% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • gregory.lynn May 5, 2012 9:10 AM Flag

    Full ITC review of Essex's ruling in July

    They will be reviewing the ruling on bad faith and prejudice. If they uphold this ruling, I expect similar rulings from Judge Whyte, and of course Judge Robinson.

    2012 my just be the end of the road for RMBS, they have diminishing returns already, imagine what will happen when licensees stop paying.

    Bad faith spoliation coupled with prejudice is serious folks, there could be lawsuits coming from so called "infringers" who were forced to pay after Rambus's courtroom wins, made possible by their dispicable and illegal behavior of shredding evidence to ensure victory.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • gregory.lynn Jul 22, 2012 9:25 AM Flag

      July 25th is the new date for the ITC review.

    • gregory.lynn Jul 1, 2012 11:20 AM Flag

      Ok, the CAFC apparently delayed their "memory device" ruling which was due next week. Are they also waiting on the ITC?

      Folks, bad faith spoliation may be about to bury Rambus.

    • gregory.lynn Jun 29, 2012 2:07 PM Flag

      Last trading day of the month, time to sell!!

      The ITC didn't specify when in July they would issue a ruling so it could be as early as next week.

    • gregory.lynn May 5, 2012 9:31 AM Flag

      'Shred Days’

      The judge said separately that three patents, known for lead inventor Richard Barth, are unenforceable because Rambus purposefully destroyed evidence needed by companies to defend themselves against Rambus’s infringement claims.

      Rambus, in its statement, said it was encouraged by the commission’s decision to review that issue, since Essex’s determination “contradicts an earlier decision, involving the same patents, that Rambus’s document-retention practices did not prevent Rambus from enforcing those patents.”

      The company’s document policy, which evidence showed included “shred days” in 1998, has been an issue in the civil cases through the company’s legal fights. Nvidia lost its argument on that issue.

      Destroyed-Documents Ruling

      A U.S. appeals court ruled last year that Rambus destroyed documents relevant to patent-infringement trials with Micron Technology Inc. (MU) (MU) and Hynix Semiconductor Inc. Federal judges are considering what the appropriate punishment should be in those cases, including whether Rambus should be barred from enforcing the patents against Hynix and Micron.

      In the ITC case, Rambus argued that the appeals court decision shouldn’t apply because different patents were involved. The Barth patents, it said, hadn’t even been issued when the company’s document-destruction policy was in place. Essex disagreed, saying that the 1998 “shred days” weren’t targeting just information on issued patents.

      “Their action in destroying documents was intended to frustrate the fact-finding efforts of parties adverse to Rambus,” the administrative law judge said in his report. “While the Barth patents may not have been mature, they were part of a long-term strategic litigation plan.”

      Rambus argued that, even if some documents were destroyed, there was no harm to the companies because “the allegedly destroyed documents are irrelevant, still exist, or were redundant of retained documents.”

      The case is In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same, 337-753, U.S. International Trade Commission (Washington).

12.00-0.35(-2.83%)Feb 5 4:00 PMEST