Empiricum's guest editorial - Hynix cries "foul"

On February 11, 2005, Hynix filed a Motion To Intervene In the IFX case purposely to discover certain sealed documents. On March 21, 2005, IFX and RMBS filed a Stipulation of Dismissal and the case was closed. On the same day, the case was reportedly reopened for Hynix's pending motion. On March 25, 2005, the IFX docket was reportedly "edited to reflect receipt by the court of demonstrative exhibits (under seal) from Infineon from the hearing of February 4, 2005." (See Treowth article on March 28, 2005.)

Also on March 28, 2005, Hynix filed its Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of its motion to dismiss Rambus' patent infringement counterclaims on the basis of collateral estoppel on the unclean hands "ruling" in the IFX case.

Before discussing the merits of Hynix's claims, it is first necessary to analyze the standing of Hynix in the IFX case. The pertinent question that needs to be answered here is whether an intervenor, like Hynix, has a right superior to the litigants that it can force the reopening of an otherwise closed case. It is respectfully submitted that the answer to that is "no." The other related question is whether Hynix was prejudiced by the dismissal and closure of the IFX case. The answer to that is likewise "no" because Hynix may present the same motion with its own case pending before Judge Whyte.

As to the merits, or lack thereof, of Hynix claims seeking to give collateral estoppel effect on Judge Payne's unclean hands rulings against Rambus, there are two elements that need to be analyzed. First is the "finality" requirement. Hynix claims in its Memorandum that the rulings of Judge Payne have become final notwithstanding the fact that his last ruling was never reduced into writing and, also, notwithstanding the fact that IFX and RMBS have entered into a Stipulation of Dismissal. It is respectfully submitted that Hynix is in error here. It is a well-settled rule that litigants may settle their disputes at any time before a judgment becomes final. That may appear to be begging the question, but it is not. The rulings of Judge Payne have never reached the stage of finality. The most evident proof of this is the fact that Hynix itself was able to "reopen" the case. A fully closed case can never be reopened except perhaps through extraordinary writs.

Additionally, it must be stated that there is an overriding public policy to encourage the extrajudicial settlement of disputes and for courts to enforce that agreement. Courts cannot and should not force litigants to continue fighting when they say "no mas!"

The other equally important element of collateral estoppel concerning "fair and full opportunity to litigate the issue" is much easier to analyze when applied to the Rambus experience. Judge Robert E. Payne NEVER gave Rambus a "fair and full opportunity to litigate" the issue of unclean hands! Judge Payne denied Rambus' motion to discover the JRA documents which may have effectively rebutted the charge of unclean hands considering the equitable principle that "one who comes to equity must do equity." Judge Payne's ruling on the spoliation issue is equally assailable as an "unfair" ruling.. if not an illegal one! It should be recalled that Judge Payne improperly pierced the Attorney-Client Privilege which resulted in the improper discovery of some privileged documents that serve as the basis of his spoliation ruling. Applying by analogy the criminal law principle of "fruits of the poisonous tree," the eventual spoliation ruling was poisoned by his improper piercing of the Attorney-Client Privilege. Was the destruction of the documents considered a criminal act or conduct? Was the destruction of the documents fraudulent? Or did Judge Payne create a new exception to the privilege?

For anyone to claim that Judge Payne afforded Rambus a "fair and full opportunity to litigate" insults the intelligence of every Rambus shareholder! Based on the foregoing, the motion of Hynix falls flat on its face!

Empiricum

~oo0oo~

[DISCLAIMER and DISCLOSURES: The discussions contained above are NOT intended as investment and/or legal advice. Rather, they are for the evaluation and analysis of self-confessed Rambus, Inc., shareholders. The reader is strongly advised to conduct his / her own "due diligence" and / or consult a financial or legal advisor before acting on matters herein discussed. I am a Rambus shareholder since the year 2000 with a long term view on the company. This Article is written solely on my own initiative and discretion and is NOT being pursued on behalf of Rambus, Inc., or any of its officers or directors, or for anyone for that matter.]