242

Published on June 2016 | Categories: Documents | Downloads: 36 | Comments: 0 | Views: 361
of 20
Download PDF   Embed   Report

Comments

Content

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page1 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Mike McKool, Jr. (pro hac vice) Douglas Cawley (pro hac vice) McKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Scott L. Cole (pro hac vice) Pierre J. Hubert (pro hac vice) Craig N. Tolliver (pro hac vice) McKOOL SMITH P.C. 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 Email: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.

J. Daniel Sharp (CSB No. 131042) CROWELL & MORING LLP 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-2800 Facsimile: (415) 986-2827 Email: [email protected]

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. NVIDIA CORPORATION, Defendant. Case No. C-08-03343 SI RAMBUS’S ANSWER TO NVIDIA CORPORATION’S COUNTERCLAIMS

Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page2 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) files this Answer to the Counterclaims filed by NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) on August 1, 2011: 1. 2. 3. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 2 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that JEDEC has issued certain standards. Except as expressly

admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 3 of the Counterclaims. 4. 5. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 4 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that it has filed continuation applications to protect its inventions.

Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 5 of the Counterclaims. 6. Rambus admits that it has been involved in litigation concerning others’

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

infringement of Rambus’s patents, but denies that the listing of cases in Paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims is accurate. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 6 of the Counterclaims. 7. Rambus admits that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware

entered judgment concerning the issue of spoliation. Rambus avers that the Delaware judgment was vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 7 of the Counterclaims.

21 22 23 24 9. 25 26 27 28 under 15 U.S.C §§ 2, 4 and 26; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq., and the common law of California. Rambus 1
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

8.

Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 8 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO NVIDIA’S SECTION ENTITLED “JURISDICTION AND VENUE” Rambus admits that NVIDIA’s Counterclaims purport to allege a cause of action

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page3 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Counterclaims. 10. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that jurisdiction is proper pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337; 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a); 28 U.S.C § 2201, and 28 U.S.C. § 1367. NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required.

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

11.

Rambus admits that it has its corporate headquarters at 1050 Enterprise Way,

Suite 700, Sunnyvale, CA 94089. The remainder of NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. 12. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that venue is proper in this Court under 28

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(2), 1391(c), and § 1400. NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. RESPONSE TO NVIDIA’S SECTION ENTITLED, “PARTIES” 13. On information and belief, Rambus admits that NVIDIA is a Delaware

MCKOOL SMITH

corporation whose headquarters are located at 2701 San Tomas Expressway, Santa Clara, California. Rambus admits that NVIDIA is involved in making products related to certain kinds of DRAM technology. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims because NVIDIA’s allegations are not specific as to the “industry standard technologies,” “industry standards,” or

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

“relevant standards adopted by JEDEC” to which NVIDIA refers, and Rambus therefore denies such allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 13 of the Counterclaims. 14. Rambus admits that certain of NVIDIA’s products operate with certain DRAM

semiconductor memory devices. Rambus further admits that certain semiconductor memory

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page4 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

device manufacturers have entered into licensing arrangements with Rambus.

Except as

expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 14 of the Counterclaims. 15. Rambus admits that it is a Delaware corporation. Except as expressly admitted,

Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 15 of the Counterclaims. 16. Rambus admits that Rambus is not a manufacturer of GPU devices, memory

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

devices, or integrated circuits. Rambus admits that it derives revenues from license fees and royalties. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 16 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO NVIDIA’S SECTION ENTITLED, “THE RELEVANT MARKET” 17. With respect to NVIDIA’s section title, “The Relevant Market,” Rambus is

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

MCKOOL SMITH

without sufficient knowledge or information regarding the alleged market to which NVIDIA refers, and Rambus therefore denies NVIDIA’s section title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 17, Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or

information to form a belief regarding the allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Counterclaims because the Paragraph 17 allegations concern the purported merits of “industry standards” in general without identifying particular industry standards. allegations in Paragraph 17 of the Counterclaims. 18. Rambus admits that portions of the semiconductor industry have adopted Rambus therefore denies the

technical standards relating to the structure and functionality of certain DRAM and SDRAM. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the remaining allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims because NVIDIA’s allegations are not specific

25 26 27 28 3
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

as to the “SDRAM” or “DRAM” standards to which they refer, and Rambus therefore denies

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page5 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

such allegations. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 18 of the Counterclaims. 19. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 19 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO NVIDIA’S SECTION ENTITLED, “RAMBUS’S UNLAWFUL SCHEME - THE PATENTS” 20. With respect to NVIDIA’s section title, Rambus denies NVIDIA’s section title to

the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 20, Rambus admits that the ’898 Application was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 1990. Rambus admits that more than 45 patents have issued that claim priority to the ’898 Application and that Rambus

10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

has prosecuted continuation applications during time periods that include 17 years from the filing date of the ’898 Application. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 20 of the Counterclaims. 21. Rambus admits that it has filed continuation patent applications in the Barth I, Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the

MCKOOL SMITH

Barth II, and Ware II patent families.

allegations in Paragraph 21 of the Counterclaims. 22. Rambus admits that NVIDIA attached Exhibits B-E to its Counterclaims, but

denies that the exhibits chart “the evolution” of Rambus’s prosecution of patents. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 22 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO NVIDIA’S SECTION ENTITLED, “THE PLAN” 23. With respect to NVIDIA’s section title, Rambus is without sufficient knowledge

or information regarding the alleged plan to which NVIDIA refers, and Rambus therefore denies NVIDIA’s section title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 23, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 23 of the Counterclaims. 4
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page6 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

24.

Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 24 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO NVIDIA’S SECTION ENTITLED, “THE PROCESS,” AND SUBSECTIONS THERETO

25.

With respect to NVIDIA’s section and subsection titles, Rambus denies

NVIDIA’s section and subsection titles to the extent they are deemed to be allegations. With respect to Paragraph 25, Rambus admits that JEDEC has published standards relating to certain semiconductor devices. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Counterclaims regarding JEDEC’s alleged commitment to free competition. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the

10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

allegations in Paragraph 25 of the Counterclaims. 26. 27. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 26 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that JEDEC has published standards relating to certain

MCKOOL SMITH

semiconductor devices, including in the 1990s. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the remaining allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Counterclaims because NVIDIA does not specify the DRAM standard to which it refers. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 27 of the Counterclaims. 28. Rambus admits that a representative of Rambus attended a JEDEC meeting as a

guest in December 1991, and that a representative of Rambus attended certain JEDEC meetings after that time. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 28 of the Counterclaims. 29. 30. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 29 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that JEDEC issued a standard related to SDRAM. Except as

25 26 27 28 5
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 30 of the Counterclaims.

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page7 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

31.

Rambus admits that in March 1992, in response to a restriction requirement by the Rambus admits that these 10

U.S. PTO, Rambus filed 10 divisional patent applications.

divisional patent applications claimed priority to the filing date of the ’898 application. Rambus admits that it has been awarded at least 45 patents claiming priority to the ’898 application. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 31 of the

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Counterclaims. 32. Rambus admits that it was engaged in patent prosecution in May, 1992. Except as

expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 32 of the Counterclaims. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 33 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 34 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 35 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 36 of the Counterclaims. With respect to NVIDIA’s subsection title preceding this paragraph, Rambus

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

denies NVIDIA’s subsection title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 37, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 37 of the Counterclaims. 38. 39. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 38 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that it prosecuted continuation and divisional applications that Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the

claim priority to the ’898 Application. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

allegations in Paragraph 39 of the Counterclaims. 40. Rambus admits that U.S. Patent No. 7,209,997 issued on April 24, 2007, and

claims priority to the ’898 Application. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegation concerning U.S. Patent No. 7,209,997 “reading against the JEDEC standard” because NVIDIA does not identify the JEDEC standard to which it refers, 6
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page8 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

and Rambus denies such allegation on that basis. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 40 of the Counterclaims. 41. Rambus admits that it filed patent Application Nos. 08/545,292 and 08/545,294 in

October 1995. Rambus admits that a representative of Rambus attended a JEDEC committee meeting in September 1995 and that a representative of Rambus attended a JEDEC committee

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

meeting in December 1995. Rambus denies that NVIDIA’s discussion of the ’292 Application accurately describes that application. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the

allegations in Paragraph 41 of the Counterclaims. 42. 43. Rambus denies the allegations of Paragraph 42 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that there was a proceeding captioned In re: Dell Computer

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

Corporation which involved allegations related to alleged anti-competitive conduct by Dell. Rambus further admits that it did not resign from JEDEC in 1995. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 43 of the Counterclaims. 44. Rambus admits that in 1995 and 1996 the JEDEC JC 42.3 subcommittee

considered technologies related to programmable CAS latency and dual edge clocking. Rambus admits that it did not provide to JEDEC a copy of patent application number 08/545,292 that was filed with the Patent Office, but Rambus avers that Rambus had no duty to provide any such document to JEDEC. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

44 of the Counterclaims. 45. 46. 47. 48. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 45 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 46 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 47 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 48 of the Counterclaims.

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page9 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

49.

Rambus denies that the article referenced by NVIDIA, “Ending Abuse of Patent

Continuations,” contains the precise quotations cited by NVIDIA. Rambus denies that the quotations are relevant to Rambus’s actions or this case. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 49 of the Counterclaims. 50. Rambus admits that the article referenced by NVIDIA, “Ending Abuse of Patent

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Continuations,” contains the quotation cited by NVIDIA from page 80. Rambus denies that the quotation is relevant to Rambus’s actions or this case. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 50 of the Counterclaims. 51. Rambus admits that in October 1997 Rambus filed patent application No.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

60/061,770, and has filed continuation and divisional applications claiming priority to the ’770 application. Rambus further admits that it filed a patent application on April 24, 2001, and has filed continuation or divisional applications claiming priority to this application. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 51 of the Counterclaims. 52. 53. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 52 of the Counterclaims. With respect to NVIDIA’s subsection title preceding this paragraph, Rambus

MCKOOL SMITH

denies NVIDIA’s subsection title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 53, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 53 of the Counterclaims. 54. Rambus admits that NVIDIA and other companies manufactured products related

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

to certain JEDEC standards. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 54 of the Counterclaims. 55. 56. 57. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 55 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 56 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 57 of the Counterclaims.

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page10 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

58. 59. 60.

Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 58 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 59 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that on September 3, 1998, Rambus held a shred day and that

some documents were shredded on that day. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 60 of the Counterclaims.

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

61.

Rambus admits that in August, 1999, Rambus held a shred day and that some Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the

documents were shredded on that day.

allegations in Paragraph 61 of the Counterclaims. 62. 63. 64. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 62 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 63 of the Counterclaims. With respect to NVIDIA’s subsection title preceding this paragraph, Rambus

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

denies NVIDIA’s subsection title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 64, Rambus admits that in August 1999, JEDEC issued a standard relating to DDR SDRAM. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 of the Counterclaims. 65. 66. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 65 of the Counterclaims. With respect to NVIDIA’s subsection title preceding this paragraph, Rambus

denies NVIDIA’s subsection title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Paragraph 66, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 66 of the Counterclaims. 67. Rambus admits that it has entered into licenses with certain SDRAM

manufacturers, including Samsung. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 67 of the Counterclaims.

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page11 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

68.

Rambus admits that it has received royalty payments from companies other than

Samsung. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegation concerning the alleged purpose of “memory controllers” because NVIDIA does not specify the “memory controllers” to which it refers, and Rambus denies such allegation on that basis. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 68 of the

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Counterclaims. 69. 70. 71. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 69 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 70 of the Counterclaims. With respect to NVIDIA’s subsection title preceding this paragraph, Rambus

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

denies NVIDIA’s subsection title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 71, Rambus admits that the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections in August 2007 alleging violation by Rambus of European Union competition law. Rambus admits that it committed to offer licenses with maximum royalty rates for certain products relating to DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4, on a going forward basis, subject to particular license terms. Rambus denies that it has violated any terms of any such commitment. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding the allegation that “NVIDIA’s memory controllers are compatible with these technologies” because NVIDIA does not specify the “memory controllers” or the corresponding “technologies” for any particular

MCKOOL SMITH

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

controller to which it refers, and Rambus denies such allegation on that basis. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 71 of the Counterclaims. 72. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 72 of the Counterclaims.

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page12 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

73.

With respect to NVIDIA’s subsection title preceding this paragraph, Rambus

denies NVIDIA’s subsection title to the extent it is deemed to be an allegation. With respect to Paragraph 73, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 73 of the Counterclaims. 74. 75. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 74 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that it has been involved in legal proceedings adverse to NVIDIA.

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding NVIDIA’s allegations regarding its legal fees, and Rambus denies such allegations on that basis. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 75 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO COUNT ONE, ENTITLED “MONOPOLIZATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 2” 76. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 75,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 86. 25 26 27 28 87. 88. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85.

MCKOOL SMITH

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 77. 78. 79. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 77 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 78 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 79 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 80 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 81 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 82 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 83 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 84 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 85 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 86 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 87 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 88 of the Counterclaims. 11
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page13 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

RESPONSE TO COUNT TWO, ENTITLED “ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION UNDER THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. § 2” 89. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 88,

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 90. 91. 92. 93. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 90 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 91 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 92 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 93 of the Counterclaims.

RESPONSE TO COUNT THREE, ENTITLED “VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA BUS. & PROF. CODE 17200, ET SEQ.” 94. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 93,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 95 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 96 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 97 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 98 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 99 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 100 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 101 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 102 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that NVIDIA purports to seek relief. Rambus denies that

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 102. 103.

NVIDIA’s allegations have merit and denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 103 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO COUNT FOUR, ENTITLED “BREACH OF CONTRACT TO WHICH NVIDIA IS A THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARY” 12
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page14 of 20

1 104. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 103,

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 105 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 106 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 107 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 108 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 109 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO COUNT FIVE, ENTITLED “PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL” 110. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 109,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 111. 112. 113. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 111 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 112 of the Counterclaims. Rambus is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief regarding

the allegation concerning NVIDIA’s alleged reliance on the “conduct and commitment” of JEDEC members, and Rambus denies such allegation on that basis. allegations in Paragraph 113 of the Counterclaims. 114. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 114 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 115 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that it lacks an adequate remedy at law. Rambus denies the

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

115. 116.

Rambus denies that NVIDIA’s claims have merit and denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 116 of the Counterclaims.

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page15 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

RESPONSE TO COUNT SIX, ENTITLED “DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT” 117. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 116,

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 118. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that there exists an actual and justiciable

controversy with respect to whether any or all of the patents-in-suit have been infringed directly or indirectly by NVIDIA. Rambus denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 118 of the Counterclaims to the extent the

10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

allegations are deemed to require a response. 119. Rambus admits that it has alleged that certain of NVIDIA’s products infringe Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in

MCKOOL SMITH

certain Rambus patents.

Paragraph 119 of the Counterclaims. 120. 121. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 120 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that NVIDIA seeks a declaratory judgment. Rambus denies that

NVIDIA’s claims have merit and denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 121 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO COUNT SEVEN, ENTITLED “DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY OF THE PATENTS-IN-SUIT” 122. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 121,

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 123. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that there exists an actual and justiciable

controversy with respect to whether any or all of the patents-in- suit are valid or enforceable. Rambus denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions 14
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page16 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

of law to which no response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 123 of the Counterclaims to the extent the allegations are deemed to require a response. 124. 125. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 124 of the Counterclaims. Rambus admits that NVIDIA seeks a declaratory judgment. Rambus denies that

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

NVIDIA’s claims have merit and denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 125 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO COUNT EIGHT, ENTITLED “DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF IMPLIED LICENSE” 126. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 125,

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 127. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that there exists an actual and justiciable

MCKOOL SMITH

controversy with respect to whether NVIDIA has an implied license to all patent rights associated with the patents-in-suit. NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions of law to which no response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in

Paragraph 127 of the Counterclaims. 128. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 128 of the Counterclaims. RESPONSE TO COUNT NINE, ENTITLED “DECLARATORY JUDGMENT OF UNENFORCEABILITY 129. Rambus reasserts its answers set forth in the preceding paragraphs 1 through 128,

inclusive, and incorporates them by reference in this paragraph. 130. Rambus admits that NVIDIA alleges that there exists an actual and justiciable

controversy with respect to whether the patents-in-suit are unenforceable. Rambus denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief. NVIDIA’s allegations contain conclusions of law to which no 15
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page17 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

response is required. Except as expressly admitted, Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 130 of the Counterclaims to the extent the allegations are deemed to require a response. 131. 132. 133. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 131 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 132 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 133 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 134 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 135 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 136 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 137 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 138 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 139 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 140 of the Counterclaims. Rambus denies the allegations in Paragraph 141 of the Counterclaims. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL No response is required as to NVIDIA’s demand for a jury trial. NVIDIA’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF Rambus denies that NVIDIA is entitled to any relief, and specifically denies all allegations and prayers for relief contained within this section and within paragraphs (a)-(l) of

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

134. 135. 136. 137. 138. 139. 140. 141.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

this section. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA fails to state a claim against Rambus upon which relief may be granted. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 16
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page18 of 20

1 2 3 4 5

NVIDIA has not been legally harmed in any way by action or inaction of Rambus. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA has failed to mitigate any alleged injury or damages. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the statute of limitations.

6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrines of laches and/or waiver. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of estoppel. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA’s state law claims are barred, in whole or in part, due to preemption by federal law. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, because of protections provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and/or the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE NVIDIA’s Counts 1-2 are barred because of Rambus’s lack of monopoly power.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Rambus reserves all affirmative defenses under Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Patent Laws of the United States and any other defenses, at law or in equity that may now exist or in the future be available based on discovery and further factual investigation in this suit. 17
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page19 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 C. 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Wherefore, Rambus prays for the following relief: A. B. That NVIDIA’s counterclaims be dismissed with prejudice; That NVIDIA take nothing by its counterclaims; That the Court enter judgment that Rambus has not violated 15 U.S.C. § 2 and has

not engaged in monopolization and/or attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2; D. That the Court enter judgment that Rambus has not violated California Bus. &

Prof. Code 17200, et seq. or any other provision of California unfair competition law alleged by NVIDIA to have been violated; E. That the Court enter judgment that Rambus has not breached any contract to

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

MCKOOL SMITH

which NVIDIA is a third party beneficiary, or any other contract, duty, or obligation alleged by NVIDIA to have been violated; F. That the Court enter judgment that Rambus is not estopped from enforcing any

claims under the doctrine of promissory estoppel; G. That the Court enter judgment that NVIDIA infringes the patents-in-suit and that

NVIDIA is not entitled to a declaratory judgment of non-infringement; H. That the Court enter judgment that the patents-in-suit are not invalid and that

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

NVIDIA is not entitled to a declaratory judgment of invalidity; I. That the Court enter judgment that NVIDIA does not have any implied license to

any rights in the patents-in-suit; J. That the Court enter judgment that the patents-in-suit are not unenforceable;

Case3:08-cv-03343-SI Document242

Filed08/25/11 Page20 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 proper.

K.

That Rambus be awarded its reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees, including

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. G. That the Court award Rambus such other relief as the Court deems just and

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 6 7 8 9 10
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION • ATTORNEYS DALLAS, TEXAS

Rambus demands a trial by jury of all issues triable of right by jury.

DATED: August 25, 2011

Respectfully submitted, MCKOOL SMITH P.C. CROWELL & MORING LLP By: /s/ Pierre J. Hubert Pierre J. Hubert Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MCKOOL SMITH

19
Rambus’s Answer to NVIDIA Corporation’s Counterclaims Case Nos. C-08-03343 SI McKool 396293v3

Sponsor Documents

Or use your account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Forgot your password?

Or register your new account on DocShare.tips

Hide

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link to create a new password.

Back to log-in

Close