Rambus & Samsung paper Judge Payne

Rambus's statement re: Judge Payne's intention to take judicial notice of portions of the IFX record:

Preface - As the Court has been divested of subject matter jurisdiction,* Judge Payne has no reason (or ability) to take judicial notice of portions of the IFX record.

1. Judge Payne did not identify the fact or facts from the IFX record of which his wishes to take notice - no undifferentiated mass grabbing allowed.

2. If Judge Payne takes judicial notice of the IFX record, he may only take judicial notice of the IFX record for establishing the fact that IFX litigation occurred - not that what occurred was indeed true.

3. Judge Payne may not take judicial notice of the record to accomplish what collateral estoppel cannot; that being, to give IFX proceedings preclusive effect - no bastard res judicata.

*Odd thought . . . no subject matter jurisdiction, but has Rambus submitted to personal jurisdiction for all of its disputes in its corporate life, in perpetuity by placing the "Rocket Docket" at the top of its matrix? Just kidding . . . I hope.

***************************

Samsung's statement re: Rambus's unclean hands:

No comment in Samsung's filing regarding Rambus's covenant not to sue or the issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

1. The majority of Samsung's unclean hands arguments are grounded in Rambus's shred days (document destruction). The Court has broad authority to find Rambus has unclean hands.

2. Rambus schemed, shredded and then litigated . . . don't forget the matrix**.

**I am guessing that the Rambus "matrix" lawyer also knows how to use a slide ruler.

Hat tip to FinzToRite for the document links and Rambus IR for making them available.