Amkor Technology, Inc. v. Carsem (M) Sdn Bhd et al

Filing 73

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/14/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER REQUESTING BRIEFING

CARSEM (M) SDN BHD ET AL,
Defendant.
/

17
18

No. C 03-05116 WHA

AMKOR TECHNOLOGY, INC.,

At the January 10 case management conference, the parties disputed the question of

19

whether the district court action could proceed on the issue of damages while other issues

20

continue before the FTC. Under In re Princo Corporation, 478 F.3d 1345, 1356 (Fed. Cir.

21

2007), the answer is no. The mandatory stay “of any district court determination of issues

22

pending before the Commission . . . extends to any district court ‘proceedings’ on a ‘claim’

23

involving issues pending before the Commission.” Id. Accordingly, the current stay order must

24

remain in effect. In an ex parte letter brief filed after the case management conference, however,

25

plaintiff now contends that defendant has not appealed the Commission’s decision with respect

26

to two of the three patents in the action, and that therefore those patents are no longer ‘pending

27

before the Commission.’ Plaintiff asks that the stay be lifted as to these two patents so that the

28

action can proceed in this district.

1
2

Defendant may respond to plaintiff’s submission in a brief of not more than four pages by
JANUARY 17 AT NOON. No replies, please.

3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6
7

Dated: January 14, 2013.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2