8/14/2019 Stones Email Proposal

1/2

cc:Stone, GregoryBobrow, Jared;Powers, Matthew D; Cherensky, Steven; knisslyQ?omm.com;tgbrown(townsend.com; rfreitas(orrick.com; Lender, David J;Stone, Gregory;Counter-proposal regarding trial protocolMonday, December 29,20081:31:30 PM

From:To:

Subject:Date:

Dear Jared,I am wrting in response to the Manufacturers' two proposals regarding how thetrial should proceed. We believe the two proposals are procedurally improper, notconsistent with the Federal Rules or controllng precedent, and unacceptablyunfair to Rambus. If need be, we will file a brief with the Court on January 5setting forth the bases for our objections. Rather than doing so, however, I want topropose an alternative strcture for the tral.The specific elements of our proposal are as follows:

i. The Court wil enter a final order determining that various andspecifically identified products infringe the claims in suit, with thespecification of which products infringe which claims to beconsistent with Mr. Murphy's infrngement report and Rambus'sinfringement contentions. This order wil be based on the Court'sclaim constrction order, its Order of November 24, 2008, theadditional factual submission to be made by Rambus as described inparagraph 4 below, and the Manufacturers' statement that they wilno longer contest infrngement. An appeal with regard to thisfinding of infringement can be taken only to the extent the findingdepends upon the claim constrction order, the November 24,2008Order, or both.2. The Court's final order determining infringement also wil extend tothe SDR and DDR products of Samsung and Nanya that are accusedin this case. The patent claims to be adjudicated as infringed bythese SDR and DDR parts wil be the same claims asserted againstthe DDR2+ products. The parties wil need to reach agreement onwhich of these claims wil be found to be infringed by whichspecific SDR and DDR products.3. The Court's final order adjudicating infringement wil have thesame force and effect as if it had been entered after a full tral and

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3003-4 Filed 12/29/2008 Page 1 of 2

8/14/2019 Stones Email Proposal

2/2

jury verdict determining Rambus' s infrngement claims inRambus's favor and shall also compel a dismissal on the merits andwith prejudice of the Manufacturers' counterclaims for a declaratoryjudgment of non-infrngement.

4. For purposes of an appeal from the final determination ofinfringement, the record that was developed in connection with thesummary judgment motions shall be supplemented by Mr.Murphy's reports regarding infrngement and such other evidence,including exhibits, designated wrtten discovery responses, anddesignated prior testimony as Rambus may choose to submit as partof an offer of proof.5. The tral shall proceed with Rambus as the plaintiff and the firstissue to be tried wil be damages. This is consistent with the tralprotocol followed in Hynix 1. The Manufacturers' claim thatRambus's patents are not valid shall be the second issue tred. Tobe clear, the only grounds for invalidity that wil be tried wil bethose set forth in Mr. McAlexander's invalidity reports, subject toRambus's pending Daubert and in limine motions and to any furtherobjections it may make prior to or during tral. In other words, thereshall be no expansion of the issues as the result of our agreement,assuming we reach agreement on this proposaL.

6. The jury shall be instrcted, consistent with the specifics of theorder to be entered, as to which specific products have been foundto infringe which specific patent claims.

7. If Rambus requests that a witness employed by or under the controlof one of more of the Manufacturers testify live at trial, and if thewitness is not produced as and at the time requested, theManufacturers may not call that witness to testify live during any ofthe remaining proceedings in these coordinated actions, includingspecifically during the trial of wilfulness.8. All of the Manufacturers shall remain as parties in the upcomingtriaL.

Jared, please let me know if this proposal is acceptable to the Manufacturers.Greg

Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 3003-4 Filed 12/29/2008 Page 2 of 2