<<The Manufacturers have failed to meet their burden of producing clear and convincing evidence that the Bennett patent discloses the "set register request" limitation of claim 16 of the '285 patent. The Manufacturers have failed to carry their burden of persuasion with respect to the "programmable number of clock cycles" limitations because Rambus has produced evidence in opposition that raises a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the court denies the Manufacturers' motion for summary judgment with respect to claim 16 of the '285 patent.>>

There's a lot more here:

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RMBS/1378851596x0x258797/E85FCD06-2272-4CD2-8808-735CAF80EC45/RambusVsHynixetal182.pdf

It's even before he changed his mind on "memory device"

His new "memory device" ruling was issued December 21, 2008:

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/Markman/pdfFiles/2008.12.21_RAMBUS_INC_v._HYNIX_SEMICONDUCTOR_INC_LP.pdf