Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
645 F.3d 1336
Fed. Cir.2011Background
- Rambus held patents on SDRAM/DDR SDRAM technology and pursued licensing against DRAM manufacturers; Hynix challenges the district court's rulings on spoliation, claim construction, written description, obviousness, and equitable defenses.
- Rambus was a JEDEC member; Rambus disclosed patents to JEDEC, but later contributed to standard-setting while pursuing broader enforcement against non-compatible DRAM.
- Rambus implemented a document retention policy, shredded documents in 1998, and timing of destruction is central to whether spoliation occurred before litigation was reasonably foreseeable.
- District court found spoliation, but the Ninth Circuit vacated findings and remanded for reanalysis under Micron II framework; the panel otherwise affirmed waiver/estoppel, claim construction, written description, and obviousness rulings.
- Micron Technology v. Rambus, decided contemporaneously, held Rambus spoliated evidence; the Federal Circuit in this case remands to determine when preservation duties began under Micron II.
- Cross-appeal concerns noninfringement determinations under Rambus's '214, '105, '365, and '152 patents, focusing on the 'second external clock' limitation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spoliation standard and remand | Spoliation determined under flexible foreseeability standard; foreseeability earlier than second shred day. | District court properly limited foreseeability requiring imminence; spoliation improper before 1999. | Remand to apply Micron II framework; vacate spoliation findings. |
| Attorney-client privilege and crime-fraud | Privilege pierced under crime-fraud based on destruction in preparation for suit. | Crime-fraud exception justified; destruction timing not dispositive. | Crime-fraud exception upheld; privilege pierced. |
| Waiver and equitable estoppel in JEDEC context | Rambus disclosure duties during JEDEC warranted equitable estoppel or implied waiver against standard-compliant products. | Infineon controls; Rambus did not breach disclosure duty as to SDRAM standard. | District court properly held Rambus did not waive or be equitably estopped. |
| Claim construction of 'bus' | Term should be narrow multiplexed bus as district court construed. | Infineon controls; 'bus' has well-understood meaning and need not be limited to multiplexed bus. | Affirm district court’sInfineon-aligned construction that 'bus' is not narrowly multiplexed. |
| Written description and obviousness | Amendments deleting multiplexed-bus limitations lacked written description support. | Amendments supported; substantial evidence supported nonobviousness and written description. | Affirm district court on written description; affirm nonobviousness; remand not necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- Silvestri v. General Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (spoliation standard and foreseeability considerations in litigation)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (spoliation and foreseeability standard; companion to this case)
- Infineon Techs. AG v. Rambus Inc., 318 F.3d 1081 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (duty to disclose in JEDEC context; standard for fraud and related claims)
- Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (written description standard; possession as of filing date)
- KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (Supreme Court 2007) (relevant to obviousness hurdles and market consideration)
- Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim construction methodology and use of dictionaries)