UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before The Honorable Theodore R. Essex

Administrative Law Judge

In the Matter of

CERTAIN SEMICONDUCTOR CHIPS

HAVING SYNCHRONOUS DYNAMIC Investigation No. 337-TA-661
RANDOM ACCESS MEMORY
CONTROLLERS AND PRODUCTS
CONTAINING SAME

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

Pursuant to Order No. 2, counsel for Complainant Rambus Inc., counsel for Respondents

NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”), Asustek Computer Inc., Asus Computer International, Inc.,

BFG Technologies, Inc., Biostar Microtech (U.S.A.) Corporation, Biostar Microtech

International Corporation, Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corporation, G.B.T. Inc., Giga-Byte

Technology Co., Ltd., Hewlett-Packard Company, MSI Computer Corporation, Micro-Star

International Company, Ltd., Palit Multimedia Inc., Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology

Holdings, Ltd., and Sparkle Computer Company, Ltd. (collectively, “Respondents”), and the ITC

Staff have conferred regarding a procedural schedule that includes dates for each of the events

set forth in Ground Rule 2, taking into consideration the anticipated hearing date and target date

for this investigation as set in Order No. 5. The parties have agreed upon the proposed

procedural schedule below.

Although there has been considerable cooperation between the parties to date, the parties

were unable to agree on one issue: whether the Court should schedule a Markman hearing for

claim construction. A brief description of the parties’ positions with respect to this issue is

presented below the agreed-upon schedule.

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 1

I. AGREED-UPON PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

Event Proposed Date

First settlement conference on or before February 10, 2009

Submission of first settlement conference joint report February 17, 2009

File identification of expert witnesses, including their

April 30, 2009
expertise and curriculum vitae

Second settlement conference on or before May 1, 2009

Submission of second settlement conference joint report May 8, 2009

File tentative list of witnesses a party will call to testify

at the hearing, with an identification of each witness’ May 15, 2009
relationship to the party

Fact discovery cutoff and completion May 26, 2009

File notice of prior art May 29, 2009

Exchange of initial expert reports (identify

May 29, 2009
tests/surveys/data)

Deadline for motions to compel fact discovery June 2, 2009

Exchange of rebuttal expert reports June 12, 2009

Cut-off date for responses to contention interrogatories June 12, 2009

Deadline for filing summary determination motions June 16, 2009

Expert discovery cutoff and completion July 2, 2009

Deadline for motions to compel expert discovery July 8, 2009

Exchange of direct exhibit lists among the parties July 8, 2009

Submit and serve direct exhibits (including witness

statements), with physical and demonstrative1 exhibits July 10, 2009
available -- Complainant(s) and Respondent(s)

1
The parties have agreed that any supplements or amendments to direct demonstratives
produced with witness statements shall be produced at least 48 hours prior to being used at the

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 2

Third settlement conference on or before July 13, 2009

Submit and serve direct exhibits (including witness

statements), with physical and demonstrative exhibits July 14, 2009
available -- Staff

File objections to direct exhibits (including witness

July 17, 2009
statements)

Submission of third settlement conference joint report July 17, 2009

File responses to objections to direct exhibits (including

July 24, 2009
witness statements)

File Pre-hearing statements and briefs -- Complainant(s)

July 27, 2009
and Respondent(s)

Submit and serve rebuttal exhibits (including witness

statements), with rebuttal physical and demonstrative July 28, 2009
exhibits available -- all parties

File objections to rebuttal exhibits (including witness

August 3, 2009
statements)

File requests for receipt of evidence without a witness August 3, 2009

Deadline for motions in limine August 4, 2009

File high priority objections statement August 6, 1009

File response to objections to rebuttal exhibits

August 6, 2009
(including witness statements)

File Pre-hearing statement and brief -- Staff August 7, 2009

File responses to high priority objections statement August 10, 2009

File responses to motions in limine August 11, 2009

Submission of declarations justifying confidentiality of

August 12, 2009
exhibits

Tutorial on technology (if necessary) August 13, 2009

hearing and shall be subject to any objections from the non-producing party, to be resolved
during the hearing.

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 3

Pre-hearing conference August 13, 2009

Hearing August 17-28, 2009

File initial post-hearing briefs, proposed findings of fact

September 11, 2009
and conclusions of law, and final exhibit lists

File reply post-hearing briefs, objections and rebuttals

September 25, 2009
to proposed findings of fact

II. POSITIONS AS TO MARKMAN HEARING

A. Complainant

Complainant disagrees with Respondents’ proposal for separate Markman briefing,

discovery, hearing, and decision because it places significant burdens on the Court and the

parties without any assurance that any issue as to any Asserted Patent or any Accused Product in

this investigation will be affected, let alone simplified or resolved. Separate Markman

proceedings will likely raise many claim construction issues unrelated to any actual issue in the

investigation. Claim construction issues will be most efficiently resolved in this investigation in

conjunction with infringement and/or validity issues, forcing the parties to focus on the truly

important claim construction issues, avoiding a shotgun claim construction approach, and

streamlining the proceedings for the Court.

B. Respondents

Given the number of patents in this case (nine) and the number of asserted claims (thirty

seven), Respondents believe the number of disputed issues can be significantly reduced with

some guidance from the Court regarding the correct claim construction for the asserted claims.

Having a defined claim construction will then reduce the number of issues presented in expert

discovery, the number of issues presented for summary determination, and the number of issues

presented at hearing. A claim construction may even reduce the number of patents, claims, or

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 4

accused products taken to trial. The following schedule of events and proposed dates can easily

be accommodated—without any modification of the agreed-upon schedule above—in the gap

between February 1 and April 30, 2009.

Event Respondents’ Proposed Date

Parties exchange identification of proposed terms for

February 2, 2009
claim construction

Parties exchange preliminary claim constructions for

February 9, 2009
identified terms

Deadline to meet and confer regarding proposed claim

February 19, 2009
constructions

Complainant’s opening brief regarding disputed claim

March 2, 2009
terms

Respondents’ responsive brief regarding disputed claim

March 13, 2009
terms

Staff’s responsive brief regarding disputed claim terms March 20, 2009

Depositions of any persons who provided declarations

March 3 – March 20, 2009
in support of claim construction

Claim construction hearing with technical background

April 1-2, 2009
(no live testimony)—Tentative

Thus, Respondents propose adding these events and proposed dates to the agreed-upon schedule

above.

C. The Staff

Given the private parties’ disagreement over a Markman hearing and absent any

indication that a Markman hearing will ultimately reduce the number of issues in this

investigation, the Staff submits that a Markman hearing is not warranted. Moreover, in view of

the Judge’s obligations in other investigations, it appears to the Staff that a Markman hearing

may not be feasible. See Order No. 5, n. 2 (January 5, 2009).

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 5

 Respectfully submitted,

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW

GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

Dated: January 16, 2009 By: /s/ Doris Hines/by permission

J. Michael Jakes
Doris Johnson Hines
Christine E. Lehman
Kathleen A. Daley
Naveen Modi

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow

Garrett & Dunner, LLP
901 New York Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: 202-408-4000
Facsimile: 202-408-4400

ATTORNEYS FOR COMPLAINANT

Respectfully submitted,

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

Dated: January 16, 2009 By: /s/ Andrew R. Kopsidas

Ruffin B. Cordell
Jeffrey Whieldon
Brian R. Nester
Andrew R. Kopsidas
Kori Anne Bagrowski
Peter J. Sawert
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: 202-783-5070
Facsimile: 202-783-2331

Anita E. Kadala
Wasif Qureshi

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 6

 FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2800
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: 713-654-5300
Facsimile: 713-652-0109

Joshua Masur
Leeron Kalay
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
Redwood City, CA 94063
Telephone: 650-839-5070
Facsimile: 650-839-5071

Michael Chibib
David Hoffman
Josh Tucker
Richard Martin
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
One Congress Plaza, Suite 810
111 Congress Avenue
Austin, Texas 78701
Telephone: 512-472-5070
Facsimile: 512-320-8935

Timothy Devlin
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
222 Delaware Avenue, 17th Floor
P.O. Box 1114
Wilmington, DE 19899-1114
Telephone: 302-652-5070
Facsimile: 302-652-0607

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENTS

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 7

 Respectfully submitted,

Dated: January 16, 2009 By: /s/ Vu Q. Bui/by permission

Lynn I. Levine, Director
T. Spence Chubb, Supervisory Attorney
Vu Q. Bui, Investigative Attorney
OFFICE OF UNFAIR IMPORT
INVESTIGATIONS
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W., Suite 401
Washington, D.C. 20436
Telephone: 202-205-2582
Facsimile: 202-205-2158

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE—PAGE 8

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 16, 2009, a copy of

JOINT PROPOSED PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE

________________________________

was served on the following as indicated

Marilyn R. Abbott Via Hand Delivery

Secretary Via U.S. Mail
U.S. International Trade Commission Via Overnight Delivery
500 E. Street, S.W., Room 112-F Via Electronic Mail
Washington, DC 20436 Via Facsimile
Via Electronic Docket Filing
Not Served

The Honorable Theodore R. Essex Via Hand Delivery (2 Copies)

Administrative Law Judge Via U.S. Mail
U.S. International Trade Commission Via Overnight Delivery
500 E Street, S.W., Room 317-F Via Electronic Mail
Washington, DC 20436 Via Facsimile
Via Electronic Docket Filing
Email to Tamara.Lee@usitc.gov Not Served

Vu Bui, Esq. Via Hand Delivery

Office of Unfair Import Investigations Via U.S. Mail
U.S. International Trade Commission Via Overnight Delivery
500 E Street, S.W., Room 401-R Via Electronic Mail
Washington, DC 20436 Via Facsimile
E-mail: Vu.Bui@usitc.gov Via Electronic Docket Filing
Not Served

1
J. Michael Jakes Via Hand Delivery
Doris Johnson Hines Via U.S. Mail
Christine E. Lehman Via Overnight Delivery
Kathleen A. Daley Via Electronic Mail
Naveen Modi Via Facsimile
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, Via Electronic Docket Filing
GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Not Served
901 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001-4413
Telephone: (202) 408-4000
Facsimile: (202) 408-4400
E-mail: ITC661-Service@finnegan.com

Counsel for Complainant Rambus Inc.

________/s/ Judith Best_______

Judith Best - Paralegal