Scribd
Upload
55 views3 pages

Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Nvidia Corporation'S Motion To Lift Stay and For Partial Summary Judgment

Nvidia Corporation requests that the court take judicial notice of 9 documents in support of its motion to lift a stay and for partial summary judgment against Rambus Inc. in a patent infringement case. The documents include court opinions, trial exhibits, transcripts, patent abstracts, and prosecution file wrappers from a related case of Micron v. Rambus in the District of Delaware. Nvidia argues the documents are judicially noticeable under the Federal Rules of Evidence as they are published patents and records from another federal court case.

Uploaded by

sabatino
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
55 views3 pages

Request For Judicial Notice in Support of Nvidia Corporation'S Motion To Lift Stay and For Partial Summary Judgment

Nvidia Corporation requests that the court take judicial notice of 9 documents in support of its motion to lift a stay and for partial summary judgment against Rambus Inc. in a patent infringement case. The documents include court opinions, trial exhibits, transcripts, patent abstracts, and prosecution file wrappers from a related case of Micron v. Rambus in the District of Delaware. Nvidia argues the documents are judicially noticeable under the Federal Rules of Evidence as they are published patents and records from another federal court case.

Uploaded by

sabatino
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 86 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 1 of 3

1 I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)


nchatterjee@orrick.com
2 DEBORAH E. FISHMAN (STATE BAR NO. 197584)
dfishman@orrick.com
3 ROBERT W. RICKETSON
rricketson@orrick.com
4 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
5 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: +1-650-614-7400
6 Facsimile: +1-650-614-7401
7 Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA Corporation
8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

12

13 RAMBUS, INC., Case No.: C-08-03343


(Consolidated with Case No.: C-08-5500)
14 Plaintiff,

15 v. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE


IN SUPPORT OF NVIDIA
16 NVIDIA CORPORATION, CORPORATION’S MOTION TO
LIFT STAY AND FOR PARTIAL
17 Defendant. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
18 Date: March 13, 2009
Time: 9:00 a.m.
19 Judge: The Hon. Susan Illston
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JUDICIAL NOTICE RE NVIDIA’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
C-08-03343
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 86 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 2 of 3

1 Defendant NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) hereby respectfully requests that the Court
2 take judicial notice of the documents listed below, copies of which are attached hereto.
3 Defendant NVIDIA makes this request in support of its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended
4 Complaint filed herewith.
5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a court may take judicial notice of published
6 patents. See Pepitone v. American Standard, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 30867, at *7 n.1 (Fed. Cir.
7 1992) (taking judicial notice of published patents). A court also may take judicial notice of
8 documents filed in other federal district court actions. See Shaw v. Hahn, 56 F.3d 1128, 1129 n.
9 1 (9th Cir. 1995) (taking judicial notice of court records as part of a issue preclusion inquiry).
10 1. Judge Sue L. Robinson’s Opinion in Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR,
11 (D. Del. 2009). A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 1.
12 2. Judge Sue L. Robinson’s Order from in Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR
13 (D. Del. 2009). A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 2.
14 3. Trial Exhibits introduced in Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR (D. Del.
15 2009): MTX 270, 279, 385, 493. and 601. True and correct copies of these documents are
16 attached as Exhibit 3.
17 4. Trial transcript excerpts from Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-SLR (D. Del.
18 2009). A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 4.
19 5. Abstracts of each of the patents at issue in Micron v. Rambus, Civ. No. 00-792-
20 SLR (D. Del. 2009). A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 5.
21 6. Hearing transcript dated January 16, 2009 from Micron v. Rambus. Civ. No. 00-
22 792-SLR (D. Del. 2009). A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 6.
23 7. Order Entering Stay of Proceedings in Case Nos. C-05-00334, C-05-02298 and C-
24 06-00244 dated February 3, 2009. A true and correct copy of this document is attached as
25 Exhibit 7.
26 8. Order Denying Hynix’s Motion for Summary Judgment of Unclean Hands in
27 Hynix v. Rambus, Civil Action No. C-00-20905-RMW (N.D. Cal.) dated February 3, 2009. A
28 true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 8.
JUDICIAL NOTICE RE NVIDIA’S
-1- MOTION TO DISMISS
C-08-03343
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 86 Filed 02/06/2009 Page 3 of 3

1 9. Declaration and Power of Attorney filed prosecution file wrapper for U.S. Patent
2 No. 6,591,353. A true and correct copy of this document is attached as Exhibit 9.
3 Dated: February 6, 2009 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
4
/s/ Robert W. Ricketson /s/
5 ROBERT W. RICKETSON
Attorneys for Defendant
6 NVIDIA CORPORATION
7

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
JUDICIAL NOTICE RE NVIDIA’S
-2- MOTION TO DISMISS
C-08-03343

You might also like