Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2303 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 3

1 ROBERT E. FREITAS (STATE BAR NO. 80948)

CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (STATE BAR NO. 159458)
2 VICKIE L. FEEMAN (STATE BAR NO. 177487)
THERESA E. NORTON (STATE BAR NO. 193530)
3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
4 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: 650-614-7400
5 Facsimile: 650-614-7401
6 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and
7 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
RAMBUS INC., Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF THERESA E.
13 NORTON IN SUPPORT OF NANYA
v. TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
14 AND NANYA TECHNOLOGY
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX CORPORATION USA’S
15 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., OPPOSITION TO RAMBUS INC.’S
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MOTION TO COMPEL
16 MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., DEPOSITION OF NANYA 30(B)(6)
DESIGNEES ON CERTAIN DDR3
17 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SDRAM TOPICS
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
18 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,
INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN
19 SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
20 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
21 U.S.A.,
22 Defendants.
23

24

25

26

27

28
NORTON DECLARATION ISO NANYA’S OPPOSITION TO
RAMBUS MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON DDR3
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2303 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 3

1 I, Theresa E. Norton, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
3 counsel of record for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Nanya Technology Corporation
4 (“Nanya”) and Nanya Technology Corporation USA (“Nanya USA”). I have personal
5 knowledge of the following facts and if called as a witness I could and would testify
6 competently to them.
7 2. Nanya USA produced its corporate designee, Steve Wang, on November 8,
8 2007, to testify in response to Rambus’ 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Nanya and Nanya USA.
9 Mr. Wang was produced as Nanya USA’s designated witness on topics 1-11 in response to
10 Rambus’ deposition notice.
11 3. Nanya produced its corporate designee, Willie Liu, on October 17-18, 2007, to
12 testify in response to Rambus’ 30(b)(6) deposition notice to Nanya and Nanya USA. Mr. Liu
13 was produced as Nanya’s designated witness on topics 1-11 in response to Rambus’ deposition
14 notice. On October 18, 2007, the second day of Mr. Liu’s deposition, Rambus spent 82
15 minutes of the deposition questioning Mr. Liu on technical issues specific to Nanya’s DDR3
16 products. Rambus also showed Mr. Liu 7 documents relating to DDR3 products, asked Mr. Liu
17 detailed questions about those DDR3 documents, and marked those documents as exhibits to
18 Mr. Liu’s deposition. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the
19 transcript of Mr. Liu’s deposition on October 17-18, 2008 that has been designated outside-
20 counsel only by Nanya pursuant to the Protective Order.
21 4. On August 20, 2008 – nine days prior to the discovery cut-off – Ramzi Khazen,
22 an attorney representing Rambus, sent me an email stating that Rambus was re-noticing its
23 deposition notice to Nanya on topics 1-11 with respect to DDR3 products, and requested that
24 Nanya produce a further 30(b)(6) witness on these topics.
25 5. In late August and early September 2008, Mr. Khazen and I engaged in meet
26 and confer communications on this issue via email and telephone calls. We discussed the
27 parties’ positions during telephone conversations on at least August 29, 2008 and September 4,
28 2008. During these conversations, I advised Mr. Khazen that Nanya was willing to consider
NORTON DECLARATION ISO NANYA’S OPPOSITION TO
1 RAMBUS MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON DDR3
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2303 Filed 09/25/2008 Page 3 of 3

1 withdrawing its objections regarding DDR3 being beyond the scope of the 30(b)(6) notice, and
2 to retroactively designate Mr. Liu’s October 2007 testimony on Nanya’s DDR3 products as
3 30(b)(6) testimony. During these conversations, I also told Mr. Khazen that Nanya was willing
4 to stipulate as to the authenticity of DDR3 documents that Nanya produced after Mr. Liu’s
5 deposition so that Nanya would not have to fly a witness out from Taiwan in order to
6 authenticate documents. Mr. Khazen replied that despite these proposals, Rambus still
7 intended to move to compel a further 30(b)(6) deposition.
8 6. On August 28, 2008, Rambus took the deposition of Nanya USA on sales and
9 licensing issues. Nanya USA designated Kenneth Hurley as its representative on these topics.
10 Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of Mr. Hurley’s
11 deposition on August 28, 2008 that has been designated outside-counsel only by Nanya
12 pursuant to the Protective Order.
13 7. On September 8-9, 2008, Rambus took the deposition of Nanya on sales and
14 licensing issues. Nanya designated Dr. Pei Lin Pai as its representative on these topics.
15 Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the transcript of Dr. Pai’s
16 deposition on September 8-9, 2008 that has been designated outside-counsel only by Nanya
17 pursuant to the Protective Order.
18

19 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the Unites States of America that the
20 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
21 Executed this 25th day of September, 2008 in Menlo Park, California.
22

23 _____/s/ Theresa E. Norton_____________

Theresa E. Norton
24

25
OHS West:260521093.1
26

27

28
NORTON DECLARATION ISO NANYA’S OPPOSITION TO
2 RAMBUS MTC 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION ON DDR3
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW