Sun, Sep 21, 2014, 11:07 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Rambus Inc. Message Board

  • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Feb 5, 2013 11:04 PM Flag

    Robinson opinion Micron III, page 43

    Eat it Ms Pacman. You will find the following excerpt copied word for word in regard to what was destroyed by Rambus, and how this prejudiced Micron:

    "What is known is that the destroyed materials covered a very broad range of documents, including at least Rambus' contract and licensing negotiations, patent prosecution, JEDEC and Board meetings, and finances. Such documents could have been central to Micron's claims and defenses related to patent misuse, antitrust violations, and unfair competition, as well as its defense of inequitable conduct.28
    The remedy for successful assertion of Micron's inequitable conduct defense is unenforceability. See Therasense, 649 F.3d at 1288 ("Unlike validity defenses, which are claim specific, inequitable conduct regarding any single claim renders the entire patent unenforceable."

    Sentiment: Strong Sell

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Feb 6, 2013 12:41 AM Flag

      In the footnotes of Robinson's conclusion, regarding Judge Essex's similar findings and sanction.

      "The International Trade Commission ("lTC"), in a recent determination and opinion, also found that the appropriate sanction for Rambus' unclean hands was to hold the asserted patents unenforceable. (See D.I. 1136 at 265-317; D.l. 1146 at 51- 55) Although the patents before the lTC were not the same as the patents-in-suit, the ITC's determination and opinion recognize that egregious misconduct can lead to a dispositive sanction."

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

    • READ THE QUOTES YOU POSTED YOU IDIOT

      "Such documents COULD have been central to Micron's claims and defenses"

      These destroyed documents MAY have contained internal Rambus correspondence, ... pertaining to Rambus' plans to gain market power ..."

      They MAY also have revealed any deceptive intent behind the representations Rambus made ..."

      SHE DOES NOT POINT TO A SINGLE DOCUMENT DESTROYED THAT ACTUALLY PREJUDICED MICRON OR ANY OTHER INFRINGER.

      As for the CAFC decision, READ THE QUOTE YOU POSTED. It clearly say she abused her discretion.
      "under an abuse of discretion standard, it vacated the court's choice of sanction because the court ..."

      After all your posts (most of which are responses to your own posts) you still have been unable to say why Robinson's decision will be upheld and White's decision (which you have obvously not even bothered to read) will be reversed.

      • 2 Replies to expatman2008
      • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Feb 6, 2013 1:02 AM Flag

        Ummm....

        "you still have been unable to say why Robinson's decision will be upheld and White's decision (which you have obvously not even bothered to read) will be reversed."

        Dude, are you confused? Whyte hasn't ruled yet on remand, he held a hearing in September where he said he would be sanctioning Rambus for bad faith spoliation. He stated this will reduce the amount awarded to Rambus. Problem with that is, Robinson has since ruled the patents in suit unenforceable and Hynix is demanding collateral estoppel, and even if Whyte does award Rambus any amount, instead of summary judgment in favor of Hynix due to collateral estoppel, it will not change Rambus' material income since it will be appealed to the CAFC, where Robinson's ruling will be upheld and Whyte's overturned, again.

        Now, let's see how Whyte rules in the next few weeks, shall we...

        Sentiment: Strong Sell

      • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Feb 6, 2013 12:48 AM Flag

        You cannot get the full context of the CAFC remand from a few cherry picked words man, are you ignoring everything else because you are unable to comprehend or just plain ignorant?

        Point is, they destroyed documents which contained relevant information and could have been used to prove Micron's inequitable conduct defense. Due to the extent of the spoliation, it was impossible to judge the case on the merits of the evidence.

        Sentiment: Strong Sell

    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Feb 5, 2013 11:31 PM Flag

      Page 32.... Is it becoming any clearer yet?

      "Micron demonstrated at trial that Rambus had destroyed hundreds of boxes of documents relating to at least contract and licensing negotiations, patent prosecution, JEDEC and Board meetings, and finances. Micron I, 255 F.R.D. at 142-43 n.33. These destroyed documents may have contained internal Rambus correspondence, presentations, meeting minutes, or notes pertaining to Rambus' plans to gain market power or advantages by using information learned at JEDEC meetings. They may also have revealed any deceptive intent behind the representations Rambus made during JEDEC meetings or to JEDEC participants. In other words, as the Federal Circuit suggested, "[d]ocuments relating to Rambus' conduct at JEDEC, together with documents reflecting Rambus' instructions to its patent prosecution counsel concerning its conduct at JEDEC, could have helped resolve Micron's claims relating to patent misuse, antitrust violations, and unfair competition." Micron II, 645 F.3d at 1328."

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

    • gregory.lynn@rocketmail.com gregory.lynn Feb 5, 2013 11:20 PM Flag

      Another thing expatman the CAFC did NOT tell the honorable Judge Robinson to "completely rewrite" her ruling you dim wit, here is another excerpt from Micron III.

      Page 21:

      "A. Issues on Remand
      On appeal, the Federal Circuit reviewed the court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard and affirmed the court's finding of spoliation.14 Micron II, 645 F.3d at 1321-26. However, under an abuse of discretion standard, it vacated the court's choice of sanction because the court "did not explain why only dismissal would 'vindicate the trifold aims of: (1) deterring future spoliation of evidence; (2) protecting the defendants' interest; and (3) remedying the prejudice defendants suffered as a result of [Rambus'] actions."' /d. at 1326, 1329 (alteration in original) (quoting West v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 167 F.3d 776, 780 (2d Cir. 1999)). The Federal Court remanded so that this court could reconsider its bad faith and prejudice determinations related to Rambus' spoliation, as well as the appropriate sanction, if any, for Rambus' conduct. /d. at 1326-29. Although this court applied the correct law, the Federal Circuit instructed this court to more "fully explain" its reasoning. /d.
      Accordingly, under the framework for determining the choice of sanction, the court will revisit whether Rambus acted in bad faith when it engaged in spoliation and the nature and extent of any prejudice suffered by Micron as a result of the spoliation."

      Sentiment: Strong Sell

 
RMBS
12.92-0.01(-0.08%)Sep 19 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.