On February 11, 2005, Hynix filed a motion in the Rambus v. Infineon requesting access to demonstrative exhibits used by Rambus and Infineon in open court regarding Infineon’s motion to dismiss Rambus’ patent infringement claims based on Rambus’ willful destruction of evidence and other litigation misconduct. Rambus Investor relations has posted Hynix’s motion & memorandum in support of motion – read it here.
Rambus filed a reply to Hunix’s motion on February 22, 2005. Rambus’ reply has not been posted by Rambus Investor Relations as of yet.
Hynix responded to Rambus’ reply on February 23, 2005. Rambus Investor Relations has not posted the filing as of yet.
On March 21, 2005, Rambus & Infineon filed a stipulation of dismissal and the case was closed. Rambus Investor Relations posted the stipulation – read it here.
On March 21, 2005, case was reopened for Hynix’s pending motion
On March 25, 2005, the docket was edited to reflect receipt by the court of demonstrative exhibits (under seal) from Infineon from the hearing of February 4, 2005.
According to Hynix’s motion . . . . initially, Hynix and Rambus conferred and then exchanged emails. Rambus objected to Hynix’s request for access to the exhibits based upon a protective order entered in the case and asserted that the information in the exhibits was privileged. Hynix alleges that Rambus failed to respond to a following email, thus forcing Hynix to file the motion in an effort to resolve the issue.
Hynix’s argues that the exhibits it requests were used in open court, that spectators heard very detailed descriptions of the contents of the exhibits and that the exhibits were projected onto a large screen that was set up in the courtroom. In addition to requesting access to the exhibits, Hynix requests attorneys' fees and costs for the burden and expense it incurred filing the motion due to Rambus’ frivolous objections.
Hat tip to Rambus Investor Relations for posting Hynix’s motion.
Hat tip to USJeff.com for posting the docket.
Hat tip to Hart for the heads up.
Rambus filed a reply to Hunix’s motion on February 22, 2005. Rambus’ reply has not been posted by Rambus Investor Relations as of yet.
Hynix responded to Rambus’ reply on February 23, 2005. Rambus Investor Relations has not posted the filing as of yet.
On March 21, 2005, Rambus & Infineon filed a stipulation of dismissal and the case was closed. Rambus Investor Relations posted the stipulation – read it here.
On March 21, 2005, case was reopened for Hynix’s pending motion
On March 25, 2005, the docket was edited to reflect receipt by the court of demonstrative exhibits (under seal) from Infineon from the hearing of February 4, 2005.
According to Hynix’s motion . . . . initially, Hynix and Rambus conferred and then exchanged emails. Rambus objected to Hynix’s request for access to the exhibits based upon a protective order entered in the case and asserted that the information in the exhibits was privileged. Hynix alleges that Rambus failed to respond to a following email, thus forcing Hynix to file the motion in an effort to resolve the issue.
Hynix’s argues that the exhibits it requests were used in open court, that spectators heard very detailed descriptions of the contents of the exhibits and that the exhibits were projected onto a large screen that was set up in the courtroom. In addition to requesting access to the exhibits, Hynix requests attorneys' fees and costs for the burden and expense it incurred filing the motion due to Rambus’ frivolous objections.
Hat tip to Rambus Investor Relations for posting Hynix’s motion.
Hat tip to USJeff.com for posting the docket.
Hat tip to Hart for the heads up.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment