The Honorable Read Ambler (Retired) Special Master, banged down his “REDACTED” stamp nineteen times in his Public Redacted Order signed 2/16/05 regarding Rambus’ motion to compel Hynix to produce a few dozen documents. Hynix had withheld 153 requested documents on the basis of a claimed attorney client privilege or a joint defense privilege.
In December 1999, Hynix and five other companies [Infineon, NEC (now Elpida), Samsung, Intel, Hynix and Micron] formed the Advanced Dram Technology consortium (ADT) “as a vehicle for the cooperative development of future DRAM technologies.” In January and March 2000, Rambus initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Hitachi. Hitachi unsuccessfully attempted to join Hynix and all the other DRAM companies in the litigation. The other companies, not wishing to join, opposed the motion and Hitachi was left standing alone against Rambus.
Included in the list of documents Rambus wants to take a look at is the ADT agreement and a joint defense agreement of the ADT. Regarding these two agreements, the Special Master offered Hynix about five pages of judicial wisdom with about twenty cites to ponder and gave Rambus the thumbs up.
Hynix convinced the Special Master that a couple requested items were protected by the attorney client privilege and gave Rambus the thumbs down on them. However, with regard to the remaining 150ish items, the Special Master was not impressed stating “Hynix has failed to justify its assertion of the joint defense privilege, the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.”
The Special Master gave Hynix 14 days to provide additional evidence, explanation and/or argument in support of its objections producing the documents for Rambus. Upon receipt of Hynix’s further submission, Rambus has 7 days to respond. Stay tuned.
Hat tip to Rambus Investor Relations for promptly posting the Order on its Litigation Update page.
In December 1999, Hynix and five other companies [Infineon, NEC (now Elpida), Samsung, Intel, Hynix and Micron] formed the Advanced Dram Technology consortium (ADT) “as a vehicle for the cooperative development of future DRAM technologies.” In January and March 2000, Rambus initiated patent infringement lawsuits against Hitachi. Hitachi unsuccessfully attempted to join Hynix and all the other DRAM companies in the litigation. The other companies, not wishing to join, opposed the motion and Hitachi was left standing alone against Rambus.
Included in the list of documents Rambus wants to take a look at is the ADT agreement and a joint defense agreement of the ADT. Regarding these two agreements, the Special Master offered Hynix about five pages of judicial wisdom with about twenty cites to ponder and gave Rambus the thumbs up.
Hynix convinced the Special Master that a couple requested items were protected by the attorney client privilege and gave Rambus the thumbs down on them. However, with regard to the remaining 150ish items, the Special Master was not impressed stating “Hynix has failed to justify its assertion of the joint defense privilege, the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.”
The Special Master gave Hynix 14 days to provide additional evidence, explanation and/or argument in support of its objections producing the documents for Rambus. Upon receipt of Hynix’s further submission, Rambus has 7 days to respond. Stay tuned.
Hat tip to Rambus Investor Relations for promptly posting the Order on its Litigation Update page.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment