Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document110 Filed08/27/12 Page1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

GREGORY P. STONE (SBN 078329) gregory.stone@mto.com KATHERINE K. HUANG (SBN 219798) katherine.huang@mto.com PETER E. GRATZINGER (SBN 228764) peter.gratzinger@mto.com KEITH R.D. HAMILTON (SBN 252115) keith.hamilton@mto.com DAVID H. PENNINGTON (SBN 272238) david.pennington@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 355 South Grand Avenue, 35th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 683-9100 Facsmile: (213) 687-3702 PETER A. DETRE (SBN 182619) peter.detre@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 512-4000 Facsimile: (415) 512-4077 Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. LSI CORPORATION, Defendant. RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff, v. STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.; STMICROELECTRONICS INC., Defendants.
RAMBUSS ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SUR-REPLY CASE NOS. 3:10-CV-05446, 3:10-CV-05449

Case No. 3:10-cv-05446 RS RAMBUS INC.S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case No. 3:10-cv-05449 RS

18429231.1

Case3:10-cv-05449-RS Document110 Filed08/27/12 Page2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

On August 24, 2012, Defendants LSI Corporation, STMicroelectronics N.V., and STMicroelectronics Inc. filed a motion for leave to file a sur-reply claim construction brief to address the Federal Circuits opinion in In re Rambus, No. 2011-1247 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2012). As Defendants stated, Rambus does not oppose Defendants motion. Likewise, Defendants agreed that they would not oppose Rambuss motion for leave to file a response. The Federal Circuit opinion issued on the day that Rambuss reply claim construction brief in these matters was due. Thus, while Rambus referenced the opinion in its brief, it had not had a chance to fully consider its implications. Moreover, Rambus has had no opportunity to respond to Defendants arguments regarding the Federal Circuit opinion. Rambus respectfully requests that, if the Court grants Defendants motion for leave to file a sur-reply brief, it also grant Rambus leave to file the response to that sur-reply brief attached hereto as Exhibit A. DATED: August 27, 2012 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP By: /s/ Peter A. Detre Peter A. Detre Attorneys for Plaintiff RAMBUS INC.

18429231.1

-1-

RAMBUSS ADMIN. MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS SUR-REPLY CASE NOS. 3:10-CV-05446, 3:10-CV-05449