVIDENCE RELATED TO
Defendants. COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL
15
Hearing Date: January 30, 2009
16 Time: 2:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 6
17 Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

18 RAMBUS INC., Case No. C 05-02298 RMW

19 Plaintiff,

20 v.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,

22 Defendants.

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

24 Plaintiff,

25 v.

26 MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,

27 Defendants.

28
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 1 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 2 of 7

1 NOTICE OF MOTION
2 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
3
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 30, 2009 at 2:00 p.m. defendant
4
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor,
5
Inc., Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P. (“Samsung”), will and hereby does move this Court
6

7 for an order to take judicial notice and to re-open the record of the unclean hands September Trial

8 solely to admit evidence related to collateral estoppel. Samsung’s motion is based upon the

9 memorandum set forth below, the accompanying Declaration of Steven S. Cherensky in Support
10
of Samsung’s Motion For Entry Of Judgment Of Unenforceability Of Rambus’s Asserted Patents
11
As Against Samsung And Dismissal Of Rambus’s Patent Infringement Claims Against Samsung
12
Or, In The Alternative, For Summary Judgment (“Cherensky Decl.”), the complete record of this
13
action, selected portions of the record of the Delaware District Court in Micron Technology, Inc.
14

15 v. Rambus, Inc¸ Civ. No. 00-792 (“the Delaware Action”), dated January 9, 2009, evidence and

16 argument presented at the hearing on this motion, and all matters of which the Court may take
17 judicial notice.
18

19 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

20 I.
INTRODUCTION
21 The Court has asked the parties to brief the issue of the collateral estoppel effect of
22 the Delaware Action. In doing so, it is necessary to submit the decisions along with limited
23 aspects of the record from the Delaware case for the Court’s consideration. As such, see
24 Cherensky Declaration and Exhibits attached hereto, which is Exhibit 1 to this motion (“the
25 Collateral Estoppel Exhibits”). For this purpose Samsung seeks to submit the order and opinion
26 (Ex. 29); pleadings (Exs. 20, 21, 30); transcripts (Exs. 10, 26); the index of trial exhibits (Ex. 11);
27 and relevant briefing (Exs. 12-18) from the Delaware Action in connection with its Motion To
28 Take Judicial Notice And To Re-Open The Record Of The Unclean Hands September Trial
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 2 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 3 of 7

1 Solely To Admit Evidence Related To Collateral Estoppel. Samsung also finds relevant, and
2 hereby moves to introduce in the record of the September Trial, certain excerpts from the from
3 the trial transcript in Rambus Inc. v. Infineon Techs. AG, Civ. No. 3:00cv524 (E.D. Va., Feb. 21-
4 24, Mar. 1, 2005) (Ex. 1); relevant orders from the Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., No.
5 C-00-20905 RMW, (N.D. Cal.) litigation (Exs. 2, 3, 27); the case docket, the index of trial
6 exhibits, Rambus’s Objections to Filing by Samsung, and Samsung’s submission of the Infineon
7 record, and the exceptional case hearing transcript from Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc.,
8 No. 3:05cv406 (E.D. Va.) litigation (Exs. 5-9); Rambus’s Opening Brief for Defendant-Appellant
9 Rambus Inc., Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus Inc., No. 2006-1579 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 5, 2006) (Ex.
10 28); charts prepared by Samsung showing the Farmwald-Horowitz patent family tree and the
11 accused products involved in both the Delaware Action and this patent trial (Exs. 22, 23); and the
12 expert reports of William Huber (dated August 16, 2001) and Robert Murphy (dated September 5,
13 2008) (Exs. 4, 19). As explained below, the Court can and should take judicial notice of these
14 exhibits. Further, in light of the unique procedural posture of Samsung’s unclean hands defense,
15 which has been tried and is currently sub judice, the trial record should be re-opened for the
16 limited purpose of receiving the collateral estoppel exhibits attached to the Cherensky
17 Declaration.
18 II.
19 ARGUMENT
20 A. The Court Should Take Judicial Notice of the Collateral Estoppel Exhibits
21 1. Judicial Notice Of The Delaware Action Is Required By FRE 201
22 Judicial notice is mandatory when (1) a party requests such notice, and (2) supplies the
23
court with the source of any ascertainable fact. Fed. R. Evid. 201(d). Judicial notice under the
24
Federal Rules of Evidence is proper “any stage of a proceeding.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(f). As a
25
result, “judicial notice may be taken at any time in a litigation, “whether in the trial court or on
26

27 appeal.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(f) advisory committee’s note.

28 Under FRE 201(b), facts not subject to reasonable dispute may be judicially noticed when
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 3 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 4 of 7

1 they are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot
2 reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The Ninth Circuit has held that “a court may
3
take judicial notice of ‘matters of matters of public record.’” Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d
4
668, 690 (9th 2001) (quoting Mack v. South Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir.
5
1986)). Thus, pursuant to Rule 201(b), a court may take judicial notice of the order or decision of
6

7 another court. Papai v. Harbor Tug & Barge Co., 67 F.3d 203, 207 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (overruled

8 on other grounds) (citations omitted). Judicial notice of the “actions of other courts and

9 documents filed in other courts’ records” is also appropriate when relevant. 1 Joseph M.
10
McLaughlin, Weinstein’s Federal Evidence § 201.12[3] (2d ed. 2008). See, e.g., Dawson v.
11
Mahoney, 451 F.3d 550, 551 (9th Cir. 2006) (taking judicial notice of Montana state court orders
12
and proceedings); Anderson v. Clow (In re Stac Elecs. Sec. Litig.), 89 F.3d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir.
13
1996) (stating that the “district court properly took judicial of [a related judgment for patent
14

15 infringement] in determining that the proprietary and patent information” provided in a

16 prospectus was not misleading).

17 Judicial notice of another court’s opinion is an appropriate and efficient manner of
18
addressing an issue raised after trial. In Papai¸ for example, the plaintiff was injured while
19
painting defendant’s tug boat and filed suit in federal court, seeking damages under the Jones Act.
20
67 F.3d at 205. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment after
21
22 determining that plaintiff was not a seaman, and thus not entitled to relief, under the Jones Act.

23 Id. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a compensation claim under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor

24 Workers’ Compensation Act (“LHWCA”) against defendant as his employer. Id. After a hearing
25 before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), the ALJ issued a written decision and order
26
awarding compensation to plaintiff. Id. The Ninth Circuit, in addressing plaintiff’s appeal of the
27
district court’s summary judgment ruling, took judicial notice of the ALJ’s decision and order in
28
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 4 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 5 of 7

1 addressing the question of whether plaintiff’s receipt of benefits under the LHWCA should bar
2 his Jones Act claim. Id. at 207. In doing so, the court noted that Rule 201 permits judicial notice
3
of facts that are “capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy
4
cannot reasonably be questioned.” Id. at 207 n.5. The court then explained that taking judicial
5
notice of the ALJ’s opinion and decision in resolving the disputed issue was warranted because
6

7 “[j]udicial notice is properly taken of orders and decisions made by other courts or administrative

8 agencies.” Id. (citations omitted).

9 In this case, judicial notice is plainly proper for the Collateral Estoppel Exhibits under
10
Rule 201 since they are matters of “matters of public record” and consist of the pleadings,
11
transcripts, indices of exhibits, expert reports, other filings and relevant briefing. See Fed. R.
12
Evid. 201(b)(2); Lee, 250 F.3d at 690. Additionally, judicial notice of the Delaware District
13
Court’s opinion and order is also proper because these documents are legally significant for
14

15 purposes of collateral estoppel (as opposed for the truth of the matters asserted therein) and are

16 “not subject to reasonable dispute.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2); Papai, 67 F.3d at 207 n.5.
17
B. The Record From The September Trial Should Be Re-Opened To Address
18 Questions Raised By The Delaware Action
19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(a)(2) authorizes a court to, after a bench trial, reopen
20
the record and take additional testimony upon motion for a new trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2).
21
After a nonjury trial, retrial may be granted “for any reason for which a rehearing has been
22
heretofore granted in a suit in equity in federal court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(2). Generally, this
23
24 requires a showing of either “manifest error of law or mistake of fact.” 11 Charles Alan Wright,

25 Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2804 (2d ed. 1995). These

26 restrictions, however, “do not apply to a motion to take additional testimony made before a
27 decision has been given in the case.” Id.; see, e.g., U.S. v. Parisi, 27 F. Supp. 922, 922-23
28
(E.D.N.Y. 1939); Schick Dry Razor, Inc. v. General Shaver Corp., 26 F. Supp. 190, 191 (D.
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 5 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 6 of 7

1 Conn. 1938); Cerjance v. Kehres, 26 Wash. App. 436, 441 (1980) (citing 11 C. Wright & A.
2 Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2804, at 37 (1973)).
3
In light of the court’s ruling in the Delaware Action, the record from the September Trial
4
should be re-opened to address the issue of collateral estoppel. The collateral estoppel effect of
5
the Delaware Action is germaine to issues tried in the September Trial, especially Samsung’s
6

7 unclean hands defense. While the court need not, and indeed should not, grant the parties a new

8 trial to address this issue (and we do no request that the Court do so at this time), re-opening the

9 record for the limited purpose of receiving the Collateral Estoppel Exhibits into evidence is
10
proper under Rule 59 and the cases and authorities interpreting it. Indeed, to properly assess the
11
issue of collateral estoppel, it is necessary that the Court have access to portions of the Delaware
12
proceeding. Additionally, given its unique post-trial, pre-judgment posture, it is also appropriate
13
to include evidence from the trial record of the Delaware Action in the record of the September
14

15 Trial so that the court has a complete record of the matters and all evidence necessary to decide

16 the unclean hands issues. Thus, re-opening the record pursuant to Rule 59 accomplishes all of
17 these ends in the most elegant, efficient and appropriate manner possible. Accordingly, Samsung
18
respectfully requests that the Court grant its Motion To Take Judicial Notice And To Re-Open
19
The Record Of The Unclean Hands September Trial Solely To Admit Evidence Related To
20
Collateral Estoppel.
21
22

23
24

25
26

27

28
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 6 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3125 Filed 01/19/2009 Page 7 of 7

1
III.
2
CONCLUSION
3
For all of the above reasons, the Court should take judicial notice of the Collateral
4
Estoppel Exhibits and re-open the record of the September Trial for the limited purpose of
5
receiving them into evidence
6

8
Dated: January 19, 2009 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
9

10 By: /s/ Steven Cherensky

Steven Cherensky (Bar No. 168275)
11 Email: steven.cherensky@weil.com
12 MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795)
Email: matthew.powers@weil.com
13 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
14 Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
15 Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
16 ROBERT S. BEREZIN (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Email: robert.berezin@weil.com
17 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
New York Office
18 767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
19 Telephone: (212) 310-8000
20 Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., and
22 SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.
23
24

25
26

27

28
Case No. C 05-00334 RMW
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE Case No. C 05-02298 RMW
AND REOPEN THE RECORD 7 Case No. C 06-00244 RMW