Motion To Continue Case Management Conference (Civil Local Rule 6-3)

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 4

Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 46 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 1 of 4

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 (STATE BAR NO. 148481)
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 SI

14 Plaintiff, MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE


MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
15 v.
(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 6-3)
16 NVIDIA CORPORATION,
Date: N.A.
17 Defendant. Time: N.A.
Judge: The Hon. Susan Illston
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
OHS West:260550679.1
CONFERENCE
15075-2017 R23/DZF C-08-03343 SI
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 46 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 2 of 4

1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-3 and the Court’s standing order, defendant NVIDIA
2 Corporation hereby respectfully requests an order continuing the date of the initial Case
3 Management Conference in this action for approximately 18 days, from December 5, 2008 to
4 December 23, 2008, or such other day thereafter as may be convenient for the Court. A
5 continuance will serve the interests of justice and promote judicial efficiency for the following
6 two reasons:
7 1. On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint against NVIDIA and many of its
8 customers before the United States International Trade Commission involving nine of the patents-
9 in-suit in this action. The ITC is expected to issue its decision as to whether or not it will institute
10 an investigation of the matters raised by the Rambus complaint on December 8, 2008, thirty days
11 after Rambus’s complaint was filed. Should the ITC institute an investigation, then pursuant to
12 28 U.S.C. §1659(a), NVIDIA would be entitled to stay this action as to the patents overlapping in
13 the two proceedings, and a stay of this entire action would be within the discretion of this Court.1
14 Accordingly, until at least December 8th, the parties and this Court are faced with substantial
15 uncertainties regarding the scope and nature of this case that make case management options both
16 hypothetical and difficult to evaluate.
17 2. In addition, as the Court is aware, another action between these parties is now pending
18 in the Middle District of North Carolina, NVIDIA Corporation v. Rambus, Inc., 08-00473 (“the
19 Carolina Action). Rambus has filed a motion to dismiss the Carolina Action and a motion to
20 transfer it to this Court. Those motions are fully briefed and will either be set for hearing by the
21 Carolina court, or decided without hearing, in the Carolina court’s discretion. Although NVIDIA
22 believes those motions should be denied, were the Carolina court to decide that the matter before
23 it should be transferred to this Court, that would necessarily have a significant impact on the
24 scope and nature of the dispute between the parties that will be litigated in this forum, with broad
25
1
See 28 U.S.C. §1659(a) (“the district court shall stay, until the determination of the Commission
26 becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same
issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission . . . .”); see also Formfactor, Inc. v.
27 Micronics Japan Co., Ltd. 2008 WL 361128 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (staying entire patent infringement
action filed in Northern District of California in view of ITC complaint that alleged infringement
28 of two of the five patents that were at issue in the California action).
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
OHS West:260550679.1
15075-2017 R23/DZF
-2- CONFERENCE
C-08-03343 SI
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 46 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 3 of 4

1 resulting implications on case management issues.


2 In view of the CMC scheduled here, on October 31, 2008, NVIDIA filed a motion with
3 the Carolina court requesting expedited resolution of the motions pending before it. Notably,
4 Rambus joined in NVIDIA’s request to the Carolina court for expedited resolution of the transfer
5 motion, because Rambus agreed that resolving that motion prior to the CMC here was in the best
6 interests of the parties and the courts.2 Notwithstanding its representation to the Carolina court
7 that resolution of the transfer motion prior to the CMC in this action will serve useful purposes,
8 Rambus has declined to join in this request for a continuance.3 As of this date, the Carolina court
9 has not acted on the joint request of the parties for expedited treatment of the transfer motion, but
10 NVIDIA believes that the requested continuance likely will provide sufficient time for the
11 Carolina court to act on the transfer motion.
12 Thus, NVIDIA submits that any concerns Rambus may now offer in opposition to a
13 continuance of the CMC are outweighed by the legitimate concerns for judicial efficiency
14 promoted by awaiting a decision in Carolina before addressing case management issues here.
15 Likewise, given Rambus’s election to pursue its patent claims against NVIDIA in both this Court
16 and the ITC, it would be premature and lead to a waste of the resources of the Court and the
17 parties to attempt to decide case management issues in this action before knowing whether there
18 will be a substantial duplication of issues in the ITC should it go forward with an investigation.
19 ///
20 ///
21 ///
22 ///
23 ///
24 ///
25 ///
26 2
See Declaration of Deborah E. Fishman, Exhibit A. (“Rambus does agree that all parties would
benefit by an expedited consideration of the Motion to Transfer, since there is a Case
27 Management Conference in the first filed California action on December 5, 2008. Accordingly,
Rambus joins in that portion of Nvidia’s Motion.”)
28 3
See Fishman Decl. ¶ 4 and Exhs. B and C.
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
OHS West:260550679.1 -3- CONFERENCE
15075-2017 R23/DZF C-08-03343
Case 3:08-cv-03343-SI Document 46 Filed 11/14/2008 Page 4 of 4

1 Accordingly good cause exists for a brief continuance of the CMC to permit the parties
2 and the Court to obtain further information as to how the pending ITC proceeding and Rambus’s
3 request to transfer the Carolina action to this forum may impact this case.
4

5 Dated: November 14, 2008 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP


6

7 /s/ Deborah E. Fishman /s/


DEBORAH E. FISHMAN
8 Attorneys for Defendant
NVIDIA CORPORATION
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
MOTION TO CONTINUE CASE MANAGEMENT
OHS West:260550679.1 -4- CONFERENCE
15075-2017 R23/DZF C-08-03343

You might also like