12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728The court considers the record in this case to be the
spoliation trial record
supplemented by: (1) evidence that was not available at the time of the trial; and (2) the factualrecords in
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
, 255 F.R.D. 135 (D. Del. 2009)(“
”). The Federal Circuit found that because Rambus argued that there are no significantdifferences in the factual records of the
actions, it "has waived any argument that
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWC-00-20905 RMW
2Federal Circuit vacated this court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding spoliationand remanded the case for reconsideration of the spoliation issue. Hynix had unsuccessfully urged inthe district court proceedings that Rambus had spoliated evidence and that its "unclean hands"warranted dismissal of its patent infringement claims.The Federal Circuit remanded the case for reconsideration under the framework set forth in
Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.,
645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("
"), a companioncase presenting the identical spoliation issue, and "to determine when Rambus's duty to preservedocuments began . . . and the appropriate sanction, if any."
, 465 F.3d at 1341. The FederalCircuit expressly left for this court to decide "whether the
decision should be given any preclusive effect, the correctness of [this court's] determinations on prejudice and good faith, [and]the propriety of any particular sanction on this record."
at 1341 n.2. The court now issues itsFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in response to the Federal Circuit's mandate.
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Hynix's unclean hands defense to Rambus's patent infringement claims was originally tried before this court on October 17 - 19 and October 24 - November 1, 2005. The primary issues were:(1) whether Rambus adopted a document retention plan in order to destroy documents in advance of a planned litigation campaign against DRAM manufacturers; and (2) whether in light of any suchconduct, the court should dismiss Rambus's patent claims against Hynix as a sanction pursuant to theequitable defense of "unclean hands." On January 5, 2006, the court issued its Findings of Fact andConclusions of Law holding that Rambus did not spoliate documents.After further proceedings in the case, the court entered final judgment on March 10, 2009 infavor of Rambus. Hynix appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit. On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the appeal. On the sameday, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in the companion case of
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4160 Filed09/21/12 Page2 of 66