Two courts, two very different views of Rambus

The obligation that can arise to preserve documents when litigation is contemplated holds true in patent cases. There are many types of events that will almost certainly lead to a duty to preserve, such as a breakdown of licensing negotiations and conducting litigation firm “beauty contests.” There also are things that could lead to an earlier duty to preserve, such as developing licensing and litigation strategies, identifying potential targets and creating claim charts. In addition, one must consider more administrative tasks, such as litigation budgeting and setting litigation-oriented employees’ goals. Finally, one must be conscious that a duty to preserve may be imposed even before the cause of action exists.

On Jan. 9, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware issued a surprising decision, holding that Rambus Inc.’s patents-in-suit were unenforceable against Micron Technology Inc. due to spoliation. Micron Tech. Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 255 F.R.D. 135 (D. Del. 2009). The decision was surprising because the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California reached a contrary decision two years earlier, has since upheld that decision and has awarded Rambus nearly $400 million against Hynix Semiconductor Inc. Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 591 F. Supp. 2d 1038 (N.D. Calif. Jan. 5, 2006). However, while both courts looked at essentially the same facts, there were differences in the two cases that caused them to reach very different conclusions.