Rambus (RMBS)

[mtsugawa]

I couldn't help but notice this 'omission' from the footnote at the bottom of Judge Jordan's opinion:

Note 3As noted supra, Judge Payne ruled from the bench in the Infineon case that Rambus was barred from enforcing its patents because it was liable for unclean hands and had spoliated evidence. See Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Rambus, Inc., 398 F, Supp.
2d 470 473 (E.D. Va, 2005) (discussing the Infineon proceedings after remand). On January 4, 2006, the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte issued Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the unclean hands phase of the Hynix case (D.I. 704), concluding that Rambus did not 'engage in unlawful spoliation of evidence' and that the doctrine of unclean hands did not apply. (See id. at 35, 41 ,) What, if any, preclusion effect the rulings in Infineon and Hynix might have in this case has not been addressed by the parties.

You think it was simply a typo or did Judge Jordan purposefully drop the 'Honorable' salutation from the reference to Payne?

Thanks docrew for all your outstanding efforts!

Mark

P.S. I'll be attending the HYNX v RMBS CMC today in JW's court. Look on the Yahoo board for my notes later this weekend.