Wednesday, December 20, 2006

No Hynix v. Rambus interlocutory appeal

. . . at least not yet.

Judge Whyte, "with some reluctance" denied Hynix's motion for certification of his January 4, 2006 Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and April 22, 2005 Order Denying Hynix's Motion to Dismiss Patent Claims for Unclean Hands on the Basis of Collateral Estoppel.

The legal standard for certification:

1) Substantial grounds for difference of opinion and

2) May materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.

Hynix points to Judge Payne and tells Judge Whyte that there is a difference of opinion. The Honorable Judge Whyte disagreed with Hynix and found no difference of opinion as to "questions of law", (regarding preserving documents, etc.) but did acknowledge that while he was "troubled by inconsistent findings of fact" and how that leaves Hynix "compared to some others in the industry" he would not to certify stating "factual inconsistency does not provide a basis for appeal."

And the Ramboids danced in the street . . . .

Judge Whyte did not directly address the second prong of advancing termination of litigation and left the door unlocked, concluding with:

The court expresses no opinion at this time as to whether interlocutory appeal of Phases I and II will be appropriate following final rulings on the post Phase II motions.

Donkey Note:

Rambus should again be applauded for settling with Infineon before findings of spoliation were made by Judge Payne and then filing covenants not to sue Samsung on asserted patents mooting the spoliation issue yet again.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

But, that ______ (you fill in the blank) Croaker Frog criticized Rambus for settling with Infineon.

We all know how wise the all-knowing Frog was!

Threejack said...

Hey Treowth,

re: .... at least not yet.

You said it.

If HJW certifies Phases 1 & 2 and grants a Interlocutory Appeal before conducting Phase 3, I will lose all respect for his court.

As it is, his snail pace in conducting proceedings and his lack of command in directing an efficient process by the parties are impediments to securing justice for Rambus in several litigations. He has even given the FTC hope its findings might have CE in his court.

Rambus shareholders suffer for his weak performance.

Just my opinion.

Threejack

 
Personal Blogs - Blog Top Sites