United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division

Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 58 Filed 12/04/2008 Page 1 of 3
1 Mike McKool, Jr. (pro hac vice)

Douglas Cawley (pro hac vice)
2 McKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 Crescent Court
3 Suite 1500
Dallas, Texas 75201
4 Telephone: (214) 978-4000
Facsimile: (214) 978-4044
5 Email: mmckool@mckoolsmith.com;
dcawley@mckoolsmith.com
6
Scott L. Cole (pro hac vice)
7 Pierre J. Hubert (pro hac vice)
Craig N. Tolliver (pro hac vice)
8 McKOOL SMITH P.C.
300 W. 6th Street
9 Suite 1700
Austin, Texas 78701
10 Telephone: (512) 692-8700
Facsimile: (512) 692-8744
11 Email: scole@mckoolsmith.com;
phubert@mckoolsmith.com;
300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
12 ctolliver@mckoolsmith.com
Dallas, TX 75201
13 Julie S. Turner (State Bar No. 191146)

THE TURNER LAW FIRM
14 344 Tennessee Lane
Palo Alto, California 94306
15 Telephone: (650) 494-1530
Facsimile: (650) 472-8028
16 Email: jturner@julieturnerlaw.com
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff

RAMBUS INC.
18
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
20 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
21
RAMBUS INC.,
22 Case No. C-08-03343 SI
Plaintiff,
23 RAMBUS INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE
v. MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
24 CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
NVIDIA CORPORATION, PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE
25 3-12
Defendant.
26 Judge: The Hon. Susan Illston
27
28 Rambus Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases

Should be Related Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12
Case No. C-08-03343 SI
Austin 47412v2
Austin 47452v1
1 Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, Rambus submits this Administrative Motion for Related
2 Case. Civil Rule 3-12(b) provides that a party must file an Administrative Motion for Related
3 Case if the party believes the action may be “related” to another action pending in the District.
4 As defined by the Rule, “[a]n action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern
5 substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event; and (2) It appears that there will be
6 an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are
7 conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a).
8 On July 10, 2008, Rambus filed the present case, Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation,
9 Case No. 08-03343, in the Northern District of California.
10 One day later on July 11, 2008, NVIDIA filed the case NVIDIA Corporation v. Rambus
11 Inc., Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-473 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
12 Carolina. (“Carolina Action”). The patent litigation brought by Rambus in this Court featured
Dallas, TX 75201
13 prominently in NVIDIA’s Complaint. See Dkt. No.56, Exh. A (NVIDIA’s Complaint, attached
14 to the Declaration of Trent Campione in Support of Rambus’s Opposition to NVIDIA’s Motion
15 to Extend Time to File Answer and Counterclaims.)
16 On September 17, 2008, Rambus filed a motion to transfer venue of the Carolina Action
17 to the Northern District of California. See Exh. A, attached hereto.
18 On October 31, 2008, based on the then-calendared December 5th case management
19 conference in the present case, the parties requested that the District Court for the Middle District
20 of North Carolina expedite consideration of Rambus’s motion to transfer. See Exh. B, attached
21 hereto (NVIDIA’S Motion for Expedited Hearing on Rambus’s Motion to Transfer and
22 Rambus’s Opposition to NVIDIA’s Motion for Expedited Hearing).1
23 On December 2, 2008, following the parties’ joint motion to expedite consideration
24 before December 5th, the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, Honorable
25 1
Rambus notes that despite NVIDIA’s representations in North Carolina that consideration of
Rambus’s motion to transfer should be expedited in view of the December 5th case management
26 conference then-scheduled in the present case, NVIDIA subsequently turned around days later
and successfully extended the time for the December 5th case management conference in the
27 present case.
28 Rambus Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases
1
Austin 47452v1
1 Magistrate Judge Wallace Dixon, granted Rambus’s Motion to Transfer Case, noting that “the
2 Court adopts Defendant’s [Rambus’s] argument as its reasons for ordering transfer.” See Exhs.
3 C & D, attached hereto. Accordingly, Rambus attaches hereto its Motion to Transfer Case and
4 Reply briefing. See Exhs. A & E, attached hereto. For the reasons in the attached briefing,
5 adopted by Judge Dixon, Rambus submits for this Court’s consideration that the Carolina action,
6 just transferred to the Northern District of California (Rambus believes it is yet to be docketed),
7 is “related” under Rule 3-12(b) to the present case, Rambus Inc. v. NVIDIA Corporation, Case
8 No. 08-03343, in the Northern District of California. Namely, the actions concern the same
9 parties and property--Rambus asserts patent infringement whereas NVIDIA attempts to allege
10 unenforceability of those patents--and there would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor
11 and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different Judges.
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
12 Rambus believes that the parties’ disputes could be streamlined if NVIDIA agrees to
Dallas, TX 75201
13 dismiss its just-transferred Carolina allegations and to answer Rambus’s complaint in the present
14 action, or if the Court deems it appropriate to consolidate these actions now both pending in the
15 Northern District of California. Therefore, in accordance with the Local Rule, Rambus submits
16 this Administrative Motion for Related Case.
17 Respectfully submitted,
18
DATED: December 4, 2008 MCKOOL SMITH P.C.
19
THE TURNER LAW FIRM
20
21 By: /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

Pierre J. Hubert
22
23 Attorneys for Plaintiff

RAMBUS INC.
24
25
26
27
28
Rambus Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases
2

United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States District Court Northern District of California San Francisco Division

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 58 Filed 12/04/2008 Page 1 of 3

1 Mike McKool, Jr. (pro hac vice)

13 Julie S. Turner (State Bar No. 191146)

17 Attorneys for Plaintiff

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

28 Rambus Inc.’s Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases

7 conducted before different Judges.” Civil L.R. 3-12(a).

9 Case No. 08-03343, in the Northern District of California.

14 to the Declaration of Trent Campione in Support of Rambus’s Opposition to NVIDIA’s Motion

15 to Extend Time to File Answer and Counterclaims.)

17 to the Northern District of California. See Exh. A, attached hereto.

22 Rambus’s Opposition to NVIDIA’s Motion for Expedited Hearing).1

23 On December 2, 2008, following the parties’ joint motion to expedite consideration

10 unenforceability of those patents--and there would be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor

16 this Administrative Motion for Related Case.

21 By: /s/ Pierre J. Hubert

23 Attorneys for Plaintiff

You might also like