Read our latest coverage of patent law and intellectual property issues, from Silicon Valley to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last week, Payne didn’t award Samsung the attorneys fees it had sought. But he did find that Rambus destroyed documents, even as it planned litigation against its rivals.
In discussing Johnson’s explanations of Rambus’ shredding, Payne said the lawyer’s “defensive and adversarial manner might be attributed in part to the fact that his advice to Rambus was incomplete.”
“In Johnson’s presentations to Rambus,” Payne continued, “he failed to explain that spoliation could occur not only on the ‘eve of litigation,’ as he put it, but also if documents were destroyed when the company anticipated, or reasonably should have anticipated, litigation.”
Johnson could not be reached by press time.
John Danforth, Rambus’ senior vice president and general counsel, declined to publicly comment on Payne’s opinion Wednesday, but the company issued a statement late in the day.
“While we agree with the decision that our payment of Samsung’s attorney’s fees is unwarranted, we disagree with other aspects of the opinion, which are inconsistent with those of the federal court here in San Jose,” the statement read. “We are evaluating our options on how to proceed.”
It is unclear how Payne’s ruling will affect Rambus’ litigation against other chipmakers. Samsung attorney David Healey Weil, Gotshal & Manges wasn’t sure whether Payne’s opinion would be published. But he said it is public.
“It’s as final judgment, and it’s binding,” Healey said.
Payne’s opinion came just four days after U.S. District Judge Whyte told Rambus it had a month to agree to drastically reduce its $306.9 million jury verdict against rival chip manufacturer Hynix or take its chances at a new damages trial.
In addition to Payne’s harsh words for Johnson, he also took issue with Whyte’s rulings. In Rambus’ patent suit against Hynix, the San Jose judge had ruled Rambus did not have unclean hands because of the shredding.
“The Hynix decision appears to be significantly influenced by the view that ‘the evidence here does not support the conclusion that Rambus intentionally designed its document retention policy to get rid of particular damaging documents,’” Payne wrote. “The record, it is respectfully submitted, shows quite clearly that Rambus acted intentionally to rid its files of discoverable documents because of the damage that such documents could do in litigation.”
