On Friday, Whyte found that Rambus destroyed documents when it anticipated litigation. Specifically, Whyte said, Rambus employees were told to destroy documents at annual "shred days," from 1998 to 2000, prior to filing the patent suits.

Because litigation was "reasonably foreseeable," Whyte ruled, Rambus should had preserved the documents.

"Rambus engaged in spoliation of evidence when it engaged in the destruction of documents on all three shred days," the 66-page ruling states.

Rambus countered that its engineers tended to be "pack rats" and said that its policy was justified...

"The evidence does not show that Rambus knowingly destroyed damaging evidence," Whyte said.

"Although the evidence does not support a conclusion that Rambus deliberately shredded documents it knew to be damaging, the court concludes that Rambus nonetheless spoliated evidence in bad faith or at least willfully," he added.

Because litigation was "reasonably foreseeable," Whyte ruled, Rambus should had preserved the documents.

"Even if none of the destroyed documents would have shed new light on the disclosure obligation, there may have been internal Rambus documents containing information about Rambus' plans to gain market power by using information learned at [Joint Electron Device Engineering Council] JEDEC meetings. Such evidence could have been relevant and given support to Hynix's equitable claims and defenses," Whyte said.

"The court concludes that Hynix has made a plausible, concrete suggestion that it may have been prejudiced by destruction of JEDEC-related documents, and that Rambus has not overcome this suggestion of prejudice by clear and convincing evidence."