Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
8Activity

Table Of Contents

0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
4160

4160

Ratings: (0)|Views: 352 |Likes:
Published by sabatino123

More info:

Published by: sabatino123 on Sep 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/13/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Hynix was referred to as "Hyundai" prior to Hyundai's merger with LG
1
Semiconductor in 1999.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWC-00-20905 RMW
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISION
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIXSEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC.,HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., andHYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH,Plaintiffs,v.RAMBUS INC.,Defendant.Case No. C-00-20905 RMWFINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONSOF LAW ON SPOLIATION AND THEUNCLEAN HANDS DEFENSE
I. FEDERAL CIRCUIT'S MANDATE
On May 13, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued its opinion affirming in part and vacating in partthis court's judgment in the subject patent case between Hynix Semiconductor Inc., HynixSemiconductor America Inc., Hynix Semiconductor U.K. Ltd, and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (collectively "Hynix") and Rambus Inc. ("Rambus").
 Hynix Semiconductor Inc.
1
v. Rambus Inc.
, 645 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("
 Hynix II 
"). Specifically relevant here is that the
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4160 Filed09/21/12 Page1 of 66
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728The court considers the record in this case to be the
 Hynix I 
spoliation trial record
2
supplemented by: (1) evidence that was not available at the time of the trial; and (2) the factualrecords in
 Micron II 
and
 Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
, 255 F.R.D. 135 (D. Del. 2009)(“
 Micron I 
”). The Federal Circuit found that because Rambus argued that there are no significantdifferences in the factual records of the
 Hynix
and
 Micron
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) ("
 Micron II 
"), a companioncase presenting the identical spoliation issue, and "to determine when Rambus's duty to preservedocuments began . . . and the appropriate sanction, if any."
 Hynix II 
, 465 F.3d at 1341. The FederalCircuit expressly left for this court to decide "whether the
 Micron II 
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."
Id.
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 
 Micron II.
2
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4160 Filed09/21/12 Page2 of 66
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728the different records justify different outcomes."
 Hynix II 
, 465 F.3d at 1342 n.1. The court has notconsidered other evidence that was not considered in the
 Hynix I 
spoliation trial.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWC-00-20905 RMW
3In its
 Hynix II 
decision, the Federal Circuit held that this court "applied too narrow a standardof foreseeability" in determining when litigation became reasonably foreseeable and thus erred in itsconsideration of the spoliation issue.
 Hynix II 
, 645 F.3d at 1341. Therefore, the Federal Circuitvacated this court's Final Judgment and its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regardingspoliation and remanded the case.After the issuance of the Federal Circuit's mandate, this court held a Case ManagementConference on September 2, 2011, at which it ordered the parties to submit briefs listing theissues to be resolved on remand, including any collateral estoppel argument, and discussingwhether further evidence should be taken. Dkt. # 4051 at 28:1-16. After those briefs weresubmitted, the court held another Case Management Conference on October 21, 2011. At thatconference, the court ordered the parties to submit briefs and proposed findings of fact andconclusions of law, using the court's (vacated) January 5, 2006 findings and conclusions as astarting point. Dkt. # 4078 at 29:14-17. The court indicated that it would allow Hynix to proposeadditional findings based upon evidence from other proceedings for consideration in connection withHynix's request for supplementation of the record.
 Id.
at 30:4-8. The court also stated its tentativeview that collateral estoppel should not be applied but indicated that it would reexamine the issue.The court directed Hynix to include in its proposed findings any assertion that collateral estoppeldoes apply so that the issue would be, at a minimum, preserved.
 Id 
. at 33:3-13. As discussed below,the court has reconsidered its tentative view and now concludes that collateral estoppel does apply tothe issue of Rambus's spoliation.
III. FINDINGS OF FACTA.The Current Litigation
1.On August 29, 2000, Hynix filed a complaint, later amended, against Rambus that in part sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of elevenRambus patents. On February 5, 2001, Rambus filed counterclaims asserting that Hynix infringed
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4160 Filed09/21/12 Page3 of 66

Activity (8)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
ddmc14780 liked this
ddmc14780 liked this
Fred Newman liked this
watersjosh7001 liked this
Fred Newman liked this
Fred Newman liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->