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.