WHY WOULD THEY??? If upheld, the Micron III ruling means that RMBS acted in bad faith and with prejudice toward Hynix... A forward license could be negotiated, but RMBS could not go after them in court due to the doctrine of unclean hands, which means the settlement would be good for Hynix and not so good for RMBS shareholders!!
Sentiment: Strong Sell
"Hynix will not settle before HJW decides on collateral estoppel re: Micron III
WHY WOULD THEY??? If upheld, the Micron III ruling means that RMBS acted in bad faith and with prejudice toward Hynix... A forward license could be negotiated, but RMBS could not go after them in court due to the doctrine of unclean hands, which means the settlement would be good for Hynix and not so good for RMBS shareholders!"
You're completely wrong because Hynix settled!
First of all dummy they didn't settle before HJW ruled, but did before the royalty rate was set. Second, the only winner in that settlement was Hynix, certainly NOT RMBS shareholders!!
"Dismissal is a'harsh sanction,' to be imposed only in particularly egregious situations where 'a party has engaged deliberately in deceptive practices that undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings.'" Micron II, 645 F.3d at 1328 (quoting Leon , 464 F.3d at 958). "[T]he presence of bad faith and prejudice,without more, do not justify the imposition of dispositive sanctions." Id. at 1329."
Judge Whyte specifically mentions the classic cases where defendants
willfully destroyed documents that were against court orders like
in Leon. Moreover, he follows the law by stating dismissal is ONLY
in egregious situations! Here's Judge Whyte:
The classic case of bad faith is one where the litigant intentionally destroys documents for the purpose of hiding adverse information. Micron II , 645 F.3d at 1326. The evidence does not show that Rambus knowingly destroyed damaging evidence. However, it engaged in massive destructions of records in what its CFO described as the "Karp document retention purge" and Karp's "scorched earth" theory of document retention. HTX 330; HTX 331. Rambus kept no record of the documents that were shredded and made no effort to retain documents that were potentially relevant to its foreseeable litigation with non-compatible DRAM manufacturers. "[A] corporation cannot blindly destroy documents and expect to be shielded by a seemingly innocuous document retention policy."
Judge Whyte had to consider Hynix's request for collateral estoppel and decide whether to submit a competing ruling to be decided by the CAFC or to wait on the final ruling on appeal to the CAFC for Micron III was complete.
If he was to submit a competing ruling, he would have by now.
Since collateral estoppel is meant to be used for final rulings, if he were to consider this truly, he would need to wait for all appeals to be completed in that case.
If you have a better explanation for why he hasn't ruled, please do extrapolate.