Wrong - you have it backwards:
JEDEC had all they needed to ambush Rambus - not Rambus ambushing JEDEC.
There was no patent ambush on Rambus's part -- it was the other way around and Judge Rader Knows it:
<<To the extent Infineon may argue that the duty to disclose also encompasses situations where an application describes (but does not claim) technologies under discussion at JEDEC, this court notes that Rambus disclosed the ’703 patent and thus satisfied such a construction of the duty. With disclosure of the ’703 patent, JEDEC had the written description for all the undisclosed patents and applications. Indeed, all JEDEC members had notice of the written description of all of Rambus’s patents before adopting its SDRAM standard.
The only thing Rambus did not disclose to JEDEC -- and thus the necessary focus of the fraud inquiry -- was the claims in those patents and applications. The inquiry, therefore, is claim-specific and standard-specific>> (bold type is mine for emphasis)
<< Rambus disclosed the 703 patent in September 1993. JEDEC also learned of Rambus's WIPO application at the same meeting. Infineon argues that the 703 patent disclosed to JEDEC did not "relate to" the SDRAM standard, but that other undisclosed applications did "relate to" the SDRAM standard. Additionally, Mr. Meyer, Infineon's JEDEC representative, testified that he read the 703 patent and the WIPO application and concluded that they did not "relate to" the SDRAM standard. This conclusion is telling because the written description and drawings of the undisclosed patents and applications are identical to the disclosed 703 patent. The only material difference between the disclosed 703 patent and the undisclosed patents and applications appears in the claims. Accepting, as the jury also must have, Infineon's argument that the 703 patent is unrelated to the JEDEC standard but that undisclosed patents and applications (with the same written description and drawings) are related to the standard, whether a patent or application is "related to" the standard necessarily must depend on the claims of the patent or application.
>> (bold type is mine for emphasis -- but not the underlining).http://media.corporate-ir.net/media_files/NSD/RMBS/msoA7__.pdf