## Facts

- Hynix Semiconductor Inc. (Hynix) sued Rambus Inc. (Rambus) in litigation involving DRAM technology and the effects of industry standards.
- Hynix sought to call Ilan Krashinsky, a circuit-design engineer with substantial DRAM-related work experience, as a lay witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 701.
- Hynix proposed that Krashinsky testify about the existence and extent of industry “lock-in” created by use of a DRAM standard.
- Hynix also proposed that Krashinsky testify about how much it would cost the industry if it were forced to move to different DRAM standards.
- Rambus moved to exclude the proposed testimony, arguing that the opinions rested on technical and economic analysis requiring qualification and disclosure as expert testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
- Hynix argued that Krashinsky’s engineering background and work experience provided a sufficient foundation for his opinions as lay testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether an engineer offered as a lay witness may give opinion testimony about industry “lock-in” associated with a DRAM standard under Rule 701.
2. Whether testimony estimating industry-wide switching costs and similar broad economic consequences is based on specialized knowledge requiring treatment as expert testimony under Rule 702.

## Decision

- The court granted Rambus’s motion in part and denied it in part.
- The court allowed Krashinsky to testify as a lay witness to matters tied to his own observations and work in designing or implementing DRAM-related circuitry and standards compliance.
- The court excluded proposed testimony that moved beyond personal experience into generalized, industry-wide cost estimates or broader market/economic conclusions, which the court treated as expert testimony requiring Rule 702 compliance.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 701 permits lay opinion testimony only when it is rationally based on the witness’s perception, helpful to the jury, and not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702.
- A witness with technical training may still testify as a lay witness when the testimony is limited to particularized knowledge gained from personal, on-the-job experience and firsthand observation.
- Opinions that depend on technical analysis, specialized methodology, or broad extrapolation—such as estimating industry-wide switching costs or forecasting market effects—are governed by Rule 702 and the related disclosure and reliability requirements.
- Courts may limit testimony to prevent parties from presenting expert opinions through a lay witness and to reduce the risk of juror confusion from speculative or overly generalized conclusions.

## Conclusion

Hynix could use its engineer to explain, based on his own design and implementation experience, why compliance with a DRAM standard can constrain engineering choices and make switching difficult, but it could not present through him broad, industry-wide switching-cost estimates or similar economic conclusions without qualifying and disclosing him as an expert under Rule 702.


Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 2008 WL 504098 (2008)