1 / 8

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004). Frank Mieczkowski e Discovery – September 13, 2010. Parties. Plaintiff – Rambus Develops and licenses technologies to companies that manufacture semi-conductor memory devices Relies on licensing for revenue

maris
Download Presentation

Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG 222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Rambus, Inc. v. Infineon Tech. AG222 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 2004) Frank Mieczkowski eDiscovery – September 13, 2010

  2. Parties • Plaintiff – Rambus • Develops and licenses technologies to companies that manufacture semi-conductor memory devices • Relies on licensing for revenue • Defendant – Infineon Technologies • Developer and manufacturer of technology-related products

  3. Patent infringement – March 17 Opinion Infineon establishes Rambus intentionally destroyed evidence relevant to this litigation from 1998-2000 Document Retention and Destruction Policy (1998) March – VP of IP Summer – presentation to employees Sept. 3 – “Shred Day” Celebration or morale boost? 20,000 lbs = 2mm pages possible other days, as well Outside counsel also told to destroyed docs Depositions – purge files because “such materials are discoverable in subsequent litigations” Rambus argues the policy’s legitimate business purpose “Look for things to keep” Trade secrets (life); personnel records (3) Pack-rat type of business Streamline discovery-related concerns Search, review and costs NOT for the purpose of eliminating potentially dangerous documents Facts

  4. Legal Framework • Whether certain sanctions for spoliation are warranted despite a DRDP • Did Rambus engage in intentional destruction of evidence in anticipation of litigation it intended to bring? • Rule 37 (e) Failure to Provide Electronically Stored Information. (2006) Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.

  5. Analysis • Document/ records retention policy is an integral part of licensing but not litigation strategy • Timeframe of policy’s action in light of the litigation • Characteristics of litigation • action specified litigants, venues and Rambus destroyed its related documents • Overall purpose – program and policy had an illegitimate purpose

  6. Issues • Both parties must adhere to preserving documents and files • What is the “trigger date” for a plaintiff? • Plaintiff controls the commencement of litigation • Document retention and destruction • Regulatory and legal requirements, business practices and needs • Cost of storage v. Cost of retrieval

  7. Outcome • Infineon made a prima facie showing of intentional spoliation on the part of Rambus • Rambus destroyed the information in anticipation of litigation it brought as it improved its “litigation posture” • 2-3 years before commenced litigation • Sanctions warranted but reserved for a later opinion

  8. Class Discussion • As it becomes easier and more cost-effective to store (but maybe not retrieve) ESI, what are potential factors in creating a document retention policy? • Should a plaintiff suspend the initial implementation of a policy if litigation is in the future (“anticipated”, “probable”, “possible”)? • Should the plaintiff be expected to maintain a higher standard with respect to retaining documents and ESI? • Does that encourage too much retention? • Could not retaining enough damage a claim? • Consider 2006 amendment to Rule 37(e) and Sarbanes-Oxley Act (p.72)

More Related