Archive: October 28, 2010

1
Where “Entire Computer and Component Manufacturer’s Industry” was on Notice of Potential for Litigation, Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Warrants Sanctions

Where “Entire Computer and Component Manufacturer’s Industry” was on Notice of Potential for Litigation, Defendant’s Failure to Preserve Warrants Sanctions

Phillip M. Adams & Assoc., LLC v. Winbond Elecs. Corp., 2010 WL 3767318 (D. Utah Sept. 16, 2010)

In this ongoing multi-defendant patent litigation, the court has previously addressed allegations of spoliation.  In March 2009, the court found sanctions were warranted for defendant ASUS Computer International’s violation of its duty to preserve which arose in the “1999-2000 environment” of litigation surrounding the technology to resolve a defect in a particular floppy disk controller (“FDC”).  In this case, the court reaffirmed its earlier holding regarding the trigger for defendants’ duty to preserve, namely that “[i]n late 1999 the entire computer and component manufacturer’s industry was put on notice of a potential for litigation regarding defective floppy disk components (“FDCs”) by the well publicized settlement in a large class action lawsuit against Toshiba.”  Accordingly, for defendant MSI’s failure to uphold its duty to preserve, the court found sanctions were warranted.

Read More

Copyright © 2018, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.