## Facts

- Rambus owned patents relating to DRAM technology and developed a plan to enforce and monetize those patents against DRAM manufacturers, including Micron.
- In 1998, anticipating patent litigation, Rambus and counsel discussed becoming “battle ready,” after which Rambus adopted a document-retention policy that reduced retention periods, eliminated certain backups, and targeted potentially helpful materials to future adversaries.
- In 1999, Rambus conducted multiple “shred days,” destroying substantial quantities of documents.
- In January 2000, Rambus filed patent litigation against another DRAM manufacturer, consistent with its broader enforcement campaign.
- Micron later filed a declaratory-judgment action in Delaware and asserted that Rambus’s patents were unenforceable due to bad-faith spoliation.
- The district court found litigation was reasonably foreseeable when Rambus executed its destruction program, found bad-faith spoliation, pierced attorney–client privilege under the crime–fraud exception, denied transfer to the Northern District of California, and sanctioned Rambus by holding twelve asserted patents unenforceable against Micron.

## Issues

1. When does the duty to preserve evidence arise for purposes of spoliation: only upon filing suit or when litigation is reasonably foreseeable?
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a dismissal-type sanction (patent unenforceability) without adequately analyzing bad faith, prejudice, and the suitability of lesser sanctions.
3. Whether the crime–fraud exception permitted piercing Rambus’s attorney–client privilege based on the document-destruction program.
4. Whether denying Rambus’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California was an abuse of discretion.

## Decision

- Affirmed the finding that Rambus had a duty to preserve evidence when it implemented and carried out the destruction program and that its conduct constituted spoliation.
- Vacated the dismissal-type sanction holding the asserted patents unenforceable because the district court did not sufficiently explain why dismissal was necessary given fault, prejudice, and alternative sanctions.
- Remanded for further findings on whether Rambus acted in bad faith with intent to impair Micron’s defenses, the extent of resulting prejudice, and whether a lesser sanction would adequately remedy and deter.
- Affirmed piercing attorney–client privilege under the crime–fraud exception based on a prima facie showing that communications furthered a scheme tied to improper document destruction.
- Affirmed denial of transfer, noting the first-filed status of the Delaware action and that the district court acted within its discretion in rejecting a transfer associated with forum-shopping concerns.

## Legal Principles

- A duty to preserve evidence arises when litigation is reasonably foreseeable, not only after a complaint is filed.
- Spoliation determinations require assessment of relevance of destroyed materials, the spoliator’s degree of fault (including whether destruction was in bad faith), and prejudice to the opposing party.
- Dismissal-type sanctions (including patent unenforceability) require a careful, explicit proportionality analysis explaining why lesser sanctions would be insufficient to remedy prejudice and deter misconduct.
- The crime–fraud exception permits piercing attorney–client privilege upon a prima facie showing that attorney communications were used in furtherance of a crime or fraud, including conduct aimed at corrupting the evidentiary record for anticipated litigation.
- Venue-transfer rulings are reviewed for abuse of discretion; first-filed considerations and avoidance of forum shopping may support denial of transfer.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit upheld findings that Rambus spoliated evidence and that privilege could be pierced under the crime–fraud exception, but it vacated the sweeping unenforceability sanction and required a more detailed, proportionality-based analysis tying fault and prejudice to the necessity of dismissal-type relief.


Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)