Federal Circuit Rules on Divergent Spoliation Findings

Originally published May 24, 2011

Keywords: Evidence, spoliation, preservation, destruction of evidence

In two related cases involving accusations of spoliation of evidence leveled against patent-owner and declaratory judgment defendant, Rambus Inc.,¹ an expanded five-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the duty to preserve evidence begins when litigation is "reasonably foreseeable." The court rejected a "restrictive gloss" that the litigation be "'imminent, or probable without significant contingencies.'"

These two appeals arose from decisions in two district courts (Hynix in California, Micron in Delaware) reaching opposite conclusions based on the same set of underlying facts. Finding that Rambus had committed spoliation, the Micron court imposed dispositive sanctions and ruled Rambus's patents unenforceable against Micron as a result. The Hynix court, on the other hand, found that litigation was not reasonably