He's baaaaaaaaaack! Judge Payne rules in Samsung v Rambus

The Honorable Robert E. Payne denied Rambus' motion to transfer under Section 1404(a).

There it is and that is that.

Why, you ask? Well, read the 39 page Memorandum Opinion here.

Summarized in Donkey Speak, The Honorable Robert E. Payne opines . . .

1) I am best equipped to rule on the dispute.

2) Rambus has committed the unpardonable sin - it is a forum shopper.

3) Rambus should not be allowed to change stores just because it didn't like the service last visit.

4) Finally, Rambus is simply naughty- negotiating with Samsung to "standstill" all the while scheming to bully Samsung into allowing Rambus to select the forum if an agreement isn't reached . . . and then when Samsung would not be bullied, Rambus displayed baaad manners when Danforth called Rambus' counsel and told 'em to "file the complaint - now!" Right in front of the Samsung representative.

What does this mean?

Expect a repeat of the IFX case.

To begin, this Court already has conducted a patent infringement trial involving the four patents-in-suit. And, it has readied those issues for a second trial on remand. In so doing, the Court has expended enormous judicial resources and has become quite familiar with the issues presented by Samsung's First Amended Complaint and by Rambus' counterclaims. In fact, many of the issues preliminary to trial have been subject to decisions issued in Rambus v. Infineon. (Page 32)

Furthermore, Samsung has requested a declaratory judgment that Rambus' patents are unenforceable on the grounds of unclean hands and spoilation of evidence. This Court already has conducted a trial on the merits of those issues and actually has ruled on those issues in Rambus v.
Infineon. (Page 32)

Expect the Rocket Docket to blast off.

Expect Rambus' legal fees to wipe out ordinary earnings for the next couple of quarters.

Was there anything that brought a smile to your face?

I chuckled (and yes, chucked too) a time or two . . ..

In a reference to the RMBS/IFX proceeding . . .

In 2003, for reasons not pertinent here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings. (Page 6)

Don't suppose the fact the CAFC reversed a portion is pertinent either?

"Rambux" (Page 3)

Second cousin of Rambus.

The parties scheduled a meeting in California on June 6, 2005 to discuss the payment terms that would obtain during the standstill period. (Page 8)

"that would obtain"?

. . . I know, plenty of typos where Any Donkey has been too . . .