IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

NVIDIA CORPORATION, )
) Civil Action No.: 1:08-cv-473
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
RAMBUS, INC. )
)
Defendant. )
___________________________________ )

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER

On November 6, 2008, after Defendant moved to transfer this case to the patent

infringement action pending in the Northern District of California (the “California

Action”), Defendant filed a complaint with the International Trace Commission (“ITC”)

alleging that Nvidia has infringed nine of the fifteen patents that are at issue in the

California Action. The practical effect of Defendant’s ITC filing is that most (and likely

all) of the California Action will be stayed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), which states

in relevant part:

In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before
the United States International Trade Commission . . ., at the request of a
party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before
the Commission, the district court shall stay, until the determination of the
Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to
any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before
the Commission, but only if such request is made within (30 days) . . . .”

Id. (emphasis added); See also, Formfactor, Inc. v. Micronics Japan Co., Ltd. (2008 WL

361128 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (staying entire patent infringement action filed in Northern

Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD Document 33 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 1 of 4

District of California in view of ITC complaint that alleged infringement of 2 of the 5

patents that were at issue in the California action).

Nvidia respectfully submits that the imminent stay in the California Action

(resulting from Defendant’s decision to litigate the subject patents in a second forum of

its choosing) weighs strongly against transferring Nvidia’s federal antitrust and North

Carolina unfair trade and antitrust claims to that soon-to-be stayed proceeding.

Respectfully submitted,

This the 7th day of November, 2008.

/s/ John F. Morrow, Jr.

Mark N. Poovey (NC Bar No. 9416)
John F. Morrow, Jr. (NC Bar No. 23382)
Jason C. Hicks. (NC Bar No. 33575)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Nvidia Corporation
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE,
PLLC
One West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27101
Telephone: (336) 721-3600
Telephone: (336) 721-3660
mpoovey@wcsr.com
jmorrow@wcsr.com
jahicks@wcsr.com

-and-

J. Peter Coll, Esq.

Karen D. Thompson, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
666 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10103
Telephone: (212) 506-5000
Facsimile: (212) 506-5151

I. Neel Chatterjee, Esq.

Sean Lincoln, Esq.

-2-

Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD Document 33 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 2 of 4

 Na’il Benjamin, Esq.
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone: (650) 614-7400
Facsimile: (650) 614-7401

-3-

Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD Document 33 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 3 of 4

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that he is an attorney at law licensed to practice

in the State of North Carolina, and is a person of such age and discretion as to be
competent to serve process.

That on November 7, 2008, he caused to be served a copy of the foregoing

PLAINTIFF’S SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER in the manner indicated below and
addressed as follows:

Via ECF:

DANIEL ALAN M. RULEY

BELL DAVIS & PITT, P.A.
POB 21029
WINSTON-SALEM, NC 27120-1029
336-714-4147
Fax: 336-722-8153
Email: aruley@belldavispitt.com

/s/ John F. Morrow, Jr.

John F. Morrow, Jr. (NC Bar No. 23382)
WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC

-4-

Case 1:08-cv-00473-UA-WWD Document 33 Filed 11/07/2008 Page 4 of 4