Rambus wants IFX to produce (or log) the documents in its possession relating to JRA Group, a group whose members Rambus believes have agreed not to reveal publicly their membership or even that the group exists. The ire of Rambus legal counsel is palpable in the Memorandum received by the court in Virginia on 2/21/05.
Why does Rambus want the documents?
In an order signed 2/16/05 by the Special Master in the Hynix v. Rambus litigation in San Jose, California the Special Master found that the JRA group was engaged in the analysis of “the scope, validity and enforceability of specific Rambus patents” back in 2000 and 2001, and perhaps later.
Why does that matter?
IFX has asserted that it (and the industry) was “locked in” to use intellectual property owned by Rambus (programmable latency and variable burst). The requested documents may reveal that assertion is fallacious. Also, the documents may prove that IFX is willfully infringing on Rambus patents.
The activities of the Advanced Technology Group (ADT), of which JRA Group is apparently an offshoot, was a discovery battle in VAI. In VAI, Judge Payne allowed limited discovery regarding ADT and instructed counsel that “if you people are trying to design around, you have to fess up and do it, and talk to them about it.” IFX did not “do it” and the consequences may be severe because in 2001 Judge Payne barked the following warning:
“May the Lord help somebody who’s testified that ADT is not working around Rambus’ patents if in fact they are because that will be the only person that will take care of them.”
Judge Payne may get an opportunity to bang his gavel and order “book ‘em, Dano.”
Hat tip to Rambus Investor Relations for promptly posting Rambus’ Memorandum on their Litigation Update.
Why does Rambus want the documents?
In an order signed 2/16/05 by the Special Master in the Hynix v. Rambus litigation in San Jose, California the Special Master found that the JRA group was engaged in the analysis of “the scope, validity and enforceability of specific Rambus patents” back in 2000 and 2001, and perhaps later.
Why does that matter?
IFX has asserted that it (and the industry) was “locked in” to use intellectual property owned by Rambus (programmable latency and variable burst). The requested documents may reveal that assertion is fallacious. Also, the documents may prove that IFX is willfully infringing on Rambus patents.
The activities of the Advanced Technology Group (ADT), of which JRA Group is apparently an offshoot, was a discovery battle in VAI. In VAI, Judge Payne allowed limited discovery regarding ADT and instructed counsel that “if you people are trying to design around, you have to fess up and do it, and talk to them about it.” IFX did not “do it” and the consequences may be severe because in 2001 Judge Payne barked the following warning:
“May the Lord help somebody who’s testified that ADT is not working around Rambus’ patents if in fact they are because that will be the only person that will take care of them.”
Judge Payne may get an opportunity to bang his gavel and order “book ‘em, Dano.”
Hat tip to Rambus Investor Relations for promptly posting Rambus’ Memorandum on their Litigation Update.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment