1:00-cv-00792
D. Del.Jan 2, 2013Background
- Micron and Rambus engaged in a patent dispute over Rambus DRAM patents; court previously found spoliation and unenforceability, remanded for reconsideration.
- Rambus adopted a document retention policy and conduct to prepare for litigation, including “battle ready” strategy and shredding.
- Back-up tapes were largely degaussed and thousands of boxes of documents were destroyed in 1998–1999, including emails and patent prosecution files.
- Rambus later instituted a litigation hold but continued document destruction and failed to preserve key materials relevant to JEDEC and licensing/competition issues.
- Court on remand found bad faith spoliation, prejudice to Micron, and weighty justification for a dispositive sanction of unenforceability of the asserted patents.
- ITC also issued a contemporaneous sanction recognizing unenforceability for similar misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rambus spoliated in bad faith | Micron argues conduct was strategic and meant to gain litigation advantage | Rambus claims retention policy was routine, neutral, and for housekeeping | Yes, bad faith spoliation established |
| Whether Rambus' spoliation prejudiced Micron | Destroyed evidence affected Micron's ability to defend and prove defenses | Some evidence could be publicly sourced; impact uncertain | Yes, prejudice established |
| Appropriate sanction for spoliation | Dispositive sanction warranted to deter future misconduct | Less drastic sanctions should suffice | Dispositive sanction: patents unenforceable against Micron |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776 (2d Cir. 1999) (sanctions framework; deterrence and prejudice considerations)
- Schmid v. Milwaukee Elec. Tool Corp., 13 F.3d 76 (3d Cir. 1994) (three-factor Schmid test for sanctions in spoliation cases)
- Silvestri v. Gen. Motors Corp., 271 F.3d 583 (4th Cir. 2001) (definition of spoliation and prejudice standards)
- Therasense, Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 649 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (new standard for inequitable conduct; but-for materiality and intent mandates)