Rambus (RMBS)

[Skeptic]

Lifted from Yahoo...


What is a crooked judge to do!
by: rambus_scores 12/05/05 11:29 pm
Msg: 834677 of 834712

First he whittles down the patents in suit to 4, allowing RMBS to offer Samsung a covenant on only those 4.

And now this!

--------->
In addition, Samsung was found in the Mosaid case to have recently spoliated vast quantities of its e-mail evidence, much of it likely relevant to the patent claims in this case, including Samsung's unclean hands defense to those claims. See Mosaid, 348 F. Supp. 2d at 338-39; Mosaid 2004 WL 2550306 at *2.It would be capricious to award Samsung its attorney fees on a finding that Rambus has committed spoliation, while simultaneously overlooking the fact that Samsung has itself engaged in vast evidentiary spoliation of its e-mail files. The Federal Circuit has made clear that in considering whether to grant Section 285 attorneys' fees, it is proper for the court to take into consideration the conduct of "both sides" rather than simply focusing on the conduct of the patentee. See Sensonics, Inc.v Aerosonic Corp., 81 F.3d 1566, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Having not been permitted discovery of Samsung's spoliation, Rambus cannot make a full factual showing of the extent of that spoliation and its resulting prejudice to Rambus in order to show the full extent of Samsung's spoliation. This is one more reason, then, that the Court should exercise its discretion not to award fees to Samsung even if the Court were to determine that this case was "exceptional."
<---------