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 (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		94-3112828 (I.R.S. Employer 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 o 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 (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company o

     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 104,900,875 as of June 30, 2009.

 

 

RAMBUS INC.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

		PAGE
Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements			3
PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Item 1. Financial Statements:
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008			5
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008			6
Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008			7
Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements			8
Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			35
Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			44
Item 4. Controls and Procedures			45
PART II. OTHER INFORMATION			46
Item 1. Legal Proceedings			46
Item 1A. Risk Factors			46
Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds			62
Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities			62
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders			63
Item 5. Other Information			63
Item 6. Exhibits			63
Signature			64
Exhibit Index			65
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2

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;
	•		Resolution of the European Commission matters involving us;
	•		Protection of intellectual property;
	•		Deterioration of financial health of commercial counterparties and their ability to meet their obligations to us;
	•		Amounts owed under licensing agreements;
	•		Terms of our licenses;
	•		Indemnification and technical support obligations;
	•		Success in the markets of our or our licensees’ products;
	•		Research and development costs and improvements in technology;
	•		Sources, amounts and concentration of revenue, including royalties;
	•		Effective tax rates;
	•		Realization of deferred tax assets/release of deferred tax valuation allowance;
	•		Product development;
	•		Sources of competition;
	•		Pricing policies of our licensees;
	•		Success in renewing license agreements;
	•		Operating results;
	•		International licenses and operations, including our design facility in Bangalore, India;
	•		Methods, estimates and judgments in accounting policies;
	•		Growth in our business;
	•		Acquisitions, mergers or strategic transactions;
	•		Ability to identify, attract, motivate and retain qualified personnel;
	•		Trading price of our Common Stock;
	•		Internal control environment;
	•		Corporate governance;

	•		Accounting, tax, regulatory, legal and other outcomes and effects of the stock option investigation;
	•		Consequences of the lawsuits related to the stock option investigation;
	•		The level and terms of our outstanding debt;
	•		Engineering, marketing and general and administration expenses;
	•		Contract revenue;
	•		Interest and other income, net;
	•		Adoption of new accounting pronouncements;
	•		Likelihood of paying dividends;
	•		Effects of changes in the economy and credit market on our industry and business; and
	•		Restructuring activities.

     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.

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Unaudited)

		June 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008
		(In thousands, except shares
		and par value)
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents		$	317,986			$	116,241
Marketable securities			162,400				229,612
Accounts receivable			1,550				1,503
Prepaids and other current assets			8,534				8,486
Deferred taxes			919				88
Total current assets			491,389				355,930
Restricted cash			632				632
Deferred taxes, long-term			957				1,857
Intangible assets, net			7,268				7,244
Property and equipment, net			18,378				22,290
Goodwill			4,454				4,454
Other assets			5,745				4,963
Total assets		$	528,823			$	397,370
LIABILITIES
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable		$	10,932			$	6,374
Accrued salaries and benefits			7,358				9,859
Accrued litigation expenses			8,592				14,265
Income taxes payable			478				638
Other accrued liabilities			2,991				3,178
Convertible notes			130,646				—
Deferred revenue			396				1,787
Total current liabilities			161,393				36,101
Deferred revenue, non-current			20				90
Convertible notes			92,450				125,474
Long-term income taxes payable			1,880				1,953
Other long-term liabilities			486				811
Total liabilities			256,229				164,429
Commitments and contingencies
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Convertible preferred stock, $.001 par value:
Authorized: 5,000,000 shares
Issued and outstanding: no shares at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008			—				—
Common stock, $.001 par value:
Authorized: 500,000,000 shares
Issued and outstanding: 104,900,875 shares at June 30, 2009 and 103,803,006 shares at December 31, 2008			105				104
Additional paid-in capital			784,744				703,640
Accumulated deficit			(513,069	)			(471,672	)
Accumulated other comprehensive income			814				869
Total stockholders’ equity			272,594				232,941
Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity		$	528,823			$	397,370

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)

		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
		(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Revenue:
Royalties		$	24,759			$	32,288			$	50,928			$	65,381
Contract revenue			2,224				3,427				3,389				10,072
Total revenue			26,983				35,715				54,317				75,453
Costs and expenses:
Cost of contract revenue*			1,438				6,567				3,621				13,800
Research and development*			15,713				20,035				33,550				41,537
Marketing, general and administrative*			32,563				23,768				69,719				57,089
Costs (recovery) of restatement and related legal activities			(429	)			2,260				(14,068	)			3,172
Total costs and expenses			49,285				52,630				92,822				115,598
Operating loss			(22,302	)			(16,915	)			(38,505	)			(40,145	)
Interest and other income, net			1,173				2,908				2,613				7,503
Interest expense			(2,817	)			(2,944	)			(5,487	)			(5,832	)
Interest and other income (expense), net			(1,644	)			(36	)			(2,874	)			1,671
Loss before income taxes			(23,946	)			(16,951	)			(41,379	)			(38,474	)
Provision for income taxes			25				121,364				18				114,195
Net loss		$	(23,971	)		$	(138,315	)		$	(41,397	)		$	(152,669	)
Net loss per share:
Basic		$	(0.23	)		$	(1.32	)		$	(0.40	)		$	(1.46	)
Diluted		$	(0.23	)		$	(1.32	)		$	(0.40	)		$	(1.46	)
Weighted average shares used in per share calculation
Basic			104,675				104,804				104,536				104,743
Diluted			104,675				104,804				104,536				104,743
* Includes stock-based compensation:
Cost of contract revenue		$	233			$	1,365			$	623			$	3,283
Research and development		$	2,214			$	3,767			$	4,954			$	7,671
Marketing, general and administrative		$	5,403			$	3,821			$	10,692			$	8,528

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)

		Six Months Ended
		June 30,
		2009				2008
		(In thousands)
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss		$	(41,397	)		$	(152,669	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash used in operating activities:
Stock-based compensation			16,269				19,482
Depreciation			5,439				5,537
Impairment of investments			164				—
Amortization of intangible assets			1,526				2,713
Non-cash interest expense and amortization of convertible debt issuance costs			5,445				5,832
Deferred tax provision			69				113,854
Loss on disposal of property plant and equipment			—				10
Change in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable			(47	)			(264	)
Prepaids and other assets			360				(1,246	)
Accounts payable			4,050				(1,197	)
Accrued salaries and benefits and other accrued liabilities			(2,773	)			(2,965	)
Accrued litigation expenses			(5,673	)			(14,491	)
Income taxes payable			(233	)			87
Deferred revenue			(1,461	)			(232	)
Increase in restricted cash			—				(126	)
Net cash used in operating activities			(18,262	)			(25,675	)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Purchases of property and equipment			(1,510	)			(6,954	)
Acquisition of intangible assets			(1,550	)			(300	)
Purchases of marketable securities			(97,008	)			(246,479	)
Maturities of marketable securities			164,165				280,143
Proceeds from sale of marketable securities			—				24,996
Net cash provided by investing activities			64,097				51,406
Cash flows from financing activities:
Proceeds from issuance of convertible senior notes			150,000				—
Issuance costs related to the issuance of convertible senior notes			(3,750	)			—
Proceeds received from issuance of common stock under employee stock plans			9,660				12,781
Payments under installment payment arrangement			—				(1,250	)
Repurchase and retirement of common stock			—				(24,921	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities			155,910				(13,390	)
Effect of exchange rates on cash and cash equivalents			—				60
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents			201,745				12,401
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period			116,241				119,391
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period		$	317,986			$	131,792

See Notes to Unaudited Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

RAMBUS INC.

NOTES TO UNAUDITED CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

1. Basis of Presentation

     The accompanying unaudited condensed 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 condensed consolidated financial statements. Investments in entities with less than 20% ownership and in which Rambus 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 condensed 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 condensed 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 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 and the Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 22, 2009 to reflect changes to the Company’s accounting for convertible debt to retrospectively apply the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Staff Position (“FSP”) Accounting Principles Board (“APB”) 14-1, “Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement),” on previously issued financial statements.

     In accordance with the adoption of FSP APB 14-1 as of January 1, 2009 as noted above, the Company has changed its accounting for its zero coupon convertible senior notes due 2010 and has retrospectively adjusted the financial statements for the three years ended December 31, 2008. See Note 15 “Convertible Notes” for the impact of the adoption of FSP APB 14-1.

     Subsequent events have been disclosed through July 30, 2009.

     We have reclassified certain prior year balances to conform to the current year’s presentation in the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows. None of these reclassifications had an impact on reported net loss for any of the periods presented.

2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

   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 and has not experienced any material losses.

   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 income, net. Realized gains and losses are recorded on the specific identification method and are included in interest 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 other than temporary, a charge will be recognized in operations. In evaluating whether a loss on a debt security is other than temporary, 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 have been no other than temporary impairments recorded to date. The classification of funds between short-term and long-term is based on whether the securities are available for use in operations or other purposes.

   Fair Value of Financial Instruments

     The amounts reported for cash equivalents, marketable securities, accounts receivable, unbilled receivables, accounts payable, and accrued liabilities are considered to approximate fair values based upon comparable market information available at the respective balance sheet dates. The Company adopted Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements”, effective January 1, 2008 for financial assets and liabilities measured on a recurring basis. SFAS No. 157 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 SFAS No. 157 on the Company’s marketable securities, see Note 14, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments.” Additionally, the Company has adopted SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities — Including an amendment of FASB Statement No. 115”, effective January 1, 2008. The Company has not elected the fair value option for financial instruments not already carried at fair value.

   Recent Accounting Pronouncements

     In May 2009, the FASB issued SFAS No. 165, “Subsequent Events”, which established general standards of accounting for and disclosure of events that occur after the balance sheet date but before financial statements are issued or are available to be issued. This standard required the Company to disclose the date through which the Company has evaluated subsequent events and the basis for the date. This standard was effective for interim periods which ended after June 15, 2009. See Note 1, “Basis of Presentation,” for disclosure of the date to which subsequent events are disclosed and Note 16, “Subsequent Events,” for disclosure of subsequent events.

     In April 2009, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 107-1 (“FSP FAS 107-1”) and APB 28-1, which amended FASB Statement No. 107, Disclosures about Fair Value of Financial Instruments and APB Opinion No. 28, Interim Financial Reporting, which required disclosures about the fair value of financial instruments for interim reporting periods. FSP FAS 107-1 and APB 28-1 was effective for interim reporting periods which ended after June 15, 2009. These new pronouncements have been incorporated into the disclosure related to the fair value of financial instruments as discussed in Note 14, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments.”

     In April 2009, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 157-4 (“FSP FAS 157-4”), which provided additional guidance in accordance with FASB No. 157, Fair Value Measurements, when the volume and level of activity for the asset or liability has significantly decreased. FSP FAS 157-4 was effective for interim and annual reporting periods which ended after June 15, 2009. The adoption of this staff position did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements. This new pronouncement has been incorporated into the disclosure related to the fair value of financial instruments as discussed in Note 14, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments.”

     In April 2009, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position No. 115-2 (“FSP FAS 115-2”) and FASB Staff Position No. 124-2 (“FSP FAS 124-2”), which amended the other-than-temporary impairment guidance for debt and equity securities. FSP FAS 115-2 and FSP FAS 124-2 were effective for interim and annual reporting periods which ended after June 15, 2009. The adoption of these staff positions did not have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements and are more fully disclosed in Note 6, “Marketable Securities.”

     In February 2008, the FASB issued FASB Staff Position 157-1, “Application of FASB Statement No. 157 to FASB Statement No. 13 and Other Accounting Pronouncements That Address Fair Value Measurements for Purposes of Lease Classification or Measurement under Statement 13” (“FSP 157-1”) and FSP 157-2, “Effective Date of FASB Statement No. 157”. FSP 157-1 amended SFAS No. 157 to remove certain leasing transactions from its scope. FSP 157-2 delayed the effective date to January 1, 2009 of SFAS No. 157 for all non-financial assets and non-financial liabilities, except for items that are recognized or disclosed at fair value in the financial statements on a recurring basis. These nonfinancial items include assets and liabilities such as reporting units measured at fair value in a goodwill impairment test and nonfinancial assets acquired and liabilities assumed in a business combination. The provisions of SFAS No. 157 were adopted by the Company, as it applied to its financial instruments, effective beginning January 1, 2008 and FSP 157-2, as it applies to nonfinancial investments, effective beginning January 1, 2009. There may be an impact from the adoption of FSP 157-2 in the second half of 2009 when the Company performs its annual impairment test. The impact of adoption of SFAS No. 157 is discussed in Note 14, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments.”

     Rambus recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, Rambus 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, Rambus 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.

     Rambus’ 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 Rambus’ chip interface products 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 Rambus’ patent and technology licenses. Rambus 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. Rambus does not pay commissions to the reseller for these arrangements.

     Many of Rambus’ 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

     Rambus recognizes royalty revenue upon notification by its licensees and when deemed collectible. The terms of the royalty agreements generally either require licensees to give Rambus 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. Rambus has two types of royalty revenue: (1) patent license royalties and (2) technology license royalties.

     Patent licenses. Rambus 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 Rambus’ patent portfolio. Rambus generally recognizes revenue from these arrangements as amounts become due. The contractual terms of the agreements generally provide for payments over an extended period of time.

     Technology licenses. Rambus develops proprietary and industry-standard chip interface products, such as RDRAM and XDR that Rambus 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. Rambus recognizes revenue from these arrangements upon notification from the licensee of the royalties earned and when collectability is deemed reasonably assured.

Contract Revenue

     Rambus generally recognizes revenue using percentage of completion for development contracts related to licenses of its interface solutions, such as XDR and FlexIO that involve significant engineering and integration services. For all license and service agreements accounted for using the percentage-of-completion method, Rambus determines progress to completion using input measures based upon contract costs incurred. Part of these contract fees may be due upon the achievement of certain milestones, such as provision of certain deliverables by Rambus or production of chips by the licensee. The remaining fees may be due on pre-determined dates and include significant 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 Rambus 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 were 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 were longer than the original assumptions, the contract fees will be recognized over a longer period. As of June 30, 2009, we have accrued a liability of approximately $0.2 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 Rambus’ 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.

     Rambus also recognizes revenue in accordance with SOP 97-2, SOP 98-4 and SOP 98-9 for development contracts related to licenses of its chip interface products that involve non-essential engineering services and post contract support (“PCS”). These SOPs 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. Rambus’ 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, as required by SOP 97-2, after Rambus delivers the product, if the only undelivered element is PCS, Rambus will recognize all revenue ratably over either the contractual PCS period or the period during which PCS is expected to be provided. Rambus reviews assumptions regarding the PCS periods on a regular basis. If Rambus 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.

4. Comprehensive Loss

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

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

		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
(In thousands)		2009				2008				2009				2008
Net loss		$	(23,971	)		$	(138,315	)		$	(41,397	)		$	(152,669	)
Other comprehensive income:
Foreign currency translation adjustments, net of tax			—				(85	)			—				60
Unrealized gain (loss) on marketable securities, net of tax			482				(1,208	)			(55	)			(753	)
Other comprehensive income (loss)			482				(1,293	)			(55	)			(693	)
Total comprehensive loss		$	(23,489	)		$	(139,608	)		$	(41,452	)		$	(153,362	)

     As a result of providing a full valuation allowance of the net deferred tax assets in the U.S., the Company reversed $0.4 million of unrealized gain (loss) previously recorded in other comprehensive income (loss) during the six months ended June 30, 2008.

5. Equity Incentive Plans and Stock-Based Compensation

   Stock Option Plans

     As of June 30, 2009, 7,660,930 shares of the 14,900,000 shares approved under the 2006 Plan remained available for grant which includes an increase of 6,500,000 shares approved by stockholders on April 30, 2009. The 2006 Plan is now Rambus’ only plan for providing stock-based incentive compensation to eligible employees, executive officers and 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, 2008			2,556,984
Increase in shares approved for issuance			6,500,000
Stock options granted			(1,383,613	)
Stock options forfeited			1,555,258
Stock options expired under former plans			(1,336,837	)
Nonvested equity stock and stock units granted (1)			(269,862	)
Nonvested equity stock and stock units forfeited (1)			39,000
Total available for grant as of June 30, 2009			7,660,930

General Stock Option Information

     The following table summarizes stock option activity under the 1997, 1999 and 2006 Plans for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and information regarding stock options outstanding, exercisable, and vested and expected to vest as of June 30, 2009.

		Options Outstanding
										Weighted
						Weighted				Average
						Average				Remaining				Aggregate
		Number of				Exercise Price				Contractual				Intrinsic
		Shares				Per Share				Term				Value
		(Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
Outstanding as of December 31, 2008			16,573,739			$	21.19
Options granted			1,383,613				8.68
Options exercised			(794,875	)			8.98
Options forfeited			(1,555,258	)			24.77
Outstanding as of June 30, 2009			15,607,219				20.35				5.55			$	31,997
Vested or expected to vest at June 30, 2009			14,430,047				21.21				5.58				23,404
Options exercisable at June 30, 2009			9,944,198				22.87				4.53				15,314

     The aggregate intrinsic value in the table above represents the total pre-tax intrinsic value for in-the-money options at June 30, 2009, based on the $15.47 closing stock price of Rambus’ Common Stock on June 30, 2009 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 June 30, 2009 was 5,065,438 and 2,749,453, respectively.

     As of June 30, 2009, there was $46.4 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 3.0 years. The total fair value of shares vested as of June 30, 2009 was $191.0 million.

Employee Stock Purchase Plans

     Under the 2006 Employee Stock Purchase Plan (“ESPP”), the Company issued 254,748 shares at a price of $8.06 per share during the six months ended June 30, 2009. The Company issued 146,633 shares at a price of $16.77 per share during the six months ended June 30, 2008. As of June 30, 2009, 1,010,323 shares under the 2006 ESPP remained available for issuance. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company recorded compensation expense related to the ESPP of $0.5 million and $1.0 million, respectively. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, the Company recorded compensation expense related to the ESPP of $0.4 million and $1.0 million, respectively. As of June 30, 2009, there was $0.7 million of total unrecognized compensation cost related to stock-based compensation arrangements granted under the ESPP. That cost is expected to be recognized over four months.

Stock-Based Compensation

Stock Options

     For the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, 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.

     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, Rambus granted 33,844 and 1,383,613 stock options, respectively, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $0.3 million and $8.9 million, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation related to stock options of $6.0 million and $12.6 million, respectively.

     During the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, Rambus granted 91,930 and 1,763,890 stock options, respectively, with an estimated total grant-date fair value of $1.3 million and $20.1 million, respectively. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation related to stock options of $8.1 million and $17.3 million, respectively.

     The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $0.9 million and $5.0 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. The total intrinsic value of options exercised was $4.7 million and $10.2 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, 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 six months ended June 30, 2009, proceeds from employee stock option exercises totaled approximately $7.1 million.

     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 six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 calculated in accordance with SFAS No. 123(R), “Share-based Payment”.

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								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
Stock Option Plans
Expected stock price volatility			94	%			66	%			94-96	%			63-66	%
Risk free interest rate			2.1	%			3.0	%			1.8-2.1	%			3.0-3.1	%
Expected term (in years)			5.8				5.3				5.3 – 5.8				5.3
Weighted-average fair value of stock options granted		$	9.18			$	13.64			$	6.45			$	11.41

		Employee Stock Purchase Plan
		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
Employee Stock Purchase Plan
Expected stock price volatility			92	%			58	%			92	%			58	%
Risk free interest rate			0.3	%			1.7	%			0.3	%			1.7	%
Expected term (in years)			0.5				0.5				0.5				0.5
Weighted-average fair value of purchase rights granted under the purchase plan		$	4.97			$	7.41			$	4.97			$	7.41

Nonvested Equity Stock and Stock Units

     For the six months ended June 30, 2009, Rambus granted nonvested equity stock units to certain officers and employees, totaling 179,908 shares under the 2006 Plan. These awards have a service condition, generally a service period of four years. The nonvested equity stock units were valued at the date of grant giving them a fair value of approximately $1.5 million.

     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation expense of approximately $1.4 million and $2.7 million, respectively, related to all outstanding unvested equity stock grants. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, Rambus recorded stock-based compensation expense of approximately $0.4 million and $1.2 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 $10.5 million at June 30, 2009. This is expected to be recognized over a weighted average of 2.7 years.

						Weighted-
						Average
						Grant-Date
Nonvested Equity Stock and Stock Units		Shares				Fair Value
Nonvested at December 31, 2008			821,064			$	18.46
Granted			179,908				8.36
Vested			(81,000	)			22.18
Forfeited			(26,000	)			18.05
Nonvested at June 30, 2009			893,972			$	16.10

6. Marketable Securities

     Rambus invests its excess cash 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. During the three months ended June 30, 2009, the Company issued $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of 5% convertible senior notes due June 15, 2014. See Note 15, “Convertible Notes”, for further discussion. The net cash received from the issuance of these convertible notes is included in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities as of June 30, 2009.

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

		June 30, 2009
										Gross				Gross				Weighted
										Unrealized				Unrealized				Rate of
(dollars in thousands)		Fair Value				Book Value				Gains				Losses				Return
Money Market Funds		$	311,452			$	311,452			$	—			$	—				0.19	%
Municipal Bonds and Notes			1,011				1,000				11				—				3.85	%
U.S. Government Bonds and Notes			116,514				115,691				823				—				2.10	%
Corporate Notes, Bonds, and Commercial Paper			47,873				47,604				284				(15	)			2.82	%
Total cash equivalents and marketable securities			476,850				475,747				1,118				(15	)
Cash			3,536				3,536				—				—
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		$	480,386			$	479,283			$	1,118			$	(15	)

		December 31, 2008
										Gross				Gross				Weighted
										Unrealized				Unrealized				Rate of
(dollars in thousands)		Fair Value				Book Value				Gains				Losses				Return
Money Market Funds		$	110,732			$	110,732			$	—			$	—				0.90	%
Municipal Bonds and Notes			1,000				1,000				—				—				3.85	%
U.S. Government Bonds and Notes			149,304				148,178				1,126				—				2.79	%
Corporate Notes, Bonds, and Commercial Paper			79,308				79,275				197				(164	)			3.06	%
Total cash equivalents and marketable securities			340,344				339,185				1,323				(164	)
Cash			5,509				5,509				—				—
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		$	345,853			$	344,694			$	1,323			$	(164	)

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

		June 30,				December 31,
(dollars in thousands)		2009				2008
Cash equivalents		$	314,450			$	110,732
Short term marketable securities			162,400				229,612
Total cash equivalent and marketable securities			476,850				340,344
Cash			3,536				5,509
Total cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities		$	480,386			$	345,853

     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 June 30, 2009, three of its corporate debt investments with a fair value of $7.8 million, which mature within approximately one year, have insignificant unrealized losses. The Company has considered all available evidence and determined that these unrealized losses are due to current market conditions. 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. 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 that 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 at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 are as follows:

		As of								Unrealized Gains, net
		June 30,				December 31,				June 30,				December 31,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
		(In thousands)
Contractual maturity:
Due within one year		$	388,552			$	223,458			$	692			$	345
Due from one year through three years			88,298				116,886				411				814
		$	476,850			$	340,344			$	1,103			$	1,159

     The unrealized gains, net, were insignificant in relation to the Company’s total available-for-sale portfolio. The unrealized gains, 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 14, “Fair Value of Financial Instruments,” for fair value discussion regarding the Company’s cash equivalents and marketable securities.

7. Commitments and Contingencies

     On February 1, 2005, Rambus issued $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of zero coupon convertible senior notes (the “2010 Notes”) due February 1, 2010 to Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities as initial purchasers who then sold the convertible notes to institutional investors. Rambus has elected to pay the principal amount of the 2010 Notes in cash when they are due. Subsequently, Rambus repurchased a total of $163.1 million face value of the outstanding 2010 Notes in 2005 and 2008. The aggregate principal amount of the 2010 Notes outstanding as of June 30, 2009 was $137.0 million, offset by an unamortized debt discount of $6.3 million. The debt discount is expected to be amortized over the remaining 7 months until maturity of the 2010 Notes, see Note 15, “Convertible Notes”, for additional details.

     On June 29, 2009, Rambus entered into an Indenture (the “Indenture”) by and between Rambus and U.S. Bank, National Association, as trustee, relating to the issuance by Rambus of $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of 5% convertible senior notes due June 15, 2014 (the “2014 Notes”). The aggregate principal amount of the 2014 Notes outstanding as of June 30, 2009 was $150.0 million, offset by unamortized debt discount of $57.5 million in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheets. The debt discount is expected to be amortized over the remaining 60 months until maturity of the 2014 Notes on June 15, 2014, see Note 15, “Convertible Notes”, for additional details.

     As of June 30, 2009, Rambus’ material contractual obligations are (in thousands):

						Payments Due by Year
						Remainder
		Total				of 2009				2010				2011				2012				2013				Thereafter
Contractual obligations(1)
Operating leases		$	12,825			$	4,941			$	6,668			$	747			$	469			$	—			$	—
Convertible notes			286,950				—				136,950				—				—				—				150,000
Total		$	299,775			$	4,941			$	143,618			$	747			$	469			$	—			$	150,000

     Rent expense was approximately $1.6 million and $3.2 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. Rent expense was approximately $1.7 million and $3.5 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, respectively.

     Deferred rent, included primarily in other long-term liabilities, was approximately $0.9 million and $1.1 million as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, respectively.

   Indemnifications

     Rambus enters into standard license agreements in the ordinary course of business. Although Rambus 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 Rambus’ products. The maximum amount of indemnification Rambus could be required to make under these agreements is generally limited to fees received by Rambus. Rambus estimates the fair value of its indemnification obligation as insignificant, based upon its history of litigation concerning product and patent infringement claims.

     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, Rambus has agreements whereby its officers and directors are indemnified for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at Rambus’ 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 Rambus could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited. Rambus has a director and officer insurance policy that reduces Rambus’ exposure and enables Rambus to recover a portion of future amounts to be paid. As a result of these indemnification agreements, Rambus continues to make payments on behalf of current and former officers and directors. As of June 30, 2009, the Company had made payments of approximately $10.8 million on their behalf, including $1.5 million in the three months ended June 30, 2009. 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 Rambus stock with a value of approximately $0.8 million in the fourth quarter of 2008. Additionally, as of June 30, 2009, the Company has received $11.9 million from insurance settlements related to the defense of the Company, its directors and its officers which were recorded under costs (recovery) of restatement and related legal activities in the condensed consolidated statements of operations. As of June 30, 2008, the Company had made payments of approximately $6.4 million on their behalf, including $0.3 million in the quarter ended June 30, 2008. These payments made by the Company and the repayments by the former officers to the Company were recorded under costs (recovery) of restatement and related legal activities in the condensed consolidated statements of operations.

8. Stockholders’ Equity

Share Repurchase Program

     In October 2001, Rambus’ Board of Directors (the “Board”) approved a share repurchase program of its Common Stock, principally to reduce the dilutive effect of employee stock options. To date, the Board has approved the authorization to repurchase up to 19.0 million shares of the Company’s outstanding Common Stock over an undefined period of time. During the six months ended June 30, 2009, the Company did not repurchase any Common Stock. As of June 30, 2009, Rambus had repurchased a cumulative total of approximately 16.8 million shares of its Common Stock with an aggregate price of approximately $233.8 million since the commencement of this program. As of June 30, 2009, there remained an outstanding authorization to repurchase approximately 2.2 million shares of Rambus’ outstanding Common Stock.

     Rambus records stock repurchases as a reduction to stockholders’ equity. As prescribed by APB Opinion No. 6, “Status of Accounting Research Bulletins,” Rambus 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.

9. Income Taxes

     The effective tax rate for the three months ended June 30, 2009 was 0.1% which is 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. The effective tax rate for the three months ended June 30, 2008 was 716.0% which was higher than the U.S. statutory tax rate applied to the Company’s net loss primarily due to the establishment of a full valuation allowance on our U.S. net deferred tax assets.

     As of June 30, 2009, the Company’s condensed consolidated balance sheet included net deferred tax assets, before valuation allowance, of approximately $144.5 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 FSP APB 14-1. As of June 30, 2009, a valuation allowance of $142.6 million has been recorded against the deferred tax assets. 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 valuation allowance until sufficient positive evidence exists to support reversal of the valuation allowance.

     The Company maintains liabilities for uncertain tax benefits 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 June 30, 2009, the Company had $10.0 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including $7.3 million recorded as a reduction of long-term deferred tax assets, which is net of approximately $0.9 million of federal tax benefit, and including $1.9 million in long-term income taxes payable. If recognized, approximately $0.7 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, 2008, the Company had $9.6 million of unrecognized tax benefits, including $6.9 million recorded as a reduction of long-term deferred tax assets, which is net of approximately $0.8 million of federal tax benefits, and including $1.9 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 June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008, 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 a payroll examination by the Internal Revenue Service for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2005. The Company is also 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 IRS for tax years ended 2005 through 2007. The Company is also subject to examination by the State of California for tax years ended 2004 through 2007. 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 is also subject to examination in various other jurisdictions for various periods.

10. Earnings (Loss) Per Share

     Earnings (loss) per share is calculated in accordance with, SFAS No. 128, “Earnings 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.

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

		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
		(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Numerator:
Net loss		$	(23,971	)		$	(138,315	)		$	(41,397	)		$	(152,669	)
Denominator:
Weighted average shares used to compute basic EPS			104,675				104,804				104,536				104,743
Dilutive potential shares from stock options, ESPP and nonvested equity stock and stock units			—				—				—				—
Weighted average shares used to compute diluted EPS			104,675				104,804				104,536				104,743
Net loss per share:
Basic		$	(0.23	)		$	(1.32	)		$	(0.40	)		$	(1.46	)
Diluted		$	(0.23	)		$	(1.32	)		$	(0.40	)		$	(1.46	)

     For the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, approximately 12.9 million shares that would be issued upon the conversion of the convertible notes were excluded from the calculation of earnings per share because the conversion price was higher than the average market price of the Common Stock during this period. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, approximately 5.9 million shares that would be issued upon the conversion of the contingently issuable convertible notes were excluded from the calculation of earnings per share because the conversion price was higher than the average market price of the Common Stock during this period. For the three months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, options to purchase approximately 13.5 million and 9.9 million shares, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, options to purchase approximately 13.8 million and 10.4 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 June 30, 2009 and 2008, an additional 1.2 million and 3.9 million shares, respectively, and for the six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, an additional 0.7 million and 3.6 million shares, respectively, including nonvested equity stock and stock units, that would be dilutive have been excluded from the weighted average dilutive shares because there was a net loss for the period.

11. Business Segments, Exports and Major Customers

     Rambus operates in a single industry segment, the design, development and licensing of chip interface technologies and architectures. Five customers accounted for 26%, 15%, 14%, 13% and 12%, respectively, of revenue in the three months ended June 30, 2009. Five customers accounted for 19%, 17%, 12%, 11% and 11%, respectively, of revenue in the three months ended June 30, 2008. Five customers accounted for 25%, 15%, 14%, 12% and 12%, respectively, of revenue in the six months ended June 30, 2009. Three customers accounted for 18%, 18% and 13%, respectively, of revenue in the six months ended June 30, 2008. Rambus expects that its revenue concentration will decrease over the long term as Rambus licenses new customers.

     Rambus sells its chip interfaces and licenses to customers in the Far East, North America, and Europe. Revenue from customers in the following geographic regions were recognized as follows:

		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
(In thousands)		2009				2008				2009				2008
Japan		$	22,070			$	29,579			$	43,881			$	60,561
North America			4,624				5,813				9,892				12,661
Taiwan			18				180				41				521
Korea			230				56				372				439
Singapore			—				75				43				174
Europe			41				12				88				1,097
		$	26,983			$	35,715			$	54,317			$	75,453

     At June 30, 2009, of the $18.4 million of total property and equipment, approximately $15.9 million are located in the United States, $2.0 million are located in India and $0.5 million are located in other foreign locations. At December 31, 2008, of the $22.3 million of total property and equipment, approximately $19.3 million are located in the United States, $2.4 million are located in India and $0.6 million are located in other foreign locations.

12. Amortizable Intangible Assets

     The components of the Company’s intangible assets as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 were as follows:

		As of June 30, 2009
		Gross Carrying				Accumulated				Net Carrying
		Amount				Amortization				Amount
		(In thousands)
Patents		$	11,491			$	(6,182	)		$	5,309
Intellectual property			10,384				(9,956	)			428
Customer contracts and contractual relationships			4,000				(2,469	)			1,531
Existing technology			2,700				(2,700	)			—
Non-competition agreement			100				(100	)			—
Total intangible assets		$	28,675			$	(21,407	)		$	7,268

		As of December 31, 2008
		Gross Carrying				Accumulated				Net Carrying
		Amount				Amortization				Amount
		(In thousands)
Patents		$	9,941			$	(5,527	)		$	4,414
Intellectual property			10,384				(9,527	)			857
Customer contracts and contractual relationships			4,000				(2,224	)			1,776
Existing technology			2,700				(2,503	)			197
Non-competition agreement			100				(100	)			—
Total intangible assets		$	27,125			$	(19,881	)		$	7,244

     Amortization expense for intangible assets for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 was $0.7 million and $1.5 million, respectively. Amortization expense for intangible assets for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008 was $1.3 million and $2.7 million, respectively.

     During the three months ended March 31, 2009, the company purchased patents related to mobile memory and other applications in an asset acquisition from Inapac Technology, Inc for approximately $1.6 million.

     The estimated future amortization expense of intangible assets as of June 30, 2009 was as follows (amounts in thousands):

Years Ending December 31:		Amount
2009 (remaining 6 months)		$	1,366
2010			1,743
2011			1,414
2012			1,143
2013			1,122
Thereafter			480
		$	7,268

13. 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 will accrue 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 to be arranged by the parties; the escrowed funds would be released only upon agreement of the parties or further order of the court. Hynix posted the $250 million supersedeas bond on June 26, 2009. The parties are continuing to work on establishing the lien and the escrow arrangement.

     On April 6, 2009, Hynix filed its notice of appeal. On April 17, 2009, Rambus filed its notice of cross appeal. The parties’ opening briefs are not yet due. 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, and Hynix filed a reply on July 22, 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. No decision on either Hynix’s motion or the joint motion 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. Micron’s answering brief is not yet due. 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. No decision on this motion 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.

   European Patent Infringement Cases

     On September 11, 2000, Rambus filed suit against Micron in multiple European jurisdictions for infringement of its European patent, EP 0 525 068 (the “’068 patent), which was later revoked. Additional suits were filed pertaining to a second Rambus patent, EP 1 022 642 (the “’642 patent”) and a third Rambus patent, EP 1 004 956 (the “’956 patent”). Rambus’ suit against Micron for infringement of the ’642 patent in Mannheim, Germany, has not been active. The Mannheim court issued an Order of Cost with respect to the ’068 proceeding requiring Rambus to reimburse Micron attorneys fees in the amount of $0.45 million. This amount has since been paid. One proceeding in Italy relating to the ’642 patent was adjourned at a hearing on June 15, 2007, each party bearing its own costs. Two other proceedings in Italy relating to the ’956 patent remain ongoing.

   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.

   Samsung Litigation

   U.S District Court in the Northern District of California

     On June 6, 2005, Rambus filed a patent infringement suit against Samsung in the U.S. District Court the Northern District of California alleging that Samsung’s SDRAM and DDR SDRAM parts infringe 9 of Rambus’ patents. Samsung has denied Rambus’ claims and asserted counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity and unenforceability of the patents, violations of various antitrust and unfair competition statutes, breach of license, and breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing. Samsung has also counterclaimed that Rambus aided and abetted breach of fiduciary duty and intentionally interfered with Samsung’s contract with a former employee by knowingly hiring a former Samsung employee who allegedly misused proprietary Samsung information. Rambus has denied Samsung’s counterclaims.

     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 (see below). 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 filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed an opposition brief to this 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.

     On August 11, 2008, the court granted summary judgment in Rambus’ favor on Samsung’s claims for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with contract, and certain aspects of Samsung’s unfair competition claim. On September 16, 2008, the court entered a stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice of certain of Samsung’s claims and defenses (including those based on Rambus’ alleged JEDEC conduct) and Rambus’ defenses corresponding to Samsung’s claims. A bench trial on the remaining claims and defenses that are unique to Samsung (breach of license, breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing, and estoppel based on those claims), as well as Samsung’s claims and defenses related to its allegations that Rambus spoliated evidence, was held between September 22 and October 1, 2008. On April 27, 2009, the court issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law holding that: (1) the parties’ 2000 SDR/DDR license agreement did not cover DDR2 and future generation products; (2) the license did not entitle Samsung to most favored licensee benefits in any renewal or subsequent agreement; (3) Rambus did not fail to negotiate an extension or renewal license in good faith, and Samsung would not have been entitled to damages for any such failure; (4) Samsung’s equitable estoppel defense failed; (5) Rambus breached the license by not offering Samsung the benefit to which it was entitled under the license (for the second quarter of 2005 only) of the royalty in the March 2005 settlement agreement between Rambus and Infineon; (6) Rambus failed to prove that Samsung breached certain audit provisions in the license, and therefore Rambus’s termination of the license less than one month before it was due to expire was improper; and (7) Rambus’s actions did not cause the parties’ failure to reach agreement on an extension or renewal of the license. No decision has issued to date regarding Samsung’s spoliation allegations.

   Federal Trade Commission Complaint

     On June 19, 2002, the FTC filed a complaint against Rambus. The FTC alleged that through Rambus’ action and inaction at JEDEC, Rambus violated Section 5 of the FTC Act in a way that allowed Rambus to obtain monopoly power in — or that by acting with intent to monopolize it created a dangerous probability of monopolization in — synchronous DRAM technology markets. The FTC also alleged that Rambus’ action and practices at JEDEC constituted unfair methods of competition in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act. As a remedy, the FTC sought to enjoin Rambus’ right to enforce patents with priority dates prior to June 1996 as against products made pursuant to certain existing and future JEDEC standards.

     On February 17, 2004, the FTC Chief Administrative Law Judge issued his initial decision dismissing the FTC’s complaint against Rambus on multiple independent grounds (the “Initial Decision”). The FTC’s Complaint Counsel appealed this decision.

     On August 2, 2006, the FTC released its July 31, 2006, opinion and order reversing and vacating the Initial Decision and determining that Rambus violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Following further briefing and oral argument on issues relating to remedy, the FTC released its opinion and order on remedy on February 5, 2007. The remedy order set the maximum royalty rate that Rambus could collect on the manufacture, use or sale in the United States of certain JEDEC-compliant parts after the effective date of the Order. The order also mandated that Rambus offer a license for these products at rates no higher than the maximums set by the FTC, including a further cap on rates for the affected non-memory products. The order further required Rambus to take certain steps to comply with the terms of the order and applicable disclosure rules of any standard setting organization of which it may become a member.

     The FTC’s order explicitly did not set maximum rates or other conditions with respect to Rambus’ royalty rates for DDR2 SDRAM, other post-DDR JEDEC standards, or for non-JEDEC-standardized technologies such as those used in RDRAM or XDR DRAM.

     On March 16, 2007, the FTC issued an order granting in part and denying in part Rambus’ motion for a stay of the remedy pending appeal. The March 16, 2007 order permitted Rambus to acquire rights to royalty payments for use of the patented technologies affected by the February 2 remedy order during the period of the stay in excess of the FTC-imposed maximum royalty rates on

SDRAM and DDR SDRAM products, provided that funds above the maximum allowed rates be either placed into an escrow account to be distributed, or payable pursuant a contingent contractual obligation, in accordance with the ultimate decision of the court of appeals. In an opinion accompanying its order, the FTC clarified that it intended its remedy to be “forward-looking” and “prospective only,” and therefore unlikely to be construed to require Rambus to refund royalties already paid or to restrict Rambus from collecting royalties for the use of its technologies during past periods.

     On April 27, 2007, the FTC issued an order granting in part and denying in part Rambus’ petition for reconsideration of the remedy order. The FTC’s order and accompanying opinion on Rambus’ petition for reconsideration clarified the remedy order in certain respects. For example, (1) the FTC explicitly stated that the remedy order did not require Rambus to make refunds or prohibit it from collecting royalties in excess of maximum allowable royalties that accrue up to the effective date of the remedy order; (2) the remedy order was modified to specifically permit Rambus to seek damages in litigation up to three times the specified maximum allowable royalty rates on the ground of willful infringement and any allowable attorneys’ fees; and (3) under the remedy order, licensees were permitted to pay Rambus a flat fee in lieu of running royalties, even if such an arrangement resulted in payments above the FTC’s rate caps in certain circumstances.

     Rambus appealed the FTC’s liability and remedy orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (the “CADC”). Oral argument was heard February 14, 2008. On April 22, 2008, the CADC issued an opinion which requires vacatur of the FTC’s orders. The CADC held that the FTC failed to demonstrate that Rambus’ conduct was exclusionary, and thus failed to establish its allegation that Rambus unlawfully monopolized any relevant market. The CADC’s opinion set aside the FTC’s orders and remanded the matter to the FTC for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. Regarding the chance of further proceedings on remand, the CADC expressed serious concerns about the strength of the evidence relied on to support some of the FTC’s crucial findings regarding the scope of JEDEC’s patent disclosure policies and Rambus’ alleged violation of those policies. On August 26, 2008, the CADC denied the FTC’s petition to rehear the case en banc. On October 16, 2008, the FTC issued an order explicitly authorizing Rambus to receive amounts above the maximum rates allowed by the FTC’s now-vacated order payable pursuant to any contingent contractual obligation.

     On November 24, 2008, the FTC filed a petition seeking review of the CADC decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Rambus filed an opposition to the FTC’s petition on January 23, 2009, and the FTC filed a reply on February 4, 2009. On February 23, 2009, the United States Supreme Court denied the FTC’s petition. On May 12, 2009, the Commission issued an order dismissing the complaint, finding that further litigation in this matter would not be in the public interest.

   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 June 12, 2009, the European Commission announced that it has reached a tentative settlement with Rambus to resolve the pending case. Under the proposed resolution, the Commission would make no finding of liability relative to JEDEC-related charges, and no fine would be assessed against Rambus. In addition, Rambus would commit 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. In accordance with European Commission antitrust procedures, interested third parties were invited to submit comments on the proposed Commitment to the European Commission within one month of the announcement. The comment period has expired, but no final decision has issued to date. Under the proposed resolution, Rambus would offer licenses with maximum royalty rates for five-year worldwide licenses of 1.5% for DDR2, DDR3, GDDR3 and GDDR4 SDRAM memory types. Licensees who ship less than 10% of their DRAM products in the older SDR and DDR DRAM types would be entitled to a royalty holiday for those older types, subject to compliance with the terms of the license. In addition, Rambus would offer 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 would be valid for a period of five years from the adoption date of the Commitment decision. All royalty rates would be applicable to future shipments only and does not affect liability, if any, for damages or royalties that accrued up to the time of the license grant.

   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.

     A hearing on Rambus’ motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Micron’s cross-complaint is barred by the statute of limitations was held on August 1, 2008. At the hearing, the San Francisco court granted Rambus’ motion as to Micron’s first cause of action (alleged violation of California’s Cartwright Act) and continued the motion as to Micron’s second and third causes of action (alleged violation of unfair business practices act and alleged intentional interference with prospective economic advantage). No further order has issued on Rambus’ motion.

     On November 25, 2008, Micron, Samsung, and Hynix filed eight motions for summary judgment on various grounds. On January 26, 2009, Rambus filed briefs in opposition to all eight motions. A hearing on these motions for summary judgment was held on March 4-6, March 16-17, and June 29, 2009. The court denied all eight motions. On June 17 and June 22, 2009, Micron, Samsung, and Hynix filed petitions requesting that the court of appeal issue writs directing the trial court to vacate two orders denying motions for summary judgment and enter orders granting the motions. On July 27, 2009, the court of appeal denied one of the two petitions. No decision has issued to date on the remaining petition.

     On March 10, 2009, defendants filed motions requesting that Rambus’ case be dismissed on the ground that the Delaware Order should be given preclusive effect. Rambus filed a brief opposing this request. The parties filed further briefs on the preclusive effect, if any, of the Delaware Order on April 3 and April 17, 2009. The parties submitted briefs on their allegations regarding alleged spoliation of evidence on April 20, 2009. A hearing on these issues was held on April 27 and June 1, 2009, at the conclusion of which the court denied defendants’ motion for issue preclusion and terminating sanctions. On June 19, 2009, Micron and Samsung filed petitions requesting that the court of appeal issue writs directing the trial court to vacate its order denying defendants’ motion for issue preclusion and terminating sanctions and enter an order granting the motion. Hynix filed a similar petition on June 23, 2009. On July 6, 2009, the court of appeal denied all three of these petitions. On July 16, 2009, Samsung and Micron filed petitions requesting that the California Supreme Court review the court of appeals’ denial of their petitions. No decision has issued to date on these petitions to the California Supreme Court.

     Trial is scheduled to begin on September 28, 2009.

   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 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. These settlements are conditioned upon the dismissal of the claims asserted against these individuals in In re Rambus Inc. Derivative Litigation. 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. The SLC stated its intention to assert control over the litigation. The conclusions and recommendations of the SLC are subject to review by the court. On October 5, 2007, Rambus filed a motion to terminate in accordance with the SLC’s recommendations. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, that motion was taken off calendar.

     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.

     The parties have 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. 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. No date has been set for oral argument.

     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 November 24, 2008, Rambus filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay this case in light of the first-filed federal action. On January 12, 2009, Rambus filed a demurrer to plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. A hearing on Rambus’ motions was held on February 27, 2009. The court granted Rambus’s motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the appeal in the federal action and denied the remainder of the motions without prejudice.

     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 at least the SDR, DDR, DDR2, DDR3, GDDR 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, and a case management conference is scheduled for August 21, 2009.

     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. The parties have filed motions for summary determination of various issues, including infringement, respondents’ allegations of invalidity, and certain of respondents’ other defenses. No decision has issued to date on any of the motions. A final hearing before the administrative law judge is scheduled for October 13-20, 2009.

   Potential Future Litigation

     In addition to the litigation described above, participants in the DRAM and controller markets 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 SFAS No. 5, “Accounting for Contingencies.”

14. Fair Value of Financial Instruments

     The Company adopted SFAS No. 157 effective January 1, 2008 for financial assets and liabilities measured on a recurring basis. SFAS No. 157 applies to all financial assets and financial liabilities that are being measured and reported on a fair value basis. The adoption of SFAS No. 157 did not impact the consolidated financial statements. SFAS No. 157 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 Company does not hold financial assets categorized in Level 3.

     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 SFAS No. 157 pricing levels as of June 30, 2009:

		As of June 30, 2009
						Quoted
						market				Significant
						prices in				other				Significant
						active				observable				unobservable
						markets				inputs				inputs
(in thousands)		Total				(Level 1)				(Level 2)				(Level 3)
Cash equivalents		$	314,450			$	314,450			$	—			$	—
Marketable securities			162,400				—				162,400				—
Total available-for-sale securities		$	476,850			$	314,450			$	162,400			$	—

     The following table presents the financial instruments that are not carried at fair value but which require fair value disclosure as of June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008:

		As of June 30, 2009												As of December 31, 2008
		Face				Carrying								Face				Carrying
(in thousands)		Value				Value				Fair Value				Value				Value				Fair Value
Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due 2010		$	136,950			$	130,646			$	137,806			$	136,950			$	125,474			$	125,493
5% Convertible Senior Notes due 2014			150,000				92,450				157,200				—				—				—
Total Convertible notes		$	286,950			$	223,096			$	295,006			$	136,950			$	125,474			$	125,493

     The fair value of the convertible notes at each balance sheet date is determined based on recent quoted market prices for these notes. As discussed in Note 15, “Convertible Notes,” the convertible notes are carried at face value of $287 million, less any unamortized debt discount in accordance with FSP APB 14-1. The carrying value of other financial instruments, including cash, accounts receivable, accounts payable and other payables, approximate fair value due to their short maturities.

15. Convertible Notes

     In May 2008, the FASB issued FSP APB 14-1, “Accounting for Convertible Debt Instruments That May Be Settled in Cash upon Conversion (Including Partial Cash Settlement),” which clarifies the accounting for convertible debt instruments that may be settled in cash upon conversion, including partial cash settlement. FSP APB 14-1 specifies that an issuer of such instruments should separately account for the liability and equity components of the instruments in a manner that reflects the issuer’s non-convertible debt borrowing rate when interest costs are recognized in subsequent periods. The debt component was determined based on a binomial lattice model. The equity component, recorded as additional paid-in capital, represents the difference between the proceeds from the issuance of the convertible notes and the fair value of the liability, net of deferred taxes, as of the date of issuance. Both of the Company’s convertible notes satisfy the criteria for accounting under FSP APB 14-1. FSP APB 14-1 was effective for the Company’s fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009, and retrospective application is required for all periods presented. The Company accounted for this change in accounting principle by retrospectively adjusting its prior period financial statements to reflect the impact of FSP APB 14-1 on its zero coupon convertible senior notes due 2010. The Company’s historical annual financial statements, including the consolidated condensed statement of operations for the three months ended June 30, 2008, were retrospectively adjusted for the adoption of FSP APB 14-1 in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 22, 2009.

     The following adjustments to reflect the retrospective application of FSP APB 14-1 on the zero coupon convertible senior notes due 2010 have been made to the previously reported consolidated condensed statement of operations which were not included in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 22, 2009 based on the periods presented therein.

		Six months ended June 30, 2008
		As previously reported				Adjustments				As adjusted
		(In thousands, except per share amounts)
Interest expense		$	—			$	(5,832	)		$	(5,832	)
Net loss before income taxes		$	(32,642	)		$	(5,832	)		$	(38,474	)
Provision for income taxes			124,656				(10,461	)			114,195
Net loss		$	(157,298	)		$	4,629			$	(152,669	)
Net loss per share: Basic		$	(1.50	)		$	0.04			$	(1.46	)
Net loss per share: Diluted		$	(1.50	)		$	0.04			$	(1.46	)

     The Company’s convertible notes are shown in the following table.

		As of June 30,				As of December 31,
(dollars in thousands)		2009				2008
Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due 2010		$	136,950			$	136,950
5% Convertible Senior Notes due 2014			150,000				—
Total principal amount of convertible notes			286,950				136,950
Unamortized discount			(63,854	)			(11,476	)
Total convertible notes		$	223,096			$	125,474
Less current portion			(130,646	)			—
Total long-term convertible notes		$	92,450			$	125,474

     5% Convertible Senior Notes due 2014. On June 29, 2009, Rambus issued $150.0 million aggregate principal amount of 5% convertible senior notes due June 15, 2014. As of the date of issuance Rambus determined that the liability component of the 2014 Notes was $92.4 million and the equity component of the 2014 Notes was $57.6 million. The unamortized discount related to the 2014 Notes is being amortized to interest expense over five years through June 2014.

     Rambus will pay cash interest at an annual rate of 5% of the principal amount at issuance, payable semi-annually in arrears on June 15 and December 15 of each year, beginning on December 15, 2009. Issuance costs were approximately $4.5 million of which $2.8 million is related to the liability portion, which is being amortized to interest expense over five years (the expected term of the debt), and $1.7 million is related to the equity portion. The 2014 Notes are Rambus’ general unsecured obligation, ranking equal in right of payment to all of Rambus’ existing and future senior indebtness, including the 2010 Notes, and senior in right of payment to any of Rambus’ future indebtness that is expressly subordinated to the 2014 Notes.

     The 2014 Notes are convertible into shares of Rambus’ Common Stock at an initial conversion rate of 51.8 shares of Common Stock per $1,000 principal amount of 2014 Notes. This is equivalent to an initial conversion price of approximately $19.31 per share of common stock. Holders may surrender their 2014 Notes for conversion prior to March 15, 2014 only under the following circumstances: (i) during any calendar quarter beginning after the calendar quarter ending September 30, 2009, and only during such calendar quarter, if the closing sale price of the Common Stock for 20 or more trading days in the period of 30 consecutive trading days ending on the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter exceeds 130% of the conversion price in effect on the last trading day of the immediately preceding calendar quarter, (ii) during the five business day period after any 10 consecutive trading day period in which the trading price per $1,000 principal amount of 2014 Notes for each trading day of such 10 consecutive trading day period was less than 98% of the product of the closing sale price of the Common Stock for such trading day and the applicable conversion rate, (iii) upon the occurrence of specified distributions to holders of the Common Stock, (iv) upon a fundamental change of Rambus as specified in the Indenture governing the 2014 Notes, or (v) if Rambus calls any or all of the 2014 Notes for redemption, at any time prior to the close of business on the business day immediately preceding the redemption date. On and after March 15, 2014, holders may convert their 2014 Notes at any time until the close of business on the third business day prior to the maturity date, regardless of the foregoing circumstances.

     Upon conversion of the 2014 Notes, Rambus will pay (i) cash equal to the lesser of the aggregate principal amount and the conversion value of the 2014 Notes and (ii) shares of Rambus’ Common Stock for the remainder, if any, of Rambus’ conversion obligation, in each case based on a daily conversion value calculated on a proportionate basis for each trading day in the 20 trading day conversion reference period as further specified in the Indenture.

     Rambus may not redeem the 2014 Notes at its option prior to June 15, 2012. At any time on or after June 15, 2012, Rambus will have the right, at its option, to redeem the 2014 Notes in whole or in part for cash in an amount equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2014 Notes to be redeemed, together with accrued and unpaid interest, if any, if the closing sale price of the Common Stock for at least 20 of the 30 consecutive trading days immediately prior to any date Rambus gives a notice of redemption is greater than 130% of the conversion price on the date of such notice.

     Upon the occurrence of a fundamental change, holders may require Rambus to repurchase some or all of their 2014 Notes for cash at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the 2014 Notes being repurchased, plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any. In addition, upon the occurrence of certain fundamental changes, as that term is defined in the Indenture, Rambus will, in certain circumstances, increase the conversion rate for 2014 Notes converted in connection with such fundamental changes by a specified number of shares of Common Stock, not to exceed 15.5401 per $1,000 principal amount of the 2014 Notes.

The following events are considered “Events of Default” under the Indenture which may result in the acceleration of the maturity of the 2014 Notes:

	(1)		default in the payment when due of any principal of any of the 2014 Notes at maturity, upon redemption or upon exercise of a repurchase right or otherwise;
	(2)		default in the payment of any interest, including additional interest, if any, on any of the 2014 Notes, when the interest becomes due and payable, and continuance of such default for a period of 30 days;
	(3)		Rambus’ failure to deliver cash or cash and shares of Common Stock (including any additional shares deliverable as a result of a conversion in connection with a make-whole fundamental change) when required to be delivered upon the conversion of any 2014 Note;
	(4)		default in Rambus’ obligation to provide notice of the occurrence of a fundamental change when required by the Indenture;
	(5)		Rambus’ failure to comply with any of its other agreements in the 2014 Notes or the Indenture (other than those referred to in clauses (1) through (4) above) for 60 days after Rambus’ receipt of written notice to Rambus of such default from the trustee or to Rambus and the trustee of such default from holders of not less than 25% in aggregate principal amount of the 2014 Notes then outstanding;
	(6)		Rambus’ failure to pay when due the principal of, or acceleration of, any indebtedness for money borrowed by Rambus or any of its subsidiaries in excess of $30,000,000 principal amount, if such indebtedness is not discharged, or such acceleration is not annulled, by the end of a period of ten days after written notice to Rambus by the trustee or to Rambus and the trustee by the holders of at least 25% in aggregate principal amount of the 2014 Notes then outstanding; and

(7)

certain events of bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization relating to Rambus or any of its material subsidiaries (as defined in the Indenture).

     If an event of default, other than an event of default in clause (7) above with respect to Rambus occurs and is continuing, either the trustee or the holders of at least 25% in aggregate principal amount of the 2014 Notes then outstanding may declare the principal amount of, and accrued and unpaid interest, including additional interest, if any, on the 2014 Notes then outstanding to be immediately due and payable. If an event of default described in clause (7) above occurs with respect to Rambus the principal amount of and accrued and unpaid interest, including additional interest, if any, on the 2014 Notes will automatically become immediately due and payable.

     Zero Coupon Convertible Senior Notes due 2010. On February 1, 2005, Rambus issued $300.0 million aggregate principal amount of zero coupon convertible senior notes due February 1, 2010 to Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and Deutsche Bank Securities as initial purchasers who then sold the 2010 Notes to institutional investors. The 2010 Notes are convertible at any time prior to the close of business on the maturity date into cash in an amount equal to the lesser of:

	(1)		the principal amount of each note to be converted and
	(2)		the “conversion value,” which is equal to (a) the applicable conversion rate, multiplied by (b) the applicable stock price, as defined.

•

If the conversion value is greater than the principal amount of each note, (as defined ) represented by the excess of conversion value, Rambus, at its option, may deliver net shares, cash, or a combination of cash and shares of its Common Stock, with a value equal to the net shares.

     The initial conversion price is $26.84 per share of Common Stock (which represents an initial conversion rate of 37.2585 shares of Rambus Common Stock per $1,000 principal amount of 2010 Notes). The initial conversion price is subject to certain adjustments, as specified in the indenture governing the 2010 Notes.

     Upon the retrospective application of FSP APB 14-1, Rambus determined that the liability component of the 2010 Notes was $200.3 million and the equity component was $99.7 million. Subsequently, Rambus repurchased $140.0 million and $23.1 million face value of the outstanding 2010 Notes in 2005 and 2008, respectively.

     The remaining 2010 Notes liability is classified as a current liability at June 30, 2009 since the notes are due February 1, 2010.

     Additional paid in capital at June 30, 2009 and December 31, 2008 includes $47.9 million related to the remaining equity component of the 2010 Notes. Additional paid in capital at June 30, 2009 includes $55.9 million related to the equity component of the 2014 Notes.

     As of June 30, 2009, the if-converted value of the outstanding 2010 Notes and 2014 Notes is less than the principal amount of the notes.

     Interest expense related to the notes for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 was as follows:

		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
		(In thousands)
2014 Notes amortization of discount at an additional effective interest rate of 11.7%		$	53			$	—			$	53			$	—
2014 Notes coupon interest at a rate of 5%			42				—				42				—
2010 Notes amortization of discount at an effective interest rate of 8.4%			2,722				2,944				5,392				5,832
Total interest expense		$	2,817			$	2,944			$	5,487			$	5,832

16. Subsequent Events

     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 related to the 2014 Notes. Issuance costs were approximately $0.5 million. The Company is currently evaluating the allocation of the $22.5 million between liability and equity pursuant to FSP APB 14-1. These additional notes have the same terms as the original $150.0 million of the 2014 Notes issued during the quarter ended June 30, 2009. See Note 15, “Convertible Notes”, for terms.

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These statements relate to our expectations for future events and time periods. All statements other than statements of historical fact are statements that could be deemed to be forward-looking statements, including any statements regarding trends in future revenue or results of operations, gross margin or operating margin, expenses, earnings or losses from operations, synergies or other financial items; any statements of the plans, strategies and objectives of management for future operations; any statements concerning developments, performance or industry ranking; any statements regarding future economic conditions or performance; any statements regarding pending investigations, claims or disputes; any statements of expectation or belief; and any statements of assumptions underlying any of the foregoing. Generally, the words “anticipate,” “believes,” “plans,” “expects,” “future,” “intends,” “may,” “should,” “estimates,” “predicts,” “potential,” “continue” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements. Our forward-looking statements are based on current expectations, forecasts and assumptions and are subject to risks, uncertainties and changes in condition, significance, value and effect. As a result of the factors described herein, and in the documents incorporated herein by reference, including, in particular, those factors described under “Risk Factors,” we undertake no obligation to publicly disclose any revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances occurring subsequent to filing this report with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     Rambus, RDRAM, XDR, FlexIO and FlexPhase are trademarks or registered trademarks of Rambus Inc. Other trademarks that may be mentioned in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q are the property of their respective owners.

     Industry terminology, used widely throughout this report, has been abbreviated and, as such, these abbreviations are defined below for your convenience:

Double Data Rate		DDR
Dynamic Random Access Memory		DRAM
Fully Buffered-Dual Inline Memory Module		FB-DIMM
Gigabits per second		Gb/s
Graphics Double Data Rate		GDDR
Input/Output		I/O
Peripheral Component Interconnect		PCI
Rambus Dynamic Random Access Memory		RDRAM
Single Data Rate		SDR
Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory		SDRAM
eXtreme Data Rate		XDR

     From time to time we will refer to the abbreviated names of certain entities and, as such, have provided a chart to indicate the full names of those entities for your convenience.

Advanced Micro Devices Inc.		AMD
ARM Holdings plc		ARM
Cadence Design Systems, Inc.		Cadence
Cisco Systems, Inc.		Cisco
Elpida Memory, Inc.		Elpida
Fujitsu Limited		Fujitsu
GDA Technologies, Inc.		GDA
Hewlett-Packard Company		Hewlett-Packard
Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.		Hynix
Infineon Technologies AG		Infineon
Inotera Memories, Inc.		Inotera
Intel Corporation		Intel
International Business Machines Corporation		IBM
Joint Electron Device Engineering Council		JEDEC
Juniper Networks, Inc.		Juniper
Matsushita Electrical Industrial Co.		Matsushita
Micron Technologies, Inc.		Micron
Nanya Technology Corporation		Nanya
NEC Electronics Corporation		NEC
Optical Internetworking Forum		OIF

Qimonda AG (formerly Infineon’s DRAM operations)		Qimonda
Panasonic Corporation		Panasonic
Peripheral Component Interconnect — Special Interest Group		PCI-SIG
Renesas Technology Corporation		Renesas
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.		Samsung
Sony Computer Electronics		Sony
Spansion, Inc.		Spansion
ST Microelectronics		ST Micro
Synopsys Inc.		Synopsys
Tessera Technologies, Inc.		Tessera
Texas Instruments Inc.		Texas Instruments
Toshiba Corporation		Toshiba
Velio Communications		Velio

Business Overview

     We design, develop and license chip interface technologies and architectures that are foundational to nearly all digital electronics products. Our chip interface technologies are designed to improve the performance, power efficiency, time-to-market and cost-effectiveness of our customers’ semiconductor and system products for computing, gaming and graphics, consumer electronics and mobile applications.

     As of June 30, 2009, our chip interface technologies are covered by more than 810 U.S. and foreign patents. Additionally, we have approximately 560 patent applications pending. These patents and patent applications cover important inventions in memory and logic chip interfaces, in addition to other technologies. We believe that our chip interface technologies provide our customers a means to achieve higher performance, improved power efficiency, lower risk, and greater cost-effectiveness in their semiconductor and system products.

     Our primary method of providing interface technologies to our customers is through our patented innovations. We license our broad portfolio of patented inventions to semiconductor and system 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 our patent portfolio. Patent license agreements are generally royalty bearing.

     We also develop a range of solutions including “leadership” (which are Rambus-proprietary interfaces or architectures widely licensed to our customers) and industry-standard chip interfaces that we provide to our customers under license for incorporation into their semiconductor and system products. Due to the often complex nature of implementing state-of-the art chip interface technology, we offer engineering services to our customers to help them successfully integrate our chip interface solutions into their semiconductors and systems. These technology license agreements may have both a fixed price (non-recurring) component and ongoing royalties. Engineering services are generally offered on a fixed price basis. Further, under technology licenses, our customers may receive licenses to our patents necessary to implement the chip interface in their products with specific rights and restrictions to the applicable patents elaborated in their individual contracts with us.

     We derive the majority of our annual revenue by licensing our broad portfolio of patents for chip interfaces to our customers. Such licenses may cover part or all of our patent portfolio. Leading semiconductor and system companies such as AMD, Fujitsu, Intel, NEC, Panasonic, Renesas, and Toshiba have licensed our patents for use in their own products.

     We derive additional revenue by licensing our leadership architectures and industry-standard chip interfaces to customers for use in their semiconductor and system products. Our customers include leading companies such as Elpida, IBM, Intel, Panasonic, Sony and Toshiba. Due to the complex nature of implementing our technologies, we provide engineering services under certain of these licenses to help our customers successfully integrate our technology solutions into their semiconductors and system products. Additionally, licensees may receive, as an adjunct to their technology license agreements, patent licenses as necessary to implement the technology in their products with specific rights and restrictions to the applicable patents elaborated in their individual contracts.

     Royalties represent a substantial majority of our total revenue. The remaining part of our revenue is contract services revenue which includes license fees and engineering services fees. 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.

     We have a high degree of revenue concentration, with our top five licensees representing approximately 79% and 78% of our revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively. This compares with the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, in which revenue from our top five licensees accounted for approximately 69% and 68% of our revenue, respectively. For the three months ended June 30, 2009, revenue from Fujitsu, Sony, AMD, Toshiba and NEC each accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue. For the six months ended June 30, 2009, revenue from Fujitsu, NEC, AMD, Sony and Panasonic each accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue. For the three months ended June 30, 2008, revenue from Fujistu, Elpida, Sony, AMD and Panasonic each accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue. For the six months ended June 30, 2008, revenue from Fujitsu, Elpida and Sony each accounted for 10% or more of our total revenue.

     Our revenue from companies headquartered outside of the United States accounted for approximately 83% and 82% of our total revenue for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009, respectively as compared to 84% and 83% for the three and six months ended June 30, 2008, respectively. We expect that we may continue to experience significant revenue concentration and have significant revenue from sources outside the United States for the foreseeable future.

     Historically, we have been involved in significant litigation stemming from the unlicensed use of our inventions. Our litigation expenses have been high and difficult to predict and we anticipate future litigation expenses will continue to be significant, volatile and difficult to predict. If we are successful in the litigation and/or related licensing, our revenue could be substantially higher in the future; if we are unsuccessful, our revenue would likely decline. Furthermore, our success in litigation matters pending before courts and regulatory bodies that relate to our intellectual property rights have impacted and will likely continue to impact our ability and the terms upon which we are able to negotiate new or renegotiate existing licenses for our technology.

     We expect that revenue derived from international licensees will continue to represent a significant portion of our total revenue in the future. To date, all of the revenue from international licensees have been denominated in U.S. dollars. However, to the extent that such licensees’ sales to systems companies are not denominated in U.S. dollars, any royalties that we receive as a result of such sales could be subject to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. In addition, if the effective price of licensed semiconductors sold by our foreign licensees were to increase as a result of fluctuations in the exchange rate of the relevant currencies, demand for licensed semiconductors could fall, which in turn would reduce our royalties. We do not use financial instruments to hedge foreign exchange rate risk.

Results of Operations

     The following table sets forth, for the periods indicated, the percentage of total revenue represented by certain items reflected in our unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations:

		Three Months Ended								Six Months Ended
		June 30,								June 30,
		2009				2008				2009				2008
Revenue:
Royalties			91.8	%			90.4	%			93.8	%			86.7	%
Contract revenue			8.2	%			9.6	%			6.2	%			13.3	%
Total revenue			100.0	%			100.0	%			100.0	%			100.0	%
Costs and expenses:
Cost of contract revenue*			5.3	%			18.4	%			6.7	%			18.3	%
Research and development*			58.2	%			56.1	%			61.8	%			55.1	%
Marketing, general and administrative*			120.7	%			66.5	%			128.3	%			75.7	%
Costs (recovery) of restatement and related legal activities			(1.6	)%			6.3	%			(25.9	)%			4.2	%
Total costs and expenses			182.6	%			147.3	%			170.9	%			153.3	%
Operating loss			(82.6	)%			(47.3	)%			(70.9	)%			(53.3	)%
Interest income and other income (expense), net			4.3	%			8.1	%			4.8	%			9.9	%
Interest expense			(10.4	)%			(8.2	)%			(10.1	)%			(7.6	)%
Interest and other income (expense), net			(6.1	)%			(0.1	)%			(5.3	)%			2.3	%
Loss before income taxes			(88.7	)%			(47.4	)%			(76.2	)%			(51.0	)%
Provision for income taxes			0.1	%			339.9	%			0.0	%			151.3	%
Net loss			(88.8	)%			(387.3	)%			(76.2	)%			(202.3	)%
* Includes stock-based compensation:
Cost of contract revenue			0.9	%			3.8	%			1.1	%			4.4	%
Research and development			8.2	%			10.5	%			9.1	%			10.2	%
Marketing, general and administrative			20.0	%			10.7	%			19.7	%			11.3	%