UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

 

FORM 10-Q

 

(Mark One)

þ		QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Commission File Number: 000-22339

 

RAMBUS INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		94-3112828
(State or other jurisdiction of		(I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization)		Identification No.)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes þ No o

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer þ		Accelerated filer o		Non-accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company o
		(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

     Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No þ

     The number of shares outstanding of the registrant’s Common Stock, par value $.001 per share, was 111,729,266 as of September 30, 2010.

 

 

RAMBUS INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

		PAGE
Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements			3
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements:
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009			5
Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009			6
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009			7
Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements			8
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			39
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			54
Item 4. Controls and Procedures			56
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings			56
Item 1A. Risk Factors			56
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds			70
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities			71
Item 4. Reserved			71
Item 5. Other Information			71
Item 6. Exhibits			71
Signature			72
Exhibit Index			73
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2
EX-101 INSTANCE DOCUMENT
EX-101 SCHEMA DOCUMENT
EX-101 CALCULATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 LABELS LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 PRESENTATION LINKBASE DOCUMENT
EX-101 DEFINITION LINKBASE DOCUMENT

NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

     This Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (“Quarterly Report”) contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include, without limitation, predictions regarding the following aspects of our future:

•

Outcome and effect of current and potential future intellectual property litigation;

•

Litigation expenses;

•

Protection of intellectual property;

•

Amounts owed under licensing agreements;

•

Success in renewing license agreements;

•

Terms of our licenses;

•

Acquisitions, mergers or strategic transactions;

•

Indemnification and technical support obligations;

•

Success in the markets of our or our licensees’ products;

•

Sources of competition;

•

Operating results;

•

Research and development costs and improvements in technology;

•

Sources, amounts and concentration of revenue, including royalties;

•

Effects of changes in the economy and credit market on our industry and business;

•

Deterioration of financial health of commercial counterparties and their ability to meet their obligations to us;

•

Restructuring activities;

•

Growth in our business;

•

Product development;

•

Pricing policies of our licensees;

•

Engineering, marketing and general and administration expenses;

•

Contract revenue;

•

International licenses and operations, including our design facility in Bangalore, India;

•

Issuances of our securities, which could involve restrictive covenants or be dilutive to our existing stockholders;

•

Repurchases of our Common Stock pursuant to share repurchase programs;

•

Effective tax rates;

•

Realization of deferred tax assets/release of deferred tax valuation allowance;

•

Methods, estimates and judgments in accounting policies;

•

Adoption of new accounting pronouncements;

•

Ability to identify, attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel;

•

Trading price of our Common Stock;

•

Corporate governance;

•

Consequences of the lawsuits related to the stock option investigation;

•

The level and terms of our outstanding debt;

•

Resolution of the governmental agency matters involving us;

•

Internal control environment;

•

Interest and other income, net; and

•

Likelihood of paying dividends or repurchasing stock.

     You can identify these and other forward-looking statements by the use of words such as “may,” “future,” “shall,” “should,” “expects,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “believes,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “intends,” “potential,” “continue,” or the negative of such terms, or other comparable terminology. Forward-looking statements also include the assumptions underlying or relating to any of the foregoing statements.

     Actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of various factors, including those set forth under Item 1A, “Risk Factors.” All forward-looking statements included in this document are based on our assessment of information available to us at this time. We assume no obligation to update any forward-looking statements.

RAMBUS INC.

		September 30,				December 31,
		2010				2009
		(In thousands, except shares
		and par value)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents		$	218,197			$	289,073
Marketable securities			266,696				171,120
Accounts receivable			155				949
Prepaids and other current assets			12,120				8,700
Deferred taxes			1,141				129
Total current assets			498,309				469,971
Restricted cash			722				639
Deferred taxes			1,120				2,034
Intangible assets, net			27,104				21,660
Property and equipment, net			49,705				38,966
Goodwill			15,554				15,554
Other assets			6,115				7,045
Total assets		$	598,629			$	555,869
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable		$	11,844			$	8,972
Accrued salaries and benefits			25,401				6,435
Accrued litigation expenses			3,890				5,147
Income taxes payable			703				486
Other accrued liabilities			6,890				4,020
Non-cash obligation for construction in progress			25,900				25,100
Convertible notes			—				136,032
Total current liabilities			74,628				186,192
Convertible notes			118,824				112,012
Long-term income taxes payable			2,024				1,994
Other long-term liabilities			1,176				344
Total liabilities			196,652				300,542
Commitments and contingencies
Contingently redeemable common stock:
Outstanding: 4,788,125 shares at September 30, 2010 and no shares at December 31, 2009			113,500				—
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Convertible preferred stock, $.001 par value:
Authorized: 5,000,000 shares
Issued and outstanding: no shares at September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009			—				—
Common stock, $.001 par value:
Authorized: 500,000,000 shares
Issued and outstanding: 111,729,266 shares at September 30, 2010 and 105,934,157 shares at December 31, 2009			107				106
Additional paid-in capital			914,194				818,992
Share purchase contract			(90,000	)			—
Accumulated deficit			(535,533	)			(563,858	)
Accumulated other comprehensive income (loss), net			(291	)			87
Total stockholders’ equity			288,477				255,327
Total liabilities, contingently redeemable common stock and stockholders’ equity		$	598,629			$	555,869

See Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements

RAMBUS INC.

		Three Months Ended								Nine Months Ended
		September 30,								September 30,
		2010				2009				2010				2009
						(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Revenue:
Royalties		$	31,179			$	26,898			$	229,913			$	77,826
Contract revenue			564				976				2,556				4,365
Total revenue			31,743				27,874				232,469				82,191
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of revenue*			1,368				1,858				5,026				5,479
Research and development*			23,002				16,727				67,678				50,277
Marketing, general and administrative*			27,938				29,882				88,873				99,601
Costs (recoveries) of restatement and related legal activities, net			1,229				68				3,393				(14,000	)
Gain from settlement			(10,300	)			—				(116,500	)			—
Total operating costs and expenses			43,237				48,535				48,470				141,357
Operating income (loss)			(11,494	)			(20,661	)			183,999				(59,166	)
Interest income and other income, net			312				891				1,053				3,504
Interest expense			(4,953	)			(7,641	)			(14,709	)			(13,128	)
Interest and other expense, net			(4,641	)			(6,750	)			(13,656	)			(9,624	)
Income (loss) before income taxes			(16,135	)			(27,411	)			170,343				(68,790	)
Provision for income taxes			4,441				85				52,510				103
Net income (loss)		$	(20,576	)		$	(27,496	)		$	117,833			$	(68,893	)
Net income (loss) per share:
Basic		$	(0.18	)		$	(0.26	)		$	1.04			$	(0.66	)
Diluted		$	(0.18	)		$	(0.26	)		$	1.01			$	(0.66	)
Weighted average shares used in per share calculation
Basic			111,866				105,182				112,768				104,761
Diluted			111,866				105,182				116,347				104,761
*    Includes stock-based compensation:
Cost of revenue		$	17			$	283			$	146			$	906
Research and development		$	2,470			$	2,332			$	7,742			$	7,286
Marketing, general and administrative		$	4,976			$	5,134			$	15,340			$	15,826

See Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements

RAMBUS INC.

		Nine Months Ended
		September 30,
		2010				2009
		(In thousands)
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income (loss)		$	117,833			$	(68,893	)
Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Stock-based compensation			23,228				24,018
Depreciation			7,233				8,039
Amortization of intangible assets			3,587				2,209
Non-cash interest expense and amortization of convertible debt issuance costs			8,241				10,958
Deferred tax benefit			(98	)			(16	)
Loss on sale of marketable security			83				—
Impairment of investment			—				164
Change in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable			794				749
Prepaids and other assets			1,680				1,784
Accounts payable			(2,445	)			4,878
Accrued salaries and benefits and other accrued liabilities			20,338				(1,243	)
Accrued litigation expenses			(1,257	)			(8,045	)
Income taxes payable			247				(234	)
Increase in restricted cash			(83	)			(16	)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities			179,381				(25,648	)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Acquisition of business			(2,000	)			—
Acquisition of intangible assets			(5,500	)			(1,550	)
Purchases of property and equipment			(13,100	)			(2,271	)
Purchases of marketable securities			(319,111	)			(123,396	)
Maturities of marketable securities			218,481				221,434
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities			1,682				—
Investment in non-marketable security			—				(2,000	)
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities			(119,548	)			92,217
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments under installment payment arrangement			(1,550	)			—
Proceeds received from issuance of contingently redeemable common stock and common stock pursuant to the settlement agreement with Samsung			192,000				—
Repayment of convertible senior notes			(136,950	)			—
Repurchase of common stock			(105,108	)			—
Prepayment under share purchase contract			(90,000	)			—
Proceeds received from issuance of common stock under employee stock plans			10,899				16,294
Proceeds from issuance of convertible senior notes			—				172,500
Issuance costs related to the issuance of convertible senior notes			—				(4,313	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities			(130,709	)			184,481
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents			(70,876	)			251,050
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period			289,073				116,241
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period		$	218,197			$	367,291
Non-cash investing and financing activities:
Increase in non-cash obligation for construction in progress		$	800			$	—
Intangible assets acquired under installment payment arrangement		$	331			$	—
Fixed assets acquired under installment payment arrangement in a business acquisition		$	350			$	—

See Notes to Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements

RAMBUS INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Basis of Presentation

     The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Rambus Inc. (“Rambus” or the “Company”) and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in the accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements. Investments in entities with less than 20% ownership or in which the Company does not have the ability to significantly influence the operations of the investee are being accounted for using the cost method and are included in other assets.

     In the opinion of management, the unaudited consolidated financial statements include all adjustments (consisting only of normal recurring items) necessary to state fairly the financial position and results of operations for each interim period presented. Interim results are not necessarily indicative of results for a full year.

     The unaudited consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) applicable to interim financial information. Certain information and Note disclosures included in the financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles have been omitted in these interim statements pursuant to such SEC rules and regulations. The information included in this Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto in Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009.

     During the third quarter of 2010, the Company adjusted its purchases and maturities of marketable securities by approximately $641 million due to the incorrect classification of cash equivalents as marketable securities. Refer to Note 2, “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies”, for additional details.

2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

     The amounts reported for cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities are considered to approximate fair value based upon comparable market information available at the respective balance sheet dates. The Company adopted the fair value measurement statement (Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 820, “Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures”), effective January 1, 2008 for financial assets and liabilities measured on a recurring basis. The statement applies to all financial assets and financial liabilities that are being measured and reported on a fair value basis and requires disclosure that establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure about fair value measurements. For the discussion regarding the impact of the adoption of the statement on the Company’s marketable securities, see Note 15, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments.” Additionally, the Company has adopted the fair value guidance for financial assets and financial liabilities, effective January 1, 2008, which permits an entity to choose to measure many financial instruments and certain other items at fair value at specified election dates. The Company has not elected the fair value option for financial instruments not already carried at fair value.

Cash and Cash Equivalents

     Cash equivalents are highly liquid investments with original maturity of three months or less at the date of purchase. The Company maintains its cash balances with high quality financial institutions. The cash equivalent balances are invested in highly-rated and highly-liquid money market securities and certain U.S. government obligations.

     In the preparation of the financial statements presented in this quarterly report, the Company noted that it had identified an error of approximately $641 million relating to purchases and maturities of cash equivalents that were included as purchases and maturities of marketable securities (refer to the table below) in cash flows from investing activities in its consolidated statement of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2010 previously presented in the report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2010. There was no impact to the previously reported total net cash used in investing activities for the six months ended June 30, 2010. The Company corrected the purchases and maturities of marketable securities within investing activities to properly exclude the $641 million of purchases and maturities of cash equivalents in its consolidated statements of cash flows for the six months ended June 30, 2010. The Company concluded that the correction was not material to the previous or present periods.

		Six Months Ended June 30, 2010
		As Previously
		Filed				Adjustments				As Adjusted
		(In thousands)
Cash flows from investing activities
Acquisition of business		$	(2,000	)		$	—			$	(2,000	)
Acquisition of intangible assets			(2,250	)			—				(2,250	)
Purchases of property and equipment			(2,543	)			—				(2,543	)
Purchases of marketable securities			(830,436	)			640,826				(189,610	)
Maturities of marketable securities			736,632				(640,826	)			95,806
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities			1,518				—				1,518
Net cash used in investing activities		$	(99,079	)		$	—			$	(99,079	)

Marketable Securities

     Available-for-sale securities are carried at fair value, based on quoted market prices, with the unrealized gains or losses reported, net of tax, in stockholders’ equity as part of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss). The amortized cost of debt securities is adjusted for amortization of premiums and accretion of discounts to maturity, both of which are included in interest and other expense, net. Realized gains and losses are recorded on the specific identification method and are included in interest income and other income, net. The Company reviews its investments in marketable securities for possible other than temporary impairments on a regular basis. If any loss on investment is believed to be a credit loss, a charge will be recognized in operations. In evaluating whether a credit loss on a debt security has occurred, the Company considers the following factors: 1) the Company’s intent to sell the security, 2) if the Company intends to hold the security, whether or not it is more likely than not that the Company will be required to sell the security before recovery of the security’s amortized cost basis, and 3) even if the Company intends to hold the security, whether or not the Company expects the security to recover the entire amortized cost basis. Due to the high credit quality and short term nature of the Company’s investments, there has been no credit losses recorded to date. The classification of marketable securities between short-term and long-term is based on whether the securities are available for use in operations or other purposes.

Non-Marketable Securities

     The Company has an investment in a non-marketable equity security of a private company which is carried at cost. The Company monitors the investments for other-than-temporary impairment and records appropriate reductions in carrying value when necessary. The non-marketable security is classified as other non-current assets in the consolidated balance sheets.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

     In September 2009, the Emerging Issues Task Force (the “EITF”) reached final consensus under ASU No. 2009-13 on the issue related to revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables. This issue addresses how to determine whether an arrangement involving multiple deliverables contains more than one unit of accounting and how arrangement consideration should be measured and allocated to the separate units of accounting. This issue is effective for the Company’s revenue arrangements entered into or materially modified on or after January 1, 2011. The Company will evaluate the impact of this issue on the Company’s financial statements when reviewing its new or materially modified revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables once this issue becomes effective. The Company does not expect this new standard to significantly impact its consolidated financial statements.

3. Settlement Agreement with Samsung

     On January 19, 2010, the Company, Samsung and certain related entities of Samsung entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) to release all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them and certain other potential claims. Under the Settlement Agreement, Samsung has paid the Company $200.0 million in cash in two installments in the first quarter of 2010, and the parties released all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them and certain other potential claims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company and Samsung entered into a Semiconductor Patent License Agreement on January 19, 2010 (the “License Agreement”), under which Samsung licenses from the Company non-exclusive rights to certain Rambus patents and has agreed to pay the Company cash amounts equal to $25.0 million per quarter, commencing in the first quarter of 2010, subject to certain adjustments and conditions, over the next five years. In addition, as part of the Settlement Agreement, Samsung purchased approximately 9.6 million shares of common stock of Rambus for cash pursuant to the terms of a Stock Purchase Agreement dated January 19, 2010 (the “Stock Purchase Agreement”), as described in more details below. Finally, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Company and Samsung signed a non-binding memorandum of understanding

relating to discussions around a new generation of memory technologies. On an aggregate basis, Samsung is expected to make payments to the Company totaling approximately $900.0 million (subject to adjustments per the terms of the License Agreement) from these agreements (collectively, “Samsung Settlement”), of which $475.0 million has been paid through September 30, 2010. The remaining $425.0 million is expected to be paid in successive quarterly payments of approximately $25.0 million (subject to adjustments per the terms of the License Agreement) concluding in the three month period ending December 31, 2014.

     Under the License Agreement, the Company has granted to Samsung and its subsidiaries (i) a paid-up perpetual patent license for certain identified Samsung DRAM products (these Samsung DRAM products generally include all existing DRAM products aside from the Rambus proprietary products) and (ii) a five-year term patent license to all other semiconductor products. Each license is a non-exclusive, non-transferable, royalty-bearing, worldwide patent license, without the right to sublicense, solely under the applicable patent claims of Rambus for such licensed products, to make (including have made), use, sell, offer for sale and/or import such licensed products until the expiration or termination of the license pursuant to the terms of the License Agreement. The License Agreement requires that Samsung pay the Company cash payments over the next five years of (i) a fixed amount of $25.0 million each quarter during 2010 and the first two quarters of 2011, and (ii) thereafter, $25.0 million adjusted up or down based on certain levels of Samsung revenue for DRAM products licensed under the License Agreement for each quarter after 2010 and subject to a minimum of $10.0 million and a maximum of $40.0 million for each quarter. In addition, additional payments or certain adjustments to the payments by Samsung to the Company under the License Agreement may be due for certain acquisitions of businesses or assets by Samsung involving licensed products. The License Agreement and the licenses granted thereunder may be terminated upon a material breach by a party of its obligations under the agreement, a bankruptcy event involving a party or a change of control of Samsung subject to certain conditions.

     Under the Stock Purchase Agreement, on January 19, 2010, Samsung purchased for cash from the Company 9.6 million shares of common stock of the Company (the “Shares”) with certain restrictions and put rights. The number of shares issued was based on a price per share equal to $20.885 (which was the average of the open and close trading price of Rambus common stock on The NASDAQ Global Select Market on January 15, 2010, the last trading day prior to the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement). The Shares represented approximately 8.3% of the total outstanding shares of Rambus common stock at that time after giving effect to the issuance thereof. The issuance of the Shares by the Company to Samsung was made through a private transaction. The Stock Purchase Agreement provides Samsung a one-time put right, beginning 18 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement and extending to 19 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement, to elect to put back to the Company up to 4.8 million of the Shares at the original issue price of $20.885 per share (for an aggregate purchase price of up to $100.0 million).

     The Stock Purchase Agreement prohibits the transfer of the Shares by Samsung for 18 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement, subject to certain exceptions. After expiration of the transfer restriction period, the Stock Purchase Agreement provides that Samsung may transfer a limited number of shares on a daily basis, provides Rambus with a right of first offer for proposed transfers above such daily limits, and, if no sale occurs to Rambus under the right of first offer, allows Samsung to transfer the Shares. Under the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company has also agreed that after the transfer restriction period, Samsung will have certain rights to register the Shares for sale under the securities laws of the United States, subject to customary terms and conditions.

     In addition, until 18 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement, subject to customary exceptions, Samsung is subject to a standstill agreement that prohibits Samsung from, among other things, acquiring additional shares of common stock of the Company, commencing or endorsing any tender offer or exchange offer for shares of common stock of the Company, participating in any solicitation of proxies with respect to voting any shares of common stock of the Company, or announcing or submitting any proposal or offer concerning any extraordinary transaction involving the Company. Samsung is also subject to a voting agreement under the Stock Purchase Agreement that provides that Samsung will vote its Shares in favor of routine proposals (related to election of directors, certain compensation matters, authorized share capital increases and approval of the independent auditors) that are recommended by the Board of Directors of the Company at any stockholder meeting. In all other matters, the voting agreement contained in the Stock Purchase Agreement requires that Samsung vote its Shares in the same proportion as the votes that are cast by all other holders of shares of common stock of the Company. The voting agreement under the Stock Purchase Agreement terminates (i) with respect to Shares that Samsung transfers in accordance with the provisions of the Stock Purchase Agreement, (ii) upon a change of control or bankruptcy event involving the Company or (iii) when Samsung owns less than 3% of the outstanding shares of common stock of the Company.

     The Samsung Settlement is a multiple element arrangement for accounting purposes. For the multiple element arrangement, the Company identified each element of the arrangement and determined when those elements should be recognized. Using the accounting guidance from multiple element revenue arrangements, the Company allocated the consideration to each element using the estimated fair value of the elements. The Company considered several factors in determining the accounting fair value of the elements

of the Samsung Settlement which included a third party valuation using an income approach, the Black-Scholes option pricing model and a residual approach (collectively the “Fair Value”). The inputs and assumptions used in this valuation were from a market participant perspective and included projected revenue, royalty rates, estimated discount rates, useful lives and income tax rates, among others. The development of a number of these inputs and assumptions in the model requires a significant amount of management judgment and is based upon a number of factors, including the selection of industry comparables, market growth rates and other relevant factors. Changes in any number of these assumptions may have had a substantial impact on the Fair Value as assigned to each element. These inputs and assumptions represent management’s best estimates at the time of the transaction.

     Based on the estimated Fair Value, the consideration of $900.0 million was allocated to the following elements:

		Estimated Fair
(in millions)		Value
Settlement Agreement:
Antitrust litigation settlement		$	85.0
Settlement of past infringement			190.0
License Agreement			385.0
Stock Purchase Agreement			192.0
Memorandum of understanding (“MOU”)			—
Residual value			48.0
Total		$	900.0

     The consideration of $900.0 million will be recognized in the Company’s financial statements as follows:

•

$575.0 million as revenue which represented the estimated Fair Value of the settlement of past infringement ($190.0 million) from the resolution of the infringement litigation and the patent license agreement ($385.0 million);

•

$133.0 million to gain from settlement which represented the Fair Value of the resolution of the antitrust litigation ($85.0 million) and the residual value of other elements ($48.0 million) where specific fair value could not be determined, which included other claims and counter claims released;

•

$192.0 million related to the Stock Purchase Agreement which included contingently redeemable common stock due to the restrictions and contractual put rights associated with those shares ($113.5 million) and restricted common stock issued to Samsung ($78.5 million).

     During the first quarter of 2010, the Company received cash consideration of $425.0 million from Samsung. The amount allocated to the common stock issued to Samsung was allocated to contingently redeemable common stock ($113.5 million) and stockholders’ equity ($78.5 million). The remaining $233.0 million was allocated between revenue ($137.1 million) and gain from settlement ($95.9 million) based on the remaining elements’ estimated Fair Value.

     During each of the second and third quarters of 2010, the Company received cash consideration of $25.0 million from Samsung. For both quarters, the amount was allocated between revenue ($14.7 million) and gain from settlement ($10.3 million) based on the estimated Fair Value for the remaining elements.

     The remaining $425.0 million is expected to be paid in successive quarterly payments of approximately $25.0 million (subject to adjustments per the terms of the License Agreement), concluding in the last quarter of 2014.

     The first nine months of 2010 and the remaining future cash receipts from the agreements with Samsung are expected to be recognized as follows assuming no adjustments to the payments under the terms of the agreements:

		Nine months
		Ended
		September				Remainder																				Estimated
(in millions)		30, 2010				of 2010				2011				2012				2013				2014				Fair Value
Revenue		$	166.5			$	14.7			$	93.8			$	100.0			$	100.0			$	100.0			$	575.0
Gain from settlement			116.5				10.3				6.2				—				—				—				133.0
Purchase of Rambus Common Stock			192.0				—				—				—				—				—				192.0
Total		$	475.0			$	25.0			$	100.0			$	100.0			$	100.0			$	100.0			$	900.0

4. Revenue Recognition

Overview

     The Company recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, it has delivered the product or performed the service, the fee is fixed or determinable and collection is reasonably assured. If any of these criteria are not met, the Company defers recognizing the revenue until such time as all criteria are met. Determination of whether or not these criteria have been met may require the Company to make judgments, assumptions and estimates based upon current information and historical experience.

     The Company’s revenue consists of royalty revenue and contract revenue generated from agreements with semiconductor companies, system companies and certain reseller arrangements. Royalty revenue consists of patent license and technology license royalties. Contract revenue consist of fixed license fees, fixed engineering fees and service fees associated with integration of the Company’s technology solutions into its customers’ products. Contract revenue may also include support or maintenance. Reseller arrangements generally provide for the pass-through of a percentage of the fees paid to the reseller by the reseller’s customer for use of the Company’s patent and technology licenses. The Company does not recognize revenue for these arrangements until it has received notice of revenue earned by and paid to the reseller, accompanied by the pass-through payment from the reseller. The Company does not pay commissions to the reseller for these arrangements.

     In addition, the Company may enter into certain settlements of patent infringement disputes. The amount of consideration received upon any settlement (including but not limited to past royalty payments, future royalty payments and punitive damages) is allocated to each element of the settlement based on the estimated fair value of each element. In addition, revenues related to past royalties are recognized upon execution of the agreement by both parties, provided that the amounts are fixed or determinable, there are no significant obligations and collectability is reasonably assured. The Company does not recognize any revenue prior to execution of the agreement since there is no reliable basis on which it can estimate the amounts for royalties related to previous periods or assess collectability. Elements that are related to royalty revenue in nature (including but not limited to past royalty payments and future royalty payments) will be recorded as royalty revenue in the consolidated statements of operations. Elements that are not related to royalty revenue in nature (including but not limited to punitive damage and settlement) will be recorded as gain from settlement which is reflected as a separate line item within the operating expenses section in the consolidated statements of operations.

     Many of the Company’s licensees have the right to cancel their licenses. In such arrangements, revenue is only recognized to the extent that is consistent with the cancellation provisions. Cancellation provisions within such contracts generally provide for a prospective cancellation with no refund of fees already remitted by customers for products provided and payment for services rendered prior to the date of cancellation. Unbilled receivables represent enforceable claims and are deemed collectible in connection with the Company’s revenue recognition policy.

Royalty Revenue

     The Company recognizes royalty revenue upon notification by its licensees and when deemed collectible. The terms of the royalty agreements generally either require licensees to give the Company notification and to pay the royalties within 60 days of the end of the quarter during which the sales occur or are based on a fixed royalty that is due within 45 days of the end of the quarter. The Company has two types of royalty revenue: (1) patent license royalties and (2) technology license royalties.

     Patent licenses. The Company licenses its broad portfolio of patented inventions to semiconductor and systems companies who use these inventions in the development and manufacture of their own products. Such licensing agreements may cover the license of part, or all, of the Company’s patent portfolio. The contractual terms of the agreements generally provide for payments over an extended period of time. For the licensing agreements with fixed royalty payments, the Company generally recognizes revenue from these arrangements as amounts become due. For the licensing agreements with variable royalty payments which can be based on either a percentage of sales or number of units sold, the Company earns royalties at the time that the licensees’ sales occur. The Company’s licensees, however, do not report and pay royalties owed for sales in any given quarter until after the conclusion of that quarter. As the Company is unable to estimate the licensees’ sales in any given quarter to determine the royalties due to the Company, the Company recognizes royalty revenues based on royalties reported by licensees during the quarter and when other revenue recognition criteria are met.

     Technology licenses. The Company develops proprietary and industry-standard chip interface products, such as RDRAM^tm and XDR^tm that the Company provides to its customers under technology license agreements. These arrangements include royalties, which can be based on either a percentage of sales or number of units sold. The Company earns royalties on such licensed products sold

worldwide by its licensees at the time that the licensees’ sales occur. The Company’s licensees, however, do not report and pay royalties owed for sales in any given quarter until after the conclusion of that quarter. As the Company is unable to estimate the licensees’ sales in any given quarter to determine the royalties due to the Company, the Company recognizes royalty revenues based on royalties reported by licensees during the quarter and when other revenue recognition criteria are met.

     The Company generally recognizes revenue using percentage of completion for development contracts related to licenses of its interface solutions, such as XDR^tm and FlexIO^tm that involve significant engineering and integration services. For all license and service agreements accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method, the Company determines progress to completion using input measures based upon contract costs incurred compared to the total costs including the remaining estimated cost to completion. Part of these contract fees may be due upon the achievement of certain milestones, such as provision of certain deliverables by the Company or production of chips by the licensee. The remaining fees may be due on pre-determined dates and include up-front fees.

     A provision for estimated losses on fixed price contracts is made, if necessary, in the period in which the loss becomes probable and can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that it is necessary to revise the estimates of the total costs required to complete a contract, the total amount of revenue recognized over the life of the contract would not be affected. However, to the extent the new assumptions regarding the total efforts necessary to complete a project are less than the original assumptions, the contract fees would be recognized sooner than originally expected. Conversely, if the newly estimated total efforts necessary to complete a project are longer than the original assumptions, the contract fees will be recognized over a longer period. As of September 30, 2010, the Company has accrued a liability of approximately $0.1 million related to estimated loss contracts.

     If application of the percentage-of-completion method results in recognizable revenue prior to an invoicing event under a customer contract, the Company will recognize the revenue and record an unbilled receivable. Amounts invoiced to the Company’s customers in excess of recognizable revenue are recorded as deferred revenue. The timing and amounts invoiced to customers can vary significantly depending on specific contract terms and can therefore have a significant impact on deferred revenue or unbilled receivables in any given period.

     The Company also recognizes revenue in accordance with software revenue recognition methods for development contracts related to licenses of its chip interface products that involve non-essential engineering services and post contract support (“PCS”). These software revenue recognition methods apply to all entities that earn revenue on products containing software, where software is not incidental to the product as a whole. Contract fees for the products and services provided under these arrangements are comprised of license fees and engineering service fees which are not essential to the functionality of the product. The Company’s rates for PCS and for engineering services are specific to each development contract and not standardized in terms of rates or length. Because of these characteristics, the Company does not have a sufficient population of contracts from which to derive vendor specific objective evidence for each of the elements.

     Therefore, after the Company delivers the product, if the only undelivered element is PCS, the Company will recognize all revenue ratably over either the contractual PCS period or the period during which PCS is expected to be provided. The Company reviews assumptions regarding the PCS periods on a regular basis. If the Company determines that it is necessary to revise the estimates of the support periods, the total amount of revenue to be recognized over the life of the contract would not be affected.

5. Comprehensive Income (Loss)

     Rambus’ comprehensive income (loss) consists of its net income (loss) plus other comprehensive income (loss) consisting of unrealized gains and losses on marketable securities, net of taxes.

     The components of comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, are as follows:

		Three Months Ended								Nine Months Ended
		September 30,								September 30,
(In thousands)		2010				2009				2010				2009
Net income (loss)		$	(20,576	)		$	(27,496	)		$	117,833			$	(68,893	)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Unrealized loss on marketable securities, net of tax			(117	)			(327	)			(378	)			(382	)
Total comprehensive income (loss)		$	(20,693	)		$	(27,823	)		$	117,455			$	(69,275	)

6. Equity Incentive Plans and Stock-Based Compensation

Stock Option Plans

     As of September 30, 2010, 5,534,727 shares of the 14,900,000 shares approved under the 2006 Plan remain available for grant. The 2006 Plan is now the Company’s only plan for providing stock-based incentive compensation to eligible employees, executive officers, non-employee directors and consultants.

     A summary of shares available for grant under the Company’s plans is as follows:

		Shares Available
		for Grant
Shares available as of December 31, 2009			7,462,394
Stock options granted			(1,818,623	)
Stock options forfeited			1,247,796
Stock options expired under former plans			(1,076,790	)
Nonvested equity stock and stock units granted (1)			(361,404	)
Nonvested equity stock and stock units forfeited (1)			81,354
Total available for grant as of September 30, 2010			5,534,727

General Stock Option Information

     The following table summarizes stock option activity under the 1997, 1999 and 2006 Plans for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and information regarding stock options outstanding, exercisable, and vested and expected to vest as of September 30, 2010.

		Options Outstanding
										Weighted
						Weighted				Average
						Average				Remaining				Aggregate
		Number of				Exercise Price				Contractual				Intrinsic
		Shares				Per Share				Term(years)				Value
		(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
Outstanding as of December 31, 2009			14,456,110			$	20.95
Options granted			1,818,623				22.60
Options exercised			(684,940	)			12.42
Options forfeited			(1,247,796	)			48.78
Outstanding as of September 30, 2010			14,341,997				19.14				5.60			$	57,566
Vested or expected to vest at September 30, 2010			13,677,305				19.41				5.57				52,263
Options exercisable at September 30, 2010			9,981,255				19.74				4.64				39,944

     The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pre-tax intrinsic value for in-the-money options at September 30, 2010, based on the $20.84 closing stock price of Rambus’ Common Stock on September 30, 2010 on the NASDAQ Global Select Market, which would have been received by the option holders had all option holders exercised their options as of that date. The total number of in-the-money options outstanding and exercisable as of September 30, 2010 was 9,444,593 and 6,762,044, respectively.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

     Under the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”), the Company issued 161,293 shares at a price of $13.56 per share during the nine months ended September 30, 2010. The Company issued 254,748 shares at a price of $8.06 per share during the nine months ended September 30, 2009. As of September 30, 2010, 685,563 shares under the 2006 ESPP remained available for issuance.

Stock-Based Compensation

     For the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, the Company maintained stock plans covering a broad range of potential equity grants including stock options, nonvested equity stock and equity stock units and performance based instruments. In addition, the Company sponsors an ESPP, whereby eligible employees are entitled to purchase Common Stock semi-annually, by means of limited payroll deductions, at a 15% discount from the fair market value of the Common Stock as of specific dates.

Stock Options

     During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Rambus granted 93,300 and 1,818,623 stock options, respectively, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $1.0 million and $23.9 million, respectively. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation related to stock options of $5.6 million and $17.3 million, respectively.

     During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, Rambus granted 46,750 and 1,430,363 stock options, respectively, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $0.6 million and $9.5 million, respectively. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation related to stock options of $6.0 million and $18.5 million, respectively.

     As of September 30, 2010, there was $39.8 million of total unrecognized compensation cost, net of expected forfeitures, related to non-vested stock-based compensation arrangements granted under the stock option plans. That cost is expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 3.2 years. The total fair value of shares vested as of September 30, 2010 was $145.1 million.

     The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $1.9 million and $7.1 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $1.2 million and $6.2 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively. Intrinsic value is the total value of exercised shares based on the price of the Company’s common stock at the time of exercise less the cash received from the employees to exercise the options.

     During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, net proceeds from employee stock option exercises totaled approximately $8.5 million.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

     For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company recorded compensation expense related to the ESPP of $0.4 million and $1.3 million, respectively. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, the Company recorded compensation expense related to the ESPP of $0.5 million and $1.5 million, respectively. As of September 30, 2010, there was $0.1 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock-based compensation arrangements granted under the ESPP. That cost is expected to be recognized over one month.

     There were no tax benefits realized as a result of employee stock option exercises, stock purchase plan purchases, and vesting of equity stock and stock units for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 calculated in accordance with accounting for share-based payments.

Valuation Assumptions

     The fair value of stock awards is estimated as of the grant date using the Black-Scholes-Merton (“BSM”) option-pricing model assuming a dividend yield of 0% and the additional weighted-average assumptions as listed in the following tables:

		Stock Option Plans
		Three Months Ended								Nine Months Ended
		September 30,								September 30,
		2010				2009				2010				2009
Stock Option Plans
Expected stock price volatility			60	%			91	%			60-69	%			91-96	%
Risk free interest rate			2.3	%			2.3	%			2.3-3.2	%			1.8-2.3	%
Expected term (in years)			6.1				6.0				5.9 – 6.1				5.3 – 6.0
Weighted-average fair value of stock options granted		$	10.88			$	12.14				$13.15				$6.63

		Employee Stock Purchase Plan
		Three Months Ended								Nine Months Ended
		September 30,								September 30,
		2010*				2009*				2010				2009
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
Expected stock price volatility			—				—				54	%			92	%
Risk free interest rate			—				—				0.3	%			0.3	%
Expected term (in years)			—				—				0.5				0.5
Weighted-average fair value of purchase rights granted under the purchase plan			—				—			$	7.46			$	4.97

Nonvested Equity Stock and Stock Units

     For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company granted nonvested equity stock units to certain officers and employees totaling 20,000 shares and 240,936 shares under the 2006 Plan, respectively. These awards have a service condition, generally a service period of four years, except in the case of grants to directors, for which the service period is one year. The nonvested equity stock units were valued at the date of grant giving them a fair value of approximately $0.4 million and $5.3 million, respectively. The Company occasionally grants nonvested equity stock units to its employees with vesting subject to the achievement of certain performance conditions. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the achievement of certain performance conditions for certain performance equity stock units was considered probable, and as a result, the Company recognized an immaterial amount of stock-based compensation expense related to these performance stock units.

     For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense of approximately $1.5 million and $4.6 million, respectively, related to all outstanding unvested equity stock grants. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, the Company recorded stock-based compensation expense of approximately $1.3 million and $4.0 million, respectively, related to all outstanding unvested equity stock grants. Unrecognized stock-based compensation related to all nonvested equity stock grants, net of estimated forfeitures, was approximately $8.9 million at September 30, 2010. This is expected to be recognized over a weighted average of 2.2 years.

     The following table reflects the activity related to nonvested equity stock and stock units for the nine months ended September 30, 2010:

						Weighted-Average
						Grant-Date
		Shares				Fair Value
Nonvested Equity Stock and Stock Units
Nonvested at December 31, 2009			783,976			$	16.24
Granted			240,936				22.13
Vested			(219,477	)			17.54
Forfeited			(54,236	)			15.76
Nonvested at September 30, 2010			751,199				17.78

7. Marketable Securities

     Rambus invests its excess cash and cash equivalents primarily in U.S. government agency and treasury notes, commercial paper, corporate notes and bonds, money market funds and municipal notes and bonds that mature within three years.

     All cash equivalents and marketable securities are classified as available-for-sale and are summarized as follows:

		September 30, 2010
										Gross				Gross				Weighted
						Amortized				Unrealized				Unrealized				Rate of
(in thousands)		Fair Value				Cost				Gains				Losses				Return
Money Market Funds		$	159,577			$	159,577			$	—			$	—				0.13	%
U.S. Government Bonds and Notes			270,729				270,700				73				(44	)			0.29	%
Corporate Notes, Bonds and Commercial Paper			44,515				44,546				13				(44	)			0.39	%
Total cash equivalents and marketable securities			474,821				474,823				86				(88	)
Cash			10,072				10,072				—				—
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		$	484,893			$	484,895			$	86			$	(88	)

		December 31, 2009
										Gross				Gross				Weighted
						Amortized				Unrealized				Unrealized				Rate of
(in thousands)		Fair Value				Cost				Gains				Losses				Return
Money Market Funds		$	280,908			$	280,908			$	—			$	—				0.01	%
U.S. Government Bonds and Notes			138,829				138,521				377				(69	)			1.09	%
Corporate Notes, Bonds and Commercial Paper			32,291				32,222				70				(1	)			1.89	%
Total cash equivalents and marketable securities			452,028				451,651				447				(70	)
Cash			8,165				8,165				—				—
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		$	460,193			$	459,816			$	447			$	(70	)

     Available-for-sale securities are reported at fair value on the balance sheets and classified as follows:

		September 30,				December 31,
		2010				2009
		(in thousands)
Cash equivalents		$	208,125			$	280,908
Short term marketable securities			266,696				171,120
Total cash equivalents and marketable securities			474,821				452,028
Cash			10,072				8,165
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		$	484,893			$	460,193

     The Company continues to invest in high quality, highly liquid debt securities that mature within three years. The Company holds all of its marketable securities as available-for-sale, marks them to market, and regularly reviews its portfolio to ensure adherence to its investment policy and to monitor individual investments for risk analysis, proper valuation, and unrealized losses that may be other than temporary. As of September 30, 2010, marketable debt securities with a fair value of $119.1 million, which mature within one year, had insignificant unrealized losses. The Company has no intent to sell, there is no requirement to sell and the Company believes that it can recover the amortized cost of these investments. The Company has found no evidence of impairment due to credit losses in its portfolio. Therefore, these unrealized losses were recorded in other comprehensive income (loss). However, the Company cannot provide any assurance that its portfolio of cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities will not be impacted by adverse conditions in the financial markets, which may require the Company in the future to record an impairment charge for credit losses which could adversely impact its financial results.

     The estimated fair value of cash equivalents and marketable securities classified by date of contractual maturity and the associated unrealized gain (loss), net, at September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 are as follows:

		As of								Unrealized Gain (Loss), net
		September 30,				December 31,				September 30,				December 31,
		2010				2009				2010				2009
		(in thousands)
Contractual maturity:
Due within one year		$	474,821			$	419,054			$	(2	)		$	250
Due from one year through three years			—				32,974				—				127
		$	474,821			$	452,028			$	(2	)		$	377

     The unrealized gain (loss), net, was insignificant in relation to the Company’s total available-for-sale portfolio. The unrealized gain (loss), net, can be primarily attributed to a combination of market conditions as well as the demand for and duration of the Company’s U.S. government bonds and notes. See Note 15, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments,” for fair value discussion regarding the Company’s cash equivalents and marketable securities.

8. Commitments and Contingencies

     On December 15, 2009, the Company entered into a definitive triple net space lease agreement with MT SPE, LLC (the “Landlord”) whereby the Company leases approximately 125,000 square feet of office space located at 1050 Enterprise Way in Sunnyvale, California (the “Sunnyvale Lease”). The office space will be used for the Company’s corporate headquarters, as well as engineering, marketing and administrative operations and activities. The Company plans to move to the new premises in the fourth quarter of 2010 following completion of leasehold improvements. The Sunnyvale Lease has a term of 120 months from the commencement date. The initial annual base rent is $3.7 million, subject to a full abatement of rent for the first six months of the

Sunnyvale Lease term. The annual base rent increases each year to certain fixed amounts over the course of the term as set forth in the Sunnyvale Lease and will be $4.8 million in the tenth year. In addition to the base rent, the Company will also pay operating expenses, insurance expenses, real estate taxes and a management fee. The Company has two options to extend the Sunnyvale Lease for a period of 60 months each and a one-time option to terminate the Sunnyvale Lease after 84 months in exchange for an early termination fee.

     During the first quarter of 2010, the Company began a build-out of this facility and expects to incur approximately $13.5 million in construction costs of which approximately $8.1 million has been incurred as of September 30, 2010. Under the terms of the Sunnyvale Lease, the landlord has agreed to reimburse the Company approximately $9.1 million of this amount. Because certain improvements to be constructed by the Company are considered structural in nature and the Company is responsible for any cost overruns, for accounting purposes, the Company is treated in substance as the owner of the construction project. Therefore, the Company has capitalized $25.1 million in property and equipment based on the estimated fair value of the portion of the building that it will occupy with a corresponding non-cash obligation for construction in progress. The fair value was determined as of December 15, 2009 using level 3 fair value inputs (See Note 15, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments”) and the cost approach which measures the value of an asset as the cost to reconstruct or replace it with another asset of like utility.

     Upon completion of construction, the Company will apply the methodology related to sale-leaseback accounting. At that time, the Company will determine whether the lease will be treated as a capital or operating lease.

     On March 8, 2010, the Company entered into a lease agreement with Fogg-Brecksville Development Co. (the “Ohio Landlord”) for 24,814 square feet of space consisting of 7,158 square feet of office area and 17,656 square feet of warehouse area, located in Brecksville, Ohio (the “Ohio Lease”). The Company moved to the new premises in the third quarter of 2010 following completion of leasehold improvements. The warehouse area was converted into office space and manufacturing space. The office space is used for the Lighting and Display Technology (“LDT”) group’s engineering activities while the manufacturing space is used for the manufacturer of prototypes for the LDT group. The Ohio Lease has a term of 60 months from the commencement date which is the earlier of (i) the date upon which the Company first takes occupancy of the premises once the construction work is completed or (ii) the first day of the month following completion and notification by the lessor to the Company of completion of construction of the building. The initial annual base rent is approximately $136,000. In addition to the base rent, the Company will also pay operating expenses, insurance expenses, real estate taxes and a management fee. The Company has an option to extend the Lease for an additional period of 60 months.

     During the first quarter of 2010, the Company began a build-out of this facility and expects to incur approximately $1.7 million in construction costs of which substantially all the costs have been incurred as of September 30, 2010. Because certain improvements constructed by the Company are considered structural in nature and the Company is responsible for any cost overruns, for accounting purposes, the Company is treated in substance as the owner of the construction project. Therefore, the Company has capitalized $0.8 million in property and equipment based on the estimated fair value of the portion of the building that it will occupy with a corresponding non-cash obligation for construction in progress. The fair value was determined as of March 8, 2010 using level 3 fair value inputs and the cost approach which measures the value of an asset as the cost to reconstruct or replace it with another asset of like utility. Upon completion of construction in the fourth quarter of 2010, the Company will account for the arrangement as a financing arrangement as sale-leaseback accounting cannot be applied. The building will be reflected as an asset on the Company’s balance sheets throughout the term of the lease. The lease payments will be recorded as interest expense using the effective interest method over the term of the lease and the building will be depreciated on a straight-line basis over a period of 15 years. At the end of the lease term in 2015, the Company has an option to renew the lease for an additional 60 months. As a result of the significant amount of construction costs and leasehold improvements, the Company currently would expect to renew the lease for an additional 60 months so the lease term for accounting purposes will be 10 years. At the end of the lease term, the Company would reverse the net book value of the building and the corresponding financing liability and record the difference, if any, as a gain.

     On June 29, 2009, the Company entered into an indenture by and between the Company and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee, relating to the issuance by the Company of $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of 5% convertible senior notes due June 15, 2014 (the “2014 Notes”). On July 10, 2009, an additional $22.5 million in aggregate principal amount of 2014 Notes were issued as a result of the underwriters exercising their overallotment option. The aggregate principal amount of the 2014 Notes outstanding as of September 30, 2010 was $172.5 million, offset by unamortized debt discount of $53.7 million in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The debt discount is currently being amortized over the remaining 45 months until maturity of the 2014 Notes on June 15, 2014. See Note 16, “Convertible Notes,” for additional details.

     As of September 30, 2010, Rambus’ material contractual obligations are:

						Remainder
(in thousands)		Total				of 2010				2011				2012				2013				2014				Thereafter
Contractual obligations(1)
Leases (2)		$	46,602			$	2,156			$	5,104			$	5,140			$	4,469			$	4,580			$	25,153
Convertible notes			172,500				—				—				—				—				172,500				—
Interest payments related to convertible notes			34,120				4,313				8,625				8,625				8,625				3,932				—
Total		$	253,222			$	6,469			$	13,729			$	13,765			$	13,094			$	181,012			$	25,153

     Rent expense was approximately $1.9 million and $5.5 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, respectively. Rent expense was approximately $1.5 million and $4.7 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009, respectively.

     Deferred rent of $0.9 million as of September 30, 2010 was included primarily in other long-term liabilities. Deferred rent of $0.7 million as of December 31, 2009 was included primarily in current liabilities.

Indemnifications

     The Company enters into standard license agreements in the ordinary course of business. Although the Company does not indemnify most of its customers, there are times when an indemnification is a necessary means of doing business. Indemnifications cover customers for losses suffered or incurred by them as a result of any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property infringement claim by any third party with respect to the Company’s products. The maximum amount of indemnification the Company could be required to make under these agreements is generally limited to fees received by the Company.

     Several securities fraud class actions, private lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions were filed in state and federal courts against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors related to the stock option granting actions. As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby its officers and directors are indemnified for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at the Company’s request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer’s or director’s term in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. The Company has a director and officer insurance policy that reduces the Company’s exposure and enables the Company to recover a portion of future amounts to be paid. As a result of these indemnification agreements, the Company continues to make payments on behalf of current and former officers. As of September 30, 2010, the Company had made payments of approximately $14.9 million on their behalf, including $1.2 million in the quarter ended September 30, 2010. These payments were recorded under costs of restatement and related legal activities in the consolidated statements of operations. The Company received approximately $5.3 million from the former officers related to their settlement agreements with the Company in connection with the derivative and class action lawsuits which was comprised of approximately $4.5 million in cash received in the first quarter of 2009 as well as approximately 163,000 shares of the Company’s stock with a value of approximately $0.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2008. Additionally, during the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company received $0.1 million from insurance settlements related to the defense of the Company, its directors and its officers which were recorded under costs (recoveries) of restatement and related legal activities in the consolidated statements of operations.

9. Stockholders’ Equity

Contingently Redeemable Common Stock

     On January 19, 2010, pursuant to the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement, Samsung purchased for cash the Shares with certain restrictions and put rights. The issuance of the Shares by the Company to Samsung was made through a private transaction. The Stock

Purchase Agreement provides Samsung a one-time put right, beginning 18 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement and extending to 19 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement, to elect to put back to the Company up to 4.8 million of the Shares at the original issue price of $20.885 per share (for an aggregate purchase price of up to $100.0 million). The 4.8 million shares have been recorded, at estimated Fair Value, as contingently redeemable common stock on the consolidated balance sheet as of September 30, 2010.

     The Stock Purchase Agreement prohibits the transfer of the Shares by Samsung for 18 months after the date of the Stock Purchase Agreement, subject to certain exceptions. After expiration of the transfer restriction period, the Stock Purchase Agreement provides that Samsung may transfer a limited number of shares on a daily basis, provides the Company with a right of first offer for proposed transfers above such daily limits, and, if no sale occurs to the Company under the right of first offer, allows Samsung to transfer the Shares. Under the Stock Purchase Agreement, the Company has also agreed that after the transfer restriction period, Samsung will have certain rights to register the Shares for sale under the securities laws of the United States, subject to customary terms and conditions.

     The 9.6 million shares were accounted for as part of a multiple element arrangement where the Fair Value was determined to be $192.0 million as follows:

	•		$113.5 million related to 4.8 million shares treated as contingently redeemable common stock due to the contractual put rights associated with those shares
	•		$78.5 million related to the remaining 4.8 million shares treated as stockholders’ equity

     See Note 3, “Settlement Agreement with Samsung,” for further discussion.

Share Repurchase Program

     In October 2001, the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”) approved a share repurchase program of its Common Stock, principally to reduce the dilutive effect of employee stock options. Under this program, the Board approved the authorization to repurchase up to 19.0 million shares of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock over an undefined period of time. On February 25, 2010, the Board approved a new share repurchase program authorizing the repurchase of up to an additional 12.5 million shares. Share repurchases under the program may be made through open market, established plan or privately negotiated transactions in accordance with all applicable securities laws, rules, and regulations. There is no expiration date applicable to the program. The new share repurchase program replaces the program authorized in October 2001.

     During the three months ended September 30, 2010, the Company repurchased approximately 0.5 million shares of its Common Stock with an aggregate price of approximately $9.8 million. During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company repurchased approximately 4.8 million shares of its Common Stock with an aggregate price of approximately $105.1 million. As of September 30, 2010, the Company had repurchased a cumulative total of approximately 21.6 million shares of its Common Stock with an aggregate price of approximately $338.9 million since the commencement of the program in 2001. As of September 30, 2010, there remained an outstanding authorization to repurchase approximately 10.0 million shares of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock.

     The Company records stock repurchases as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. The Company records a portion of the purchase price of the repurchased shares as an increase to accumulated deficit when the cost of the shares repurchased exceeds the average original proceeds per share received from the issuance of Common Stock. During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the cumulative price of the shares repurchased exceeded the proceeds received from the issuance of the same number of shares. The excess of $89.5 million was recorded as an increase to accumulated deficit for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. During the nine months ended September 30, 2009, the Company did not repurchase any Common Stock.

     On August 19, 2010, the Company entered into a share repurchase agreement (the “Share Repurchase Agreement”) with J.P. Morgan Securities Inc., as agent for JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, London Branch (“JP Morgan”) to repurchase approximately $90.0 million of the Company’s Common Stock, as part of the Company’s share repurchase program.

     Under the Share Repurchase Agreement, the Company pre-paid to JP Morgan the $90.0 million purchase price for the Common Stock and JP Morgan will deliver to the Company a number of shares of Common Stock to be determined based on the volume weighted average price of the Common Stock, calculated over a period of between one and four months following the date of the Share Repurchase Agreement (the “Valuation Period”), minus an agreed upon discount between the parties. The shares of Common Stock will be delivered by JP Morgan to the Company on the third business day following the Valuation Period described above.

     In addition, under the Share Repurchase Agreement, the Company has the option, in its sole discretion, to terminate the transaction early in the event that the volume weighted average price of the Common Stock exceeds a price agreed upon between the parties at the time the Share Repurchase Agreement was executed.

10. Income Taxes

     The effective tax rate for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 was (27.5)% and 30.8%, respectively, which is lower than the U.S. statutory tax rate due primarily to foreign withholding taxes and the full valuation allowance on its U.S. net deferred tax assets. The effective tax rate for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 was (0.3)% and (0.1)%, respectively, which was lower than the U.S. statutory tax rate applied to the Company’s net loss primarily due to a full valuation allowance on its U.S. net deferred tax assets, foreign income taxes and state income taxes, partially offset by refundable research and development tax credits.

     During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company paid withholding taxes of $4.1 million and $50.9 million, respectively, to the Korean tax authorities related to the payments received under the Settlement Agreement and License Agreement with Samsung. The Company recorded a provision for income taxes of $4.4 million for the three months ended September 30, 2010, which is primarily comprised of the Korean withholding taxes. The Company recorded a provision for income taxes of $52.5 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2010, which is primarily comprised of the Korean withholding taxes and state alternative minimum taxes. As the Company continues to maintain a valuation allowance against its U.S. deferred tax assets, the Company’s tax provision is based primarily on the Korean withholding taxes and state alternative minimum taxes.

     As of September 30, 2010, the Company estimates net deferred tax assets, before valuation allowance, of approximately $90.8 million, which consists of net operating loss carryovers, tax credit carryovers, depreciation and amortization, employee stock-based compensation expenses and certain liabilities, partially reduced by deferred tax liabilities associated with the convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion, including partial cash settlements. As of September 30, 2010, a full valuation allowance has been recorded against the U.S. deferred tax assets. During the nine months ended September 30, 2010, the Company reduced its deferred tax assets from $153.1 million to $90.8 million, and a corresponding reduction of its valuation allowance. This partial release of the valuation allowance is primarily related to the utilization of net operating loss carryforwards offsetting the U.S. tax provision for the nine months ended September 30, 2010. Management periodically evaluates the realizability of the Company’s net deferred tax assets based on all available evidence, both positive and negative. The realization of net deferred tax assets is solely dependent on the Company’s ability to generate sufficient future taxable income during periods prior to the expiration of tax statutes to fully utilize these assets. The Company intends to maintain the remaining valuation allowance until sufficient positive evidence exists to support reversal of the valuation allowance.

     The Company maintains liabilities for uncertain tax positions within its non-current income taxes payable accounts. These liabilities involve judgment and estimation and are monitored by management based on the best information available including changes in tax regulations, the outcome of relevant court cases and other information.

     As of September 30, 2010, the Company had approximately $10.9 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including $9.0 million recorded as a reduction of long-term deferred tax assets and including $1.9 million in long-term income taxes payable. If recognized, approximately $0.6 million would be recorded as an income tax benefit. No benefit would be recorded for the remaining unrecognized tax benefits as the recognition would require a corresponding increase in the valuation allowance. As of December 31, 2009, the Company had $10.4 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including $8.4 million recorded as a reduction of long-term deferred tax assets and $2.0 million in long-term income taxes payable.

     Although it is possible that some of the unrecognized tax benefits could be settled within the next 12 months, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the outcome at this time.

     The Company recognizes interest and penalties related to uncertain tax positions as a component of the income tax provision (benefit). At September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009, an insignificant amount of interest and penalties are included in long-term income taxes payable.

     The Company files U.S. federal income tax returns as well as income tax returns in various states and foreign jurisdictions. The Company is currently under examination by the California Franchise Tax Board for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 and the years ended December 31, 2003 and 2004. Although the outcome of any tax audit is uncertain, the Company believes it has adequately provided for any additional taxes that may be required to be paid as a result of such examinations. If the Company determines that no

payment will ultimately be required, the reversal of these tax liabilities may result in tax benefits being recognized in the period when that conclusion is reached. However, if an ultimate tax assessment exceeds the recorded tax liability for that item, an additional tax provision may need to be recorded. The impact of such adjustments in the Company’s tax accounts could have a material impact on the consolidated results of operations in future periods.

     The Company is subject to examination by the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) for the tax years ended 2007 through 2009. The Company is also subject to examination by the State of California for tax years ended 2006 through 2009. In addition, any R&D credit and net operating loss carryforwards generated in prior years and utilized in these or future years may also be subject to examination by the IRS and the State of California. The Company remains subject to income tax examinations in other tax jurisdictions which are not material to the Company’s operations.

     The Company’s future effective tax rates could be adversely affected by earnings being higher than anticipated in countries where the Company has higher statutory rates or lower than anticipated in countries where it has lower statutory rates, by changes in valuation of its deferred tax assets and liabilities, or by changes in tax laws or interpretations of those laws. Subsequent to the quarter ended September 30, 2010, California enacted legislation that includes suspension of net operating loss utilization for 2010 and 2011. This change is not expected to have a material impact to the Company’s financial statements.

11. Earnings (Loss) Per Share

     Basic earnings (loss) per share is calculated by dividing the net income (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings (loss) per share is calculated by dividing the earnings (loss) by the weighted average number of common shares and potentially dilutive securities outstanding during the period. Potentially dilutive common shares consist of incremental common shares issuable upon exercise of stock options, employee stock purchases, restricted stock and restricted stock units, and shares issuable upon the conversion of convertible notes. The dilutive effect of outstanding shares is reflected in diluted earnings per share by application of the treasury stock method. This method includes consideration of the amounts to be paid by the employees, the amount of excess tax benefits that would be recognized in equity if the instrument was exercised and the amount of unrecognized stock-based compensation related to future services. No potential dilutive common shares are included in the computation of any diluted per share amount when a net loss is reported. As discussed in Note 3, “Settlement Agreement with Samsung,” the Company reported approximately 4.8 million shares issued to Samsung as contingently redeemable common stock due to the contractual put rights associated with those shares. As such, the Company uses the two-class method for reporting earnings per share.

     The following table sets forth the computation of basic and diluted income (loss) per share:

		Three Months Ended September 30,
		2010								2009
		(In thousands, except per share amounts)
		CRCS*				Other CS**				CRCS*				Other CS**
Basic net loss per share:
Numerator:
Allocation of undistributed earnings		$	(881	)		$	(19,695	)		$	—			$	(27,496	)
Denominator:
Weighted-average common shares outstanding			4,788				107,078				—				105,182
Basic net loss per share		$	(0.18	)		$	(0.18	)		$	—			$	(0.26	)
Diluted net loss per share:
Numerator:
Allocation of undistributed earnings for basic computation		$	(881	)		$	(19,695	)		$	—			$	(27,496	)
Reallocation of undistributed earnings			—				—				—				—
Allocation of undistributed earnings for diluted computation		$	(881	)		$	(19,695	)		$	—			$	(27,496	)
Denominator:
Number of shares used in basic computation			4,788				107,078				—				105,182
Dilutive potential shares from stock options, ESPP, Convertible notes and nonvested equity stock and stock units			—				—				—				—
Number of shares used in diluted computation			4,788				107,078				—				105,182
Diluted net loss per share		$	(0.18	)		$	(0.18	)		$	—			$	(0.26	)

		Nine Months Ended September 30,
		2010								2009
		(In thousands, except per share amounts)
		CRCS*				Other CS**				CRCS*				Other CS**
Basic net income (loss) per share:
Numerator:
Allocation of undistributed earnings		$	4,673			$	113,160			$	—			$	(68,893	)
Denominator:
Weighted-average common shares outstanding			4,472				108,296				—				104,761
Basic net income (loss) per share		$	1.04			$	1.04			$	—			$	(0.66	)
Diluted net income (loss) per share:
Numerator:
Allocation of undistributed earnings for basic computation		$	4,673			$	113,160			$	—			$	(68,893	)
Reallocation of undistributed earnings			(143	)			143				—				—
Allocation of undistributed earnings for diluted computation		$	4,530			$	113,303			$	—			$	(68,893	)
Denominator:
Number of shares used in basic computation			4,472				108,296				—				104,761
Dilutive potential shares from stock options, ESPP, Convertible notes and nonvested equity stock and stock units			—				3,579				—				—
Number of shares used in diluted computation			4,472				111,875				—				104,761
Diluted net income (loss) per share		$	1.01			$	1.01			$	—			$	(0.66	)

     For the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, options to purchase approximately 7.2 million and 9.3 million shares, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, options to purchase approximately 6.5 million and 12.7 million shares, respectively, were excluded from the calculation because they were anti-dilutive after considering proceeds from exercise, taxes and related unrecognized stock-based compensation expense. For the three months ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, an additional 2.4 million and 2.2 million shares, respectively, and for the nine months ended September 30, 2009, an additional 1.3 million shares, including nonvested equity stock and stock units, that would be dilutive have been excluded from the weighted average dilutive shares because there were net losses for the periods.

12. Business Segments, Exports and Major Customers

     Rambus has two business groups: the Semiconductor Business Group (“SBG”) which focuses on the design, development and licensing of semiconductor technology and the New Business Group (“NBG”) which focuses on the design, development and licensing of lighting, display and mobile technologies. As of the end of the third quarter of 2010, these two business groups were considered operating segments. However, for reporting purposes, the assets and operating results of the NBG did not meet the annual quantitative thresholds for separate disclosure as of September 30, 2010.

     Four customers accounted for 47%, 12%, 11% and 10%, respectively, of revenue in the three months ended September 30, 2010. Five customers accounted for 25%, 15%, 14%, 13% and 12%, respectively, of revenue in the three months ended September 30, 2009. One customer accounted for 72% of revenue in the nine months ended September 30, 2010. Six customers accounted for 25%, 15%, 14%, 12%, 11% and 10%, respectively, of revenue in the nine months ended September 30, 2009. Rambus expects to continue to experience significant revenue concentration for the foreseeable future, and is in active and ongoing discussions with customers that are up for renewal, although Rambus expects that its revenue concentration will decrease over time as Rambus licenses new customers.

     Rambus licenses its technologies and patents to customers in multiple geographic regions. Revenue from customers in the following geographic regions was recognized as follows:

		Three Months Ended								Nine Months Ended
		September 30,								September 30,
(In thousands)		2010				2009				2010				2009
Japan		$	11,819			$	22,574			$	49,692			$	66,455
Korea			14,853				359				166,732				730
North America			5,025				4,856				15,801				14,748
Asia-Pacific			35				31				93				115
Europe			11				54				151				143
		$	31,743			$	27,874			$	232,469			$	82,191

     At September 30, 2010, of the $49.7 million of total property and equipment, approximately $48.6 million are located in the United States, $1.0 million are located in India and $0.1 million are located in other foreign locations. At December 31, 2009, of the $39.0 million of total property and equipment, approximately $37.1 million were located in the United States, $1.6 million were located in India and $0.3 million were located in other foreign locations.

13. Amortizable Intangible Assets

     The components of the Company’s intangible assets as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009 were as follows:

		As of September 30, 2010
		Gross Carrying				Accumulated				Net Carrying
		Amount				Amortization				Amount
		(In thousands)
Patents		$	21,473			$	(8,512	)		$	12,961
Customer contracts and contractual relationships			4,050				(3,040	)			1,010
Existing technology			17,550				(4,417	)			13,133
Intellectual property			10,384				(10,384	)			—
Non-competition agreement			100				(100	)			—
Total intangible assets		$	53,557			$	(26,453	)		$	27,104

		As of December 31, 2009
		Gross Carrying				Accumulated				Net Carrying
		Amount				Amortization				Amount
		(In thousands)
Patents		$	12,441			$	(6,876	)		$	5,565
Customer contracts and contractual relationships			4,050				(2,717	)			1,333
Existing technology			17,550				(2,788	)			14,762
Intellectual property			10,384				(10,384	)			—
Non-competition agreement			100				(100	)			—
Total intangible assets		$	44,525			$	(22,865	)		$	21,660

     Amortization expense for intangible assets for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010 was $1.3 million and $3.6 million, respectively. Amortization expense for intangible assets for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2009 was $0.7 million and $2.2 million, respectively.

     As part of the Company’s ongoing acquisition activities to broaden its technology portfolio, the Company purchased patents for approximately $7.1 million in three asset acquisitions during the nine months ended September 30, 2010. In addition, during the second quarter of 2010, the Company purchased patents for $2.0 million in a business combination.

     The estimated future amortization expense of intangible assets as of September 30, 2010 was as follows (amounts in thousands):

Years Ending December 31:		Amount
2010 (remaining 3 months)		$	1,406
2011			5,311
2012			5,038
2013			4,732
2014			3,832
Thereafter			6,785
		$	27,104

14. Litigation and Asserted Claims

Hynix Litigation

U.S District Court of the Northern District of California

     On August 29, 2000, Hynix (formerly Hyundai) and various subsidiaries filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint, as amended and narrowed through motion practice, asserts claims for fraud, violations of federal antitrust laws and deceptive practices in connection with Rambus’ participation in a standards setting organization called JEDEC, and seeks a declaratory judgment that the Rambus patents-in-suit are unenforceable, invalid and not infringed by Hynix, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Rambus denied Hynix’s claims and filed counterclaims for patent infringement against Hynix.

     The case was divided into three phases. In the first phase, Hynix tried its unclean hands defense beginning on October 17, 2005 and concluding on November 1, 2005. In its January 4, 2006 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the court held that Hynix’s unclean hands defense failed. Among other things, the court found that Rambus did not adopt its document retention policy in bad faith, did not engage in unlawful spoliation of evidence, and that while Rambus disposed of some relevant documents pursuant to its document retention policy, Hynix was not prejudiced by the destruction of Rambus documents. On January 19, 2009, Hynix filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s unclean hands order and for summary judgment on the ground that the decision by the Delaware court in the pending Micron-Rambus litigation (described below) should be given preclusive effect. In its motion Hynix requested alternatively that the court’s unclean hands order be certified for appeal and that the remainder of the case be stayed. Rambus filed an opposition to Hynix’s motion on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court denied Hynix’s motions and restated its conclusions that Rambus had not anticipated litigation until late 1999 and that Hynix had not demonstrated any prejudice from any alleged destruction of evidence.

     The second phase of the Hynix-Rambus trial — on patent infringement, validity and damages — began on March 15, 2006, and was submitted to the jury on April 13, 2006. On April 24, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus on all issues and awarded Rambus a total of approximately $307 million in damages, excluding prejudgment interest. Specifically, the jury found that each of the ten selected patent claims was supported by the written description, and was not anticipated or rendered obvious by prior art; therefore, none of the patent claims was invalid. The jury also found that Hynix infringed all eight of the patent claims for which the jury was asked to determine infringement; the court had previously determined on summary judgment that Hynix infringed the other two claims at issue in the trial. On July 14, 2006, the court granted Hynix’s motion for a new trial on the issue of damages unless Rambus agreed to a reduction of the total jury award to approximately $134 million. The court found that the record supported a maximum royalty rate of 1% for SDR SDRAM and 4.25% for DDR SDRAM, which the court applied to the stipulated U.S. sales of infringing Hynix products through December 31, 2005. On July 27, 2006, Rambus elected remittitur of the jury’s award to approximately $134 million. On August 30, 2006, the court awarded Rambus prejudgment interest for the period June 23, 2000 through December 31, 2005. Hynix filed a motion on July 7, 2008 to reduce the amount of remitted damages and any supplemental damages that the court may award, as well as to limit the products that could be affected by any injunction that the court may grant, on the grounds of patent exhaustion. Following a hearing on August 29, 2008, the court denied Hynix’s motion. In separate orders issued December 2, 2008, January 16, 2009, and January 27, 2009, the court denied Hynix’s post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and new trial on infringement and validity.

     On June 24, 2008, the court heard oral argument on Rambus’ motion to supplement the damages award and for equitable relief related to Hynix’s infringement of Rambus patents. On February 23, 2009, the court issued an order (1) granting Rambus’ motion for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest for the period after December 31, 2005, at the same rates ordered for the prior period; (2) denying Rambus’ motion for an injunction; and (3) ordering the parties to begin negotiations regarding the terms of a compulsory license regarding Hynix’s continued manufacture, use, and sale of infringing devices.

     The third phase of the Hynix-Rambus trial involved Hynix’s affirmative JEDEC-related antitrust and fraud allegations against Rambus. On April 24, 2007, the court ordered a coordinated trial of certain common JEDEC-related claims alleged by the manufacturer parties (i.e., Hynix, Micron, Nanya and Samsung) and defenses asserted by Rambus in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, and three other cases pending before the same court (Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW, each described in further detail below). On December 14, 2007, the court excused Samsung from the coordinated trial based on Samsung’s agreement to certain conditions, including trial of its claims against Rambus by the court within six months following the conclusion of the coordinated trial. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. Specifically, the jury found that Hynix, Micron, and Nanya

failed to meet their burden of proving that: (1) Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct; (2) Rambus made important representations that it did not have any intellectual property pertaining to the work of JEDEC and intended or reasonably expected that the representations would be heard by or repeated to others including Hynix, Micron or Nanya; (3) Rambus uttered deceptive half-truths about its intellectual property coverage or potential coverage of products compliant with synchronous DRAM standards then being considered by JEDEC by disclosing some facts but failing to disclose other important facts; or (4) JEDEC members shared a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard. Hynix, Micron, and Nanya filed motions for a new trial and for judgment on certain of their equitable claims and defenses. A hearing on those motions was held on May 1, 2008. A further hearing on the equitable claims and defenses was held on May 27, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the court issued an order denying Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s motions for new trial.

     On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial. The court concluded (among other things) that (1) Rambus did not have an obligation to disclose pending or anticipated patent applications and had sound reasons for not doing so; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that JEDEC members did not share a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard; (3) the written JEDEC disclosure policies did not clearly require members to disclose information about patent applications and the intent to file patent applications in the future; (4) there was no clearly understood or legally enforceable agreement of JEDEC members to disclose information about patent applications or the intent to seek patents relevant to standards being discussed at JEDEC; (5) during the time Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, Rambus did not have any patent application pending that covered a JEDEC standard, and none of the patents in suit was applied for until well after Rambus resigned from JEDEC; (6) Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC did not constitute an estoppel or waiver of its rights to enforce its patents; (7) Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to carry their burden to prove their asserted waiver and estoppel defenses not directly based on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC; (8) the evidence did not support a finding of any material misrepresentation, half truths or fraudulent concealment by Rambus related to JEDEC upon which Nanya relied; (9) the manufacturers failed to establish that Rambus violated unfair competition law by its conduct before JEDEC; (10) the evidence related to Rambus’s patent prosecution did not establish that Rambus unduly delayed in prosecuting the claims in suit; (11) Rambus did not unreasonably delay bringing its patent infringement claims; and (12) there is no basis for any unclean hands defense or unenforceability claim arising from Rambus’s conduct.

     On March 10, 2009, the court entered final judgment against Hynix in the amount of approximately $397 million as follows: approximately $134 million for infringement through December 31, 2005; approximately $215 million for infringement from January 1, 2006 through January 31, 2009; and approximately $48 million in pre-judgment interest. Post-judgment interest is accruing at the statutory rate. In addition, the judgment orders Hynix to pay Rambus royalties on net sales for U.S. infringement after January 31, 2009 and before April 18, 2010 of 1% for SDR SDRAM and 4.25% for DDR DDR2, DDR3, GDDR, GDDR2 and GDDR3 SDRAM memory devices. On April 9, 2009, Rambus submitted its cost bill in the amount of approximately $0.85 million. On March 24, 2009, Hynix filed a motion under Rule 62 seeking relief from the requirement that it post a supersedeas bond in the full amount of the final judgment in order to stay its execution pending an appeal. Rambus filed a brief opposing Hynix’s motion on April 10, 2009. A hearing on Hynix’s motion was heard on May 8, 2009. On May 14, 2009, the court granted Hynix’s motion in part and ordered that execution of the judgment be stayed on the condition that, within 45 days, Hynix post a supersedeas bond in the amount of $250 million and provide Rambus with documentation establishing a lien in Rambus’s favor on property owned by Hynix in Korea in the amount of the judgment not covered by the supersedeas bond. The court also ordered that Hynix pay the ongoing royalties set forth in the final judgment into an escrow account. Hynix posted the $250 million supersedeas bond on June 26, 2009. On September 17, 2010, the court granted Rambus’s motion for reconsideration of the portion of its order allowing Hynix to establish a lien in lieu of posting a bond for a portion of the judgment; on October 18, 2010, Hynix posted a bond in the full amount of the judgment plus accrued post-judgment interest in the total amount of $401.2 million. Hynix has deposited amounts into the escrow account pursuant to the court’s order regarding ongoing royalties. The escrowed funds will be released only upon agreement of the parties or further court order in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in the escrow arrangement. On March 8, 2010, the court awarded costs to Rambus in the amount of approximately $0.76 million. That amount plus accrued interest has been deposited by Hynix into the same escrow account into which ongoing royalties have been deposited.

     On April 6, 2009, Hynix filed its notice of appeal. On April 17, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of cross appeal. Hynix filed a motion to dismiss Rambus’ cross-appeal on July 1, 2009, and Rambus filed an opposition to Hynix’s motion on July 15, 2009. On July 23, 2009, Rambus and Hynix filed a joint motion to assign this appeal to the same panel hearing the appeal in the Micron Delaware case (discussed below) and to coordinate oral arguments of the two appeals. On August 17, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an order 1) granting the joint motion to coordinate oral arguments of the two appeals; and 2) denying Hynix’s motion to dismiss Rambus’s cross-appeal. On August 31, 2009, Hynix filed its opening brief. On December 7, 2009, Rambus

filed its answering and opening cross-appeal brief. Hynix’s reply and answering brief was filed February 16, 2010, and Rambus’s reply was filed February 23, 2010. Oral argument was held on April 5, 2010. On June 9, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued an order that it would rehear oral argument in the coordinated appeals on the basis of the parties’ original briefs. Oral argument was reheard by an expanded panel of five judges on October 6, 2010. No decision has issued to date.

Micron Litigation

U.S District Court in Delaware: Case No. 00-792-SLR

     On August 28, 2000, Micron filed suit against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for Delaware. The suit asserts violations of federal antitrust laws, deceptive trade practices, breach of contract, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC. Micron seeks a declaration of monopolization by Rambus, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, a declaratory judgment that eight Rambus patents are invalid and not infringed, and the award to Micron of a royalty-free license to the Rambus patents. Rambus has filed an answer and counterclaims disputing Micron’s claims and asserting infringement by Micron of 12 U.S. patents.

     This case has been divided into three phases in the same general order as in the Hynix 00-20905 action: (1) unclean hands; (2) patent infringement; and (3) antitrust, equitable estoppel, and other JEDEC-related issues. A bench trial on Micron’s unclean hands defense began on November 8, 2007 and concluded on November 15, 2007. The court ordered post-trial briefing on the issue of when Rambus became obligated to preserve documents because it anticipated litigation. A hearing on that issue was held on May 20, 2008. The court ordered further post-trial briefing on the remaining issues from the unclean hands trial, and a hearing on those issues was held on September 19, 2008.

     On January 9, 2009, the court issued an opinion in which it determined that Rambus had engaged in spoliation of evidence by failing to suspend general implementation of a document retention policy after the point at which the court determined that Rambus should have known litigation was reasonably foreseeable. The court issued an accompanying order declaring the 12 patents in suit unenforceable against Micron (the “Delaware Order”). On February 9, 2009, the court stayed all other proceedings pending appeal of the Delaware Order. On February 10, 2009, judgment was entered against Rambus and in favor of Micron on Rambus’ patent infringement claims and Micron’s corresponding claims for declaratory relief. On March 11, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of appeal. Rambus filed its opening brief on July 2, 2009. On July 24, 2009, Rambus filed a motion to assign this appeal to the same panel hearing the appeal in the Hynix case (discussed above) and to coordinate oral arguments of the two appeals. On August 8, 2009, Micron filed an opposition to Rambus’s motion to coordinate. On August 17, 2009, the Federal Circuit issued an order granting Rambus’s motion to coordinate oral arguments of the two appeals. On August 28, 2009, Micron filed its answering brief. On October 14, 2009, Rambus filed its reply brief. Oral argument was held on April 5, 2010. On June 9, 2010, the Federal Circuit issued an order that it would rehear oral argument in the coordinated appeals on the basis of the parties’ original briefs. Oral argument was reheard by an expanded panel of five judges on October 6, 2010. No decision has issued to date.

U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California

     On January 13, 2006, Rambus filed suit against Micron in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Rambus alleges that 14 Rambus patents are infringed by Micron’s DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3, and other advanced memory products. Rambus seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief. Micron has denied Rambus’ allegations and is alleging counterclaims for violations of federal antitrust laws, unfair trade practices, equitable estoppel, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC. Micron seeks a declaration of monopolization by Rambus, injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and a declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement of the 14 patents in suit.

     As explained above, the court ordered a coordinated trial (without Samsung) of certain common JEDEC-related claims and defenses asserted in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. Specifically, the jury found that Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to meet their burden of proving that: (1) Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct; (2) Rambus made important representations that it did not have any intellectual property pertaining to the work of JEDEC and intended or reasonably expected that the representations would be heard by or repeated to others including Hynix, Micron or Nanya; (3) Rambus uttered deceptive half-truths about its intellectual property

coverage or potential coverage of products compliant with synchronous DRAM standards then being considered by JEDEC by disclosing some facts but failing to disclose other important facts; or (4) JEDEC members shared a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard. Hynix, Micron, and Nanya filed motions for a new trial and for judgment on certain of their equitable claims and defenses. A hearing on those motions was held on May 1, 2008. A further hearing on the equitable claims and defenses was held on May 27, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the court issued an order denying Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s motions for new trial.

     On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial. The court concluded (among other things) that (1) Rambus did not have an obligation to disclose pending or anticipated patent applications and had sound reasons for not doing so; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that JEDEC members did not share a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard; (3) the written JEDEC disclosure policies did not clearly require members to disclose information about patent applications and the intent to file patent applications in the future; (4) there was no clearly understood or legally enforceable agreement of JEDEC members to disclose information about patent applications or the intent to seek patents relevant to standards being discussed at JEDEC; (5) during the time Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, Rambus did not have any patent application pending that covered a JEDEC standard, and none of the patents in suit was applied for until well after Rambus resigned from JEDEC; (6) Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC did not constitute an estoppel or waiver of its rights to enforce its patents; (7) Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to carry their burden to prove their asserted waiver and estoppel defenses not directly based on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC; (8) the evidence did not support a finding of any material misrepresentation, half truths or fraudulent concealment by Rambus related to JEDEC upon which Nanya relied; (9) the manufacturers failed to establish that Rambus violated unfair competition law by its conduct before JEDEC; (10) the evidence related to Rambus’s patent prosecution did not establish that Rambus unduly delayed in prosecuting the claims in suit; (11) Rambus did not unreasonably delay bringing its patent infringement claims; and (12) there is no basis for any unclean hands defense or unenforceability claim arising from Rambus’s conduct.

     In these cases (except for the Hynix 00-20905 action), a hearing on claim construction and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity was held on June 4 and 5, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the court issued its claim construction order relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in suit and denied Hynix, Micron, Nanya, and Samsung’s (collectively, the “Manufacturers”) motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on their proposed claim construction. The court issued claim construction orders relating to the Ware patents in suit on July 25 and August 27, 2008, and denied the Manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims. On September 4, 2008, at the court’s direction, Rambus elected to proceed to trial on 12 patent claims, each from the Farmwald/Horowitz family. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against the Manufacturers under the Ware patents in suit (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897), and each party’s claims relating to those patents were dismissed with prejudice. On November 21, 2008, the court entered an order clarifying certain aspects of its July 10, 2008, claim construction order. On November 24, 2008, the court granted Rambus’ motion for summary judgment of direct infringement with respect to claim 16 of Rambus’ U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 by the Manufacturers’ DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 memory chip products (except for Nanya’s DDR3 memory chip products). In the same order, the court denied the remainder of Rambus’ motion for summary judgment of infringement.

     On January 19, 2009, Micron filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed an opposition to Micron’s motion on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court entered a stay of this action pending resolution of Rambus’ appeal of the Delaware Order. Trial on Rambus’ patent infringement claims is scheduled to begin on May 2, 2011.

European Patent Infringement Cases

     In 2001, Rambus filed suit against Micron in Mannheim, Germany, for infringement of European patent, EP 1 022 642. That suit has not been active. Two proceedings in Italy remain ongoing relating to Rambus’s claim that Micron is infringing European patent, EP 1 004 956, and Micron’s purported claim resulting from a seizure of evidence in Italy in 2000 carried out by Rambus pursuant to a court order.

DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 Litigation (“DDR2”)

U.S District Court in the Northern District of California

     On January 25, 2005, Rambus filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California court against Hynix, Infineon, Nanya, and Inotera. Infineon and Inotera were subsequently dismissed from this litigation and Samsung was added as a defendant. Rambus alleges that certain of its patents are infringed by certain of the defendants’ SDRAM, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 and other advanced memory products. Hynix, Samsung and Nanya have denied Rambus’ claims and asserted counterclaims against Rambus for, among other things, violations of federal antitrust laws, unfair trade practices, equitable estoppel, and fraud in connection with Rambus’ participation in JEDEC.

     As explained above, the court ordered a coordinated trial of certain common JEDEC-related claims and defenses asserted in Hynix v Rambus, Case No. C 00-20905 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 05-02298 RMW, Rambus Inc. v. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., et al., Case No. 05-00334, and Rambus Inc. v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. C 06-00244 RMW. The court subsequently excused Samsung from the coordinated trial on December 14, 2007, based on Samsung’s agreement to certain conditions, including trial of its claims against Rambus within six months following the conclusion of the coordinated trial. The coordinated trial involving Rambus, Hynix, Micron and Nanya began on January 29, 2008, and was submitted to the jury on March 25, 2008. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Rambus and against Hynix, Micron, and Nanya on each of their claims. Specifically, the jury found that Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to meet their burden of proving that: (1) Rambus engaged in anticompetitive conduct; (2) Rambus made important representations that it did not have any intellectual property pertaining to the work of JEDEC and intended or reasonably expected that the representations would be heard by or repeated to others including Hynix, Micron or Nanya; (3) Rambus uttered deceptive half- truths about its intellectual property coverage or potential coverage of products compliant with synchronous DRAM standards then being considered by JEDEC by disclosing some facts but failing to disclose other important facts; or (4) JEDEC members shared a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard. Hynix, Micron, and Nanya filed motions for a new trial and for judgment on certain of their equitable claims and defenses. A hearing on those motions was held on May 1, 2008. A further hearing on the equitable claims and defenses was held on May 27, 2008. On July 24, 2008, the court issued an order denying Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s motions for new trial.

     On March 3, 2009, the court issued an order rejecting Hynix, Micron, and Nanya’s equitable claims and defenses that had been tried during the coordinated trial. The court concluded (among other things) that (1) Rambus did not have an obligation to disclose pending or anticipated patent applications and had sound reasons for not doing so; (2) the evidence supported the jury’s finding that JEDEC members did not share a clearly defined expectation that members would disclose relevant knowledge they had about patent applications or the intent to file patent applications on technology being considered for adoption as a JEDEC standard; (3) the written JEDEC disclosure policies did not clearly require members to disclose information about patent applications and the intent to file patent applications in the future; (4) there was no clearly understood or legally enforceable agreement of JEDEC members to disclose information about patent applications or the intent to seek patents relevant to standards being discussed at JEDEC; (5) during the time Rambus attended JEDEC meetings, Rambus did not have any patent application pending that covered a JEDEC standard, and none of the patents in suit was applied for until well after Rambus resigned from JEDEC; (6) Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC did not constitute an estoppel or waiver of its rights to enforce its patents; (7) Hynix, Micron, and Nanya failed to carry their burden to prove their asserted waiver and estoppel defenses not directly based on Rambus’s conduct at JEDEC; (8) the evidence did not support a finding of any material misrepresentation, half truths or fraudulent concealment by Rambus related to JEDEC upon which Nanya relied; (9) the manufacturers failed to establish that Rambus violated unfair competition law by its conduct before JEDEC; (10) the evidence related to Rambus’s patent prosecution did not establish that Rambus unduly delayed in prosecuting the claims in suit; (11) Rambus did not unreasonably delay bringing its patent infringement claims; and (12) there is no basis for any unclean hands defense or unenforceability claim arising from Rambus’s conduct.

     In these cases (except for the Hynix 00-20905 action), a hearing on claim construction and the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment on infringement and validity was held on June 4 and 5, 2008. On July 10, 2008, the court issued its claim construction order relating to the Farmwald/Horowitz patents in suit and denied the Manufacturers’ motions for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity based on their proposed claim construction. The court issued claim construction orders relating to the Ware patents in suit on July 25 and August 27, 2008, and denied the Manufacturers’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of certain claims. On September 4, 2008, at the court’s direction, Rambus elected to proceed to trial on 12 patent claims, each from the Farmwald/Horowitz family. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against the Manufacturers under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897, and each party’s claims relating to those patents were dismissed with prejudice. On November 21, 2008, the court entered an order clarifying certain aspects of its July 10, 2008, claim construction order. On November 24, 2008, the court granted Rambus’s motion for summary judgment of direct infringement with respect to claim 16 of Rambus’s U.S. Patent No. 6,266,285 by the Manufacturers’ DDR2, DDR3, gDDR2, GDDR3, GDDR4 memory chip products (except for Nanya’s DDR3 memory chip products). In the same order, the court denied the remainder of Rambus’s motion for summary judgment of infringement.

     On January 19, 2009, Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix filed motions for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed opposition briefs to these motions on January 26, 2009, and a hearing was held on January 30, 2009. On February 3, 2009, the court entered a stay of this action pending resolution of Rambus’ appeal of the Delaware Order. Trial on Rambus’ patent infringement claims is scheduled to begin on May 2, 2011.

     On January 19, 2010, Rambus and Samsung entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the parties released all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them and certain other potential claims. The Settlement Agreement is described in further detail in Note 3, “Settlement Agreement with Samsung.” A stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice of claims between Rambus and Samsung was entered on February 11, 2010.

European Commission Competition Directorate-General

     On or about April 22, 2003, Rambus was notified by the European Commission Competition Directorate-General (Directorate) (the “European Commission”) that it had received complaints from Infineon and Hynix. Rambus answered the ensuing requests for information prompted by those complaints on June 16, 2003. Rambus obtained a copy of Infineon’s complaint to the European Commission in late July 2003, and on October 8, 2003, at the request of the European Commission, filed its response. The European Commission sent Rambus a further request for information on December 22, 2006, which Rambus answered on January 26, 2007. On August 1, 2007, Rambus received a statement of objections from the European Commission. The statement of objections alleges that through Rambus’ participation in the JEDEC standards setting organization and subsequent conduct, Rambus violated European Union competition law. Rambus filed a response to the statement of objections on October 31, 2007, and a hearing was held on December 4 and 5, 2007.

     On December 9, 2009, the European Commission announced that it has reached a final settlement with Rambus to resolve the pending case. Under the terms of the settlement, the Commission made no finding of liability, and no fine will be assessed against Rambus. Rambus commits to offer licenses with maximum royalty rates for certain memory types and memory controllers on a forward-going basis (the “Commitment”). The Commitment is expressly made without any admission by Rambus of the allegations asserted against it. The Commitment also does not resolve any existing claims of infringement prior to the signing of any license with a prospective licensee, nor does it release or excuse any of the prospective licensees from damages or royalty obligations through the date of signing a license. Rambus offers licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% for DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 SDRAM memory types. Qualified licensees will enjoy a royalty holiday for SDR and DDR DRAM devices, subject to compliance with the terms of the license. In addition, Rambus offers licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% per unit for SDR memory controllers through April 2010, dropping to 1.0% thereafter, and royalty rates of 2.65% per unit for DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 memory controllers through April 2010, then dropping to 2.0%. The Commitment to license at the above rates remains valid for a period of five years from December 9, 2009. All royalty rates are applicable to future shipments only and do not affect liability, if any, for damages or royalties that accrued up to the time of the license grant.

     On March 25, 2010, Hynix filed appeals with the General Court of the European Union purporting to challenge the settlement and the European Commission’s rejection of Hynix’s complaint. No decision has issued to date on Hynix’s appeal.

Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco

     On May 5, 2004, Rambus filed a lawsuit against Micron, Hynix, Infineon and Siemens in San Francisco Superior Court (the “San Francisco court”) seeking damages for conspiring to fix prices (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq.), conspiring to monopolize under the Cartwright Act (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 16720 et seq.), intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, and unfair competition (California Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq.). This lawsuit alleges that there were concerted efforts beginning in the 1990s to deter innovation in the DRAM market and to boycott Rambus and/or deter market acceptance of Rambus’ RDRAM product. Subsequently, Infineon and Siemens were dismissed from this action (as a result of a settlement with Infineon) and three Samsung-related entities were added as defendants.

     On January 19, 2010, Rambus and Samsung entered into a Settlement Agreement pursuant to which the parties released all claims against each other with respect to all outstanding litigation between them and certain other potential claims. The Settlement Agreement is described in further detail in Note 3, “Settlement Agreement with Samsung.” A stipulation of dismissal with prejudice of claims between Rambus and Samsung was filed on February 4, 2010.

     Trial had been scheduled to begin on January 11, 2010. On January 13 and 21, 2010, a hearing was held on Micron’s emergency request for a two-month continuance. At the conclusion of the hearing, the request for continuance was granted. Trial is scheduled to commence on a date to be determined.

Stock Option Investigation Related Claims

     On May 30, 2006, the Audit Committee commenced an internal investigation of the timing of past stock option grants and related accounting issues.

     On May 31, 2006, the first of three shareholder derivative actions was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Rambus (as a nominal defendant) and certain current and former executives and board members. These actions have been consolidated for all purposes under the caption, In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation, Master File No. C-06-3513-JF (N.D. Cal.), and Howard Chu and Gaetano Ruggieri were appointed lead plaintiffs. The consolidated complaint, as amended, alleges violations of certain federal and state securities laws as well as other state law causes of action. The complaint seeks disgorgement and damages in an unspecified amount, unspecified equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

     On August 22, 2006, another shareholder derivative action was filed in Delaware Chancery Court against Rambus (as a nominal defendant) and certain current and former executives and board members (Bell v. Tate et al., 2366-N (Del. Chancery)). On May 16, 2008, this case was dismissed pursuant to a notice filed by the plaintiff.

     On August 30, 2007, another shareholder derivative action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Rambus (as a nominal defendant) and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Francl v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP et al., No. 07-Civ. 7650 (GBD)). On November 21, 2007, the New York court granted PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP’s motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California.

     On October 18, 2006, the Board of Directors formed a Special Litigation Committee (the “SLC”) to evaluate potential claims or other actions arising from the stock option granting activities. The Board of Directors appointed J. Thomas Bentley, Chairman of the Audit Committee, and Abraham Sofaer, a retired federal judge and Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee, both of whom joined the Rambus Board of Directors in 2005, to comprise the SLC.

     On August 24, 2007, the final written report setting forth the findings of the SLC was filed with the court. As set forth in its report, the SLC determined that all claims should be terminated and dismissed against the named defendants in In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation with the exception of claims against named defendant Ed Larsen, who served as Vice President, Human Resources from September 1996 until December 1999, and then Senior Vice President, Administration until July 2004. The SLC entered into settlement agreements with certain former officers of Rambus. The aggregate value of the settlements to Rambus exceeds $5.3 million in cash as well as substantial additional value to Rambus relating to the relinquishment of claims to over 2.7 million stock options. On October 5, 2007, Rambus filed a motion to terminate in accordance with the SLC’s recommendations. Subsequently, the parties settled In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation and Francl v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP et al., No. 07-Civ. 7650 (GBD). The settlement provided for a payment by Rambus of $2.0 million and dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all defendants, with the exception of claims against Ed Larsen, in these actions. The $2.0 million was accrued for during the quarter ended June 30, 2008 within accrued litigation expenses and paid in January 2009. A final approval hearing was held on January 16, 2009, and an order of final approval was entered on January 20, 2009.

     On July 17, 2006, the first of six class action lawsuits was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against Rambus and certain current and former executives and board members. These lawsuits were consolidated under the caption, In re Rambus Inc. Securities Litigation, C-06-4346-JF (N.D. Cal.). The settlement of this action was preliminarily approved by the court on March 5, 2008. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Rambus paid $18.3 million into a settlement fund on March 17, 2008. Some alleged class members requested exclusion from the settlement. A final fairness hearing was held on May 14, 2008. That same day the court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement agreement and entered judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims against all defendants in the consolidated class action litigation.

     On March 1, 2007, a pro se lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of California by two alleged Rambus shareholders against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Kelley et al. v. Rambus, Inc. et al. C-07-01238-JF (N.D. Cal.)). This action was consolidated with a substantially identical pro se lawsuit filed by another purported Rambus shareholder against the same parties. The consolidated complaint against Rambus alleges violations of federal and state securities laws, and state law claims for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Following several rounds of motions to dismiss, on

April 17, 2008, the court dismissed all claims with prejudice except for plaintiffs’ claims under sections 14(a) and 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 as to which leave to amend was granted. On June 2, 2008, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint containing substantially the same allegations as the prior complaint although limited to claims under sections 14(a) and 18(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Rambus’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint was heard on September 12, 2008. On December 9, 2008, the court granted Rambus’ motion and entered judgment in favor of Rambus. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on December 15, 2008. Plaintiffs’ filed their opening brief on April 13, 2009. Rambus opposed on May 29, 2009, and plaintiffs filed a reply brief on June 12, 2009. On June 16, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the judgment in favor of Rambus.

     On September 11, 2008, the same pro se plaintiffs filed a separate lawsuit in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Kelley et al. v. Rambus, Inc. et al., Case No. 1-08-CV-122444). The complaint alleges violations of certain California state securities statues as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation based on substantially the same underlying factual allegations contained in the pro se lawsuit filed in federal court. On October 4, 2010, the court ordered that the plaintiffs be permitted to file a second amended complaint. Rambus has informed the court that it will file a demurrer to plaintiffs’ second amended complaint on the ground that it is barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion, among other things.

     On August 25, 2008, an amended complaint was filed by certain individuals and entities in Santa Clara County Superior Court against Rambus, certain current and former executives and board members, and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (Steele et al. v. Rambus Inc. et al., Case No. 1-08-CV-113682). The amended complaint alleges violations of certain California state securities statues as well as fraud and negligent misrepresentation. On October 10, 2008, Rambus filed a demurrer to the amended complaint. A hearing was held on January 9, 2009. On January 12, 2009, the court sustained Rambus’ demurrer without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on February 13, 2009, containing the same causes of action as the previous complaint. On March 17, 2009, Rambus filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint. A hearing was held on May 22, 2009. On May 26, 2009, the court sustained in part and overruled in part Rambus’s demurrer. On June 5, 2009, Rambus filed an answer denying plaintiffs’ remaining allegations. Discovery is ongoing.

NVIDIA Litigation

U.S District Court in the Northern District of California

     On July 10, 2008, Rambus filed suit against NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that NVIDIA’s products with memory controllers for SDR, DDR, DDRx, GDDR, and GDDRy (where DDRx and GDDRy includes at least DDR2, DDR3 and GDDR3) technologies infringe 17 patents. On September 16, 2008, Rambus granted a covenant not to assert any claim of patent infringement against NVIDIA under U.S. Patent Nos. 6,493,789 and 6,496,897, accordingly 15 patents remain in suit. On December 30, 2008, the court granted NVIDIA’s motion to stay this case as to Rambus’ claims that NVIDIA’s products infringe nine patents that are also the subject of proceedings in front of the International Trade Commission (described below), and denied NVIDIA’s motion to stay the remainder of Rambus’ patent infringement claims. Certain limited discovery is proceeding. A case management conference is scheduled for January 28, 2011.

     On July 11, 2008, one day after Rambus filed suit, NVIDIA filed its own action against Rambus in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina alleging that Rambus committed antitrust violations of the Sherman Act; committed antitrust violations of North Carolina law; and engaged in unfair and deceptive practices in violation of North Carolina law. NVIDIA seeks injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. This case has been transferred and consolidated into Rambus’s patent infringement case. Rambus filed a motion to dismiss NVIDIA’s claims prior to transfer of the action to California, and no decision has issued to date.

International Trade Commission

     On November 6, 2008, Rambus filed a complaint with the U. S. International Trade Commission (the “ITC”) requesting the commencement of an investigation pertaining to NVIDIA products. The complaint seeks an exclusion order barring the importation, sale for importation, or sale after importation of products that infringe nine Rambus patents from the Ware and Barth families of patents. The accused products include NVIDIA products that incorporate DDR, DDR2, DDR3, LPDDR, GDDR, GDDR2, and GDDR3 memory controllers, including graphics processors, and media and communications processors. The complaint names NVIDIA as a proposed respondent, as well as companies whose products incorporate accused NVIDIA products and are imported into the United States. Additional respondents include: Asustek Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International, BFG Technologies,

Biostar Microtech and Biostar Microtech International Corp., Diablotek Inc., EVGA Corp., G.B.T. Inc. and Giga-Byte Technology Co., Hewlett-Packard, MSI Computer Corp. and Micro-Star International Co., Palit Multimedia Inc. and Palit Microsystems Ltd., Pine Technology Holdings, and Sparkle Computer Co.

     On December 4, 2008, the ITC instituted the investigation. A hearing on claim construction was held on March 24, 2009, and a claim construction order issued on June 22, 2009. On June 5, 2009, Rambus moved to withdraw from the investigation four of the asserted patents and certain claims of a fifth asserted patent in order to simplify the investigation, streamline the final hearing, and conserve Commission resources. A final hearing before the administrative law judge was held October 13-20, 2009, and the parties submitted two rounds of post-hearing briefs.

     On January 22, 2010, the administrative law judge issued a final initial determination holding that the importation of the accused NVIDIA products violates section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. § 1337 because they infringe seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents. The administrative law judge held that the accused NVIDIA products literally infringe all asserted claims of each asserted Barth and Ware patent, that they infringe three asserted claims under the doctrine of equivalents, that respondents contribute to and induce infringement of all asserted claims, and that the asserted patents are not unenforceable due to unclean hands or equitable estoppel. The administrative law judge held that the asserted Barth patents are not invalid for anticipation or obviousness and are not obvious for double patenting. The administrative law judge further held that, while the accused products infringed eight claims of the two asserted Ware patents and that those patents are not unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, no violation has occurred because the asserted Ware patents are invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. The administrative law judge recommended that the ITC issue (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of accused products by any respondent; and (2) a cease and desist order prohibiting domestic respondents from engaging in certain activities in the United States with respect to the accused products. On February 12, 2010, the parties’ filed petitions asking the full Commission to review certain aspects of the final initial determination.

     On March 25, 2010, the ITC determined to review certain obviousness findings regarding the Barth patents and certain obviousness and anticipation findings regarding the Ware patents. The parties have submitted briefing on these issues and on the issue of remedy and bonding. On May 24, 2010, the ITC extended the target date for completion of the investigation by two days to May 26, 2010. On May 26, 2010, the ITC requested further briefing on the impact of the license between Rambus and Samsung on the administrative law judge’s findings and conclusions, particularly on the issue of patent exhaustion. On June 7, 2010 and June 15, 2010, the parties filed briefs as requested by the ITC. On June 22, 2010, the ITC requested additional briefing to discuss the relevance and effect with respect to the issue of patent exhaustion of a decision issued on May 27, 2010, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case captioned Fujifilm Corp. v. Benun. On June 25, 2010, the parties filed briefs as requested by the ITC.

     On July 26, 2010, the ITC issued its final determination affirming the administrative law judge’s initial determination with certain modifications to provide further analysis of issues related to obviousness. The ITC found that respondents failed to demonstrate that Rambus’ patent rights are exhausted with respect to accused products that incorporate Samsung memory. The ITC issued (1) a limited exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation by any respondent of memory controller products and products incorporating a memory controller that infringe one or more of the seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents; and (2) a cease and desist order prohibiting respondents with commercially significant inventories of infringing products in the United States from importing, selling, marketing, advertising, distributing, offering for sale, transferring (except for exportation), and soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, memory controller products and products incorporating a memory controller that infringe one or more of the seventeen claims of three asserted Barth patents, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337. The ITC determined that the amount of the bond to permit importation during the sixty-day Presidential review period was 2.65 percent of the entered value of the subject imports. The ITC denied respondents’ request for stay and terminated the investigation. The parties have each filed notices of appeal with the Federal Circuit, but no party’s opening brief is yet due.

Potential Future Litigation

     In addition to the litigation described above, companies continue to adopt Rambus technologies into various products. Rambus has notified many of these companies of their use of Rambus technology and continues to evaluate how to proceed on these matters.

     There can be no assurance that any ongoing or future litigation will be successful. Rambus spends substantial company resources defending its intellectual property in litigation, which may continue for the foreseeable future given the multiple pending litigations. The outcomes of these litigations — as well as any delay in their resolution — could affect Rambus’ ability to license its intellectual property in the future.

     The Company records a contingent liability when it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount is reasonably estimable in accordance with accounting for contingencies.

15. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

     The fair value measurement statement defines fair value as the price that would be received from selling an asset or paid to transfer a liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. When determining fair value, the Company considers the principal or most advantageous market in which the Company would transact, and the Company considers assumptions that market participants would use when pricing the asset or liability, such as inherent risk, transfer restrictions, and risk of non-performance.

     The Company’s financial instruments are measured and recorded at fair value, except for cost method investments and convertible notes. The Company’s non-financial assets, such as goodwill, intangible assets, and property and equipment, are measured at fair value when there is an indicator of impairment and recorded at fair value only when an impairment charge is recognized.

Fair Value Hierarchy

     The fair value measurement statement requires disclosure that establishes a framework for measuring fair value and expands disclosure about fair value measurements. The statement requires fair value measurement be classified and disclosed in one of the following three categories:

     Level 1: Unadjusted quoted prices in active markets that are accessible at the measurement date for identical, unrestricted assets or liabilities.

     The Company uses unadjusted quotes to determine fair value. The financial assets in Level 1 include money market funds.

     Level 2: Quoted prices in markets that are not active, or inputs which are observable, either directly or indirectly, for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

     The Company uses observable pricing inputs including benchmark yields, reported trades, and broker/dealer quotes. The financial assets in Level 2 include U.S. government bonds and notes, corporate notes, commercial paper and municipal bonds and notes.

     Level 3: Prices or valuation techniques that require inputs that are both significant to the fair value measurement and unobservable (i.e., supported by little or no market activity).

     The financial assets in Level 3 include a cost investment whose value is determined using inputs that are both unobservable and significant to the fair value measurements.

     The Company tests the pricing inputs by obtaining prices from two different sources for the same security on a sample of its portfolio. The Company has not adjusted the pricing inputs it has obtained. The following table presents the financial instruments that are carried at fair value and summarizes the valuation of our cash equivalents and marketable securities by the above pricing levels as of September 30, 2010 and December 31, 2009:

		As of September 30, 2010
						Quoted
						Market				Significant
						Prices in				Other				Significant
						Active				Observable				Unobservable
						Markets				Inputs				Inputs
		Total				(Level 1)				(Level 2)				(Level 3)
		(In thousands)
Money market funds		$	159,577			$	159,577			$	—			$	—
U.S. government bonds and notes			270,729				48,548				222,181				—
Corporate notes, bonds and commercial paper			44,515				—				44,515				—
Total available-for-sale securities		$	474,821			$	208,125			$	266,696			$	—