Nic has a diff opinion than me and you are welcome to hunt his posts down; they all deal w/ his distortion of what Whyte has ruled to date.
MHO - and I am right BTW-
Hynix has to prove, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE*
e a c h
element
of its unclean hands defense
beginning with the much discussed Q of when Rambus first was under a duty to preserve relevant evidence.
==========================================
****Is the onus on Rambus or on Hynix?
==========================================
* A RECENT POST OF MINE SAID:
I keep going back to both the burden of proof and the standard of proof, and, while I will always look at a contrary argument, it just seems to me that
A. Hynix has the burden to put on adequate evidence and persuade
B. To my mind, an ambiguous or nebulous body of evidence just does not cut it for Hynix under a clear and convincing standard of proof...........ask yourself this question "On what point in contention has Hynix adduced 'clear and convincing' evidence, i.e., evidence which produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of a factual contention is 'highly probable.'"
C. If I were Rambus, I'd be hammering these points in what I file.
======================
"Clear and convincing" evidence is evidence which produces in the mind of the trier of fact an abiding conviction that the truth of a factual contention is "highly probable"). Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316, 104 S.Ct. 2433, 2437 (1983). See also Buildex, Inc. v. Kason Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1461, 1463, 7 USPQ2d 1325, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
===
"Last Term, the Court made clear that Colorado's proof would be judged by a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard. . . .In contrast to the ordinary civil case, which typically is judged by a "preponderance of the evidence" standard, we thought a diversion of interstate water should be allowed only if Colorado could place in the ultimate factfinder an abiding conviction that the truth of its factual contentions are "highly probable."
========
U.S. Supreme Court
COLORADO v. NEW MEXICO, 467 U.S. 310 (1984)
467 U.S. 310
