Samsung v. Rambus

Memorandum In Support Of Motion By Defendant Rambus Inc. To Dismiss Action

Rambus respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this matter in its entirety.

It is real simple:

Samsung filed (6/7/05) a complaint and amended it (6/22/05) asking the court to find (declare) that Rambus patents ('263, '804, '214, and '918) are

"unenforceable and invalid, and, therefore, not infringed."

Rambus filed an answer and a covenant not to sue Samsung (7/12/05) with respect to patents '804 and '214.

Samsung argued that the covenant was insufficient. Rambus filed a revised covenant (9/6/05).

The parties entered into a stipulation where

"the parties agree that the covenant not to sue . . . eliminates any need for declaratory relief . . . with respect to '804 Patent and '214 Patent."

On September 22, 2005, Rambus filed an identical covenant not to sue Samsung with respect to '263 and '918.

The result, no controversy. Nothing, zip, nada, for the Honorable Judge Robert E. Payne to judge.

Samsung disagrees. Samsung wants the Honorable Judge Robert E. Payne to declare the case is "exceptional" and award Samsung attorneys' fees under 35 U.S.C. §285.

Rambus says "no" on two grounds.

First, §285 does not provide Judge Payne with jurisdiction (controversyindependentlyly - so still nada for Judge Payne to judge.

Second, even if Judge Payne had jurisdiction, Samsung must be a "prevailing party" to be awarded attorneys' fees. Within the meaning of §285, Samsung is not a prevailing party even though they have achieved the result they wanted - Rambus not suing them over the four identified patents.