ORDER (1) DENYING SK HYNIX'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ETC.C-00-20905 RMW
3Synchronous Dynamic Random Access Memory ("SDRAM") and Double Data Rate SDRAM("DDR SDRAM"). Compl., ECF No. 1;
Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
, 645 F.3d 1336,1340 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (
, 897 F. Supp. 2d at 944-45. SK hynix also assertedclaims against Rambus for monopolization, fraud, and unfair competition. Second Am'd Compl.,ECF No. 106. Rambus counterclaimed for patent infringement.
, 897 F. Supp. 2d at 944.SK hynix asserted various affirmative defenses to Rambus's infringement counterclaims, includingan unclean hands defense based upon Rambus's spoliation of evidence.
.The case was tried in three phases. Judgment, ECF No. 3911. In the first phase, SK hynix'sunclean hands defense was tried to the court.
. at 2. On January 5, 2006, the court issued FFCLdetermining that Rambus had not spoliated documents and thus that there was no factual basis for anunclean hands defense.
. In the second phase, Rambus's infringement counterclaims were tried toa jury.
. On April 24, 2006, the jury returned a verdict for Rambus.
. In the third phase, SK hynix's remaining claims and defenses were tried.
. On March 26, 2008, the jury returned averdict in favor of Rambus with respect to SK hynix's legal claims.
. On March 3, 2009, the courtissued FFCL in favor of Rambus with respect to SK hynix's equitable claims and defenses.
.On March 10, 2009, the court entered final judgment of infringement with respect to tenRambus patent claims: claim 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,324,120 ("'120 patent"); claims 32 and 36 of U.S. Patent No. 6,378,020 ("'020 patent"); claims 9, 28, and 40 of U.S. Patent No. 6,426,916 ("'916 patent"); claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 6,452,863 ("'863 patent"); claim 34 of U.S. Patent No.5,915,105 ("'105 patent"); and claims 24 and 33 of U.S. Patent No. 6,034,918 ("'918 patent").
. at2-3. The judgment awarded Rambus $349,035,842 after a remittitur plus prejudgment interest, andrequired SK hynix to pay specified royalties to Rambus on an ongoing basis.
at 2-6.On May 13, 2011, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated this court's final judgment with respect to the finding of no spoliation and remanded for further proceedings on thespoliation issue.
, 645 F.3d at 1355. The judgment otherwise was affirmed.
. TheFederal Circuit expressly affirmed this court's denial of SK hynix's motion for a new trial on the
Case5:00-cv-20905-RMW Document4244 Filed05/08/13 Page3 of 34