MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee, AND MICRON ELECTRONICS, INC. AND MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Counterclaim Defendants-Appellees, v. RAMBUS INC., Defendant/Counterclaimant-Appellant., 645 F.3d 1311

Summary

The question regarding spoliation was whether the district court clearly erred when it determined that, at some time before the second shred day in August of 1999, litigation was reasonably foreseeable. The court could not conclude that the district court clearly erred for at least five reasons, one of which was that the patentee took several steps in furtherance of litigation prior to its second shredding party on August 26, 1999. Regarding the district court's choice of sanction, the district court did not make clear the basis on which it reached its bad faith determination, so that determination was remanded. The question of prejudice was also remanded. The district court also needed to explain the reasons for the propriety of the sanction chosen (if any) based on the degree of bad faith and prejudice, and the efficacy of other lesser sanctions. Next, because the district court properly found that plaintiff made a prima facie showing that, inter alia, the patentee willfully ...