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.
Posts
