No Such Thing As Certainty In A Courtroom

Submitted by patentadmin on Mon, 09/14/2009 - 12:13

Some time ago we wrote about a court which rendered opposite decisions in two virtually identical cases. Now, we have two different courts rendering opposite decisions in what amounts to the same case.

In the first case, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that the defense of spoliation of evidence, raised by Hynix in response to counterclaims brought by Rambus, was not established and awarded Rambus nearly $400M in damages.

Two years later Micron Tech, Inc. sued Rambus, Inc., which confidently asserted the same counterclaims it had successfully asserted against Hynix. Oops! In Micron Tech, Inc. v. Rambus, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, considering the very same acts considered by the Hynix court, reached the opposite conclusion, deciding that Rambus’ patents-in-suit were unenforceable due to spoliation of evidence.

THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED: Another example of the lack of predictability in litigation; the reason wise litigants settle.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 10/04/2009 - 18:38


Hmm ... is it possible that forum shopping by Micro Tech had an influence on this decision?

Add new comment