The judge found that at the same time that the patent holder was contemplating litigation in order to establish a royalty rate and to validate its patents, it implemented a document retention policy. Documents were being destroyed
pursuant to the new policy. It was not until later a “litigation hold” was instituted.
The Court determined that the retention policy was “discussed and adopted within the context of [the patent holder’s] litigation strategy,” and that the patent holder “knew, or should have known, that a general implementation
of the policy was inappropriate because the documents destroyed would become material at some point in the future.”
The Court found that the showing of bad faith was so clear and convincing, that the only appropriate sanction was to declare the patents unenforceable against Micron.
Firefox recommends the PDF Plugin for Mac OS X for viewing PDF documents in your browser.
We can also show you Legal Updates using the Google Viewer; however, you will need to be logged into Google Docs to view them.
Please choose one of the above to proceed!
LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.
Civil Procedure Updates
Federal, 3rd Circuit, Delaware |
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
© Doug Cornelius | Attorney Advertising