RMBS: Message Board for Rambus, Inc. - InvestorVillage

RMBS   /  Message Board  /  Read Message



Rec'd By
Authored By
Minimum Recs
Previous Message  Next Message   Post Message   Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board
Msg  658824 of 770367  at  12/22/2011 11:03:09 AM  by


The following message was updated on 12/22/2011 11:05:53 AM.

From HJR’s Opinion


2An email exchange in 1995 between Farmwald and Rambus employee Richard
Crisp reveals that there were some in the industry who thought that Rambus' DRAM solution relied on earlier work done by an organization called SCI. (MTX 136; D.I. 1061 at 1186:16-1187:7) Farmwald dismissed this position as "completely ridiculous" and wrote that he had "had the idea for Rambus while still at MIPS in very early 1988, possibly even 1987," which was before he began receiving SCI meeting notes in 1989. (MTX 163) However, Farmwald, during at least some portion of his time as an employee at MIPS, was subject to a non-disclosure and invention agreement, which  provided that, under certain conditions, Farmwald's idea for Rambus would have been owned by MIPS. (MTX 138)………

MTX 40) Statements made by Rambus employees in 1996 and 1997 reveal that
Rambus planned to create a patent "minefield" that it could use to its advantage in dealing with other companies in the industry…..

On August 12, 1997, the PTO issued to Rambus United States Patent No.
5,657,481 ("the '481 patent"). (MTX 256) A few weeks later, in October 1997, Rambus hired Joel Karp as Vice President of Intellectual Property. (D.I. 1058 at 154:1-4, 291:23-292:1) Prior to joining Rambus, Karp had worked for several years at Samsung, where he participated in patent license negotiations…..

.7. On January 7, 1998, Tate met with Karp and instructed him to prepare a
presentation for the March 1998 Board of Directors ("the Board") meeting discussing, inter alia, a licensing framework and a litigation strategy……

8. On January 13, 1998, Karp and Tate met with Leal. (D.I. 1058 at 187:18-
188:2; see also MTX 285) Leal's notes of that meeting indicate that Rambus wanted the following: "litigation strategy by [the] March board meeting," "[n]o negotiations [without] full strategy and prep[aration]," "[g]o in quickly [and] proceed to either a license or litigation,"………

"Karp told the Board that the document retention policy was necessary to
prepare for the "upcoming battle." (D.I. 1058 at 241:2-10) Karp testified that he was not aware of a document retention policy being discussed at Rambus prior to March 1998. (Id. at 242:13-243:12) Rambus' goals for Quarters 2 and 3 in 1998 reflect Rambus' understanding that implementing a document retention policy was part of its larger litigation strategy. (MTX 276; MTX 278)……

'At the bottom of several slides, contrary to Johnson's advice (D.I. 1062 at
1539:8-1540:16), Karp wrote "LOOK FOR THINGS TO KEEP."
(MTX 343; D.I. 1058 at 267:17-23) Karp instructed Rambus engineers to look for things to keep that would help establish conception and prove that Rambus had intellectual property. (Id. at 267:5-16) Along those same lines, Karp explained to the engineers that one category of documents they should not keep — that is, one of the things the document retention policy was targeted to expunge — were documents questioning the patentability of Rambus inventions. (D.I. 1061 at 1303:21-1304:14)

'Johnson's slides also characterize the policy as a "Document Retention/Destruction Policy." (MTX 333-0002)

29Rambus employees testified that one of the reasons cited for the document
retention policy was preparation for litigation……..

33 Rambus employees did not keep records of what was destroyed during this, or
any subsequent, shred day.
(D.I. 1058:285:9-24; D.I. 1060 at 813:23-814:1; D.I. 1061 at 1314:24-1315:11; D.I. 1071 at 119:19-23, 253:2-22) The trial record, however, shows that they destroyed documents relating to, inter alia, contract and licensing negotiations, patent prosecution, JEDEC and Board meetings, and finances…..

"Recall that, during the relevant time frame, hundreds of boxes of documents
were destroyed and outside counsel purged his patent files at Rambus' direction.
59The defenses that do not seem likely to depend from evidence internal to
Rambus include those of anticipation and obviousness, since prior art references (by  definition) must be publicly available. Likewise, the written description requirement involves an objective review of the patent to determine whether it communicates that which is necessary to enable the skilled artisan to make and use the claimed invention.…..

Lots more.  You might want to read the entire document.

     e-mail to a friend      printer-friendly     add to library      
| More
Recs: 2     Views: 259
Previous Message  Next Message   Post Message   Post a Reply return to message boardtop of board

Msg # Subject Author Recs Date Posted
658826 Re: From HJR’s Opinion twobytebus 20 12/22/2011 11:15:53 AM
658829 Re: From HJR’s Opinion WHOB007 31 12/22/2011 11:42:00 AM

About Us  •  Contact Us  •  Follow Us on Twitter  •  Members Directory  •  Help Center  •  Advertise
Not a member yet? What are you waiting for? Create Account
Want to contribute? Support InvestorVillage by donating
© 2003-2016 Investorvillage.com. All rights reserved. User Agreement
Financial Market Data provided by