Seiko Epson Corporation v. Optoma Technology, Inc.

Filing 256

STIPULATION AND ORDER dismissing claims related to US Patent NO. 6,558,004; Signed by Judge Marilyn Hall Patel on 9/29/2008. (awb, COURT-STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JAMES A. OLIFF (Pro Hac Vice) JOHN W. O'MEARA (Pro Hac Vice), WILLIAM J. UTERMOHLEN (Pro Hac Vice), OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC 277 South Washington St., Suite 500 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] e-mails: [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail] SUSAN VAN KEULEN CA Bar No. 136060, [e-mail] CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN CA Bar No. 235517, [e-mail] THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & STEINER, LLP 225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200 San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: [phone]; Fax [phone] Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation, Epson Research and Development, Inc. and Epson America, Inc.

YITAI HU CA Bar No. 248085, [e-mail] ELIZABETH H. RADER CA Bar No. 184963 [e-mail] ALSTON+BIRD LLP Two Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, CA 94306 Tel: [phone]; Fax: [phone] Attorneys for Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION SEIKO EPSON CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. CORETRONIC CORPORATION and OPTOMA TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case Nos. C 06-6946, 07-6055 MHP STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS RELATING TO U.S. PATENT NO. 6,558,004

WHEREAS Seiko Epson Corporation ("SEC") asserted in this case that Coretronic Corporation ("Coretronic") and Optoma Technology, Inc. ("Optoma") infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,558,004 ("the 004 Patent"); and

1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 6,558,004 CASE NOS. C 06-6946, 07-6055 MHP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WHEREAS Coretronic and Optoma have asserted counterclaims for declaratory judgment that the 004 Patent is invalid and not infringed; and WHEREAS SEC is willing to withdraw its infringement assertions as to the 004 Patent in this case on the terms reflected in this Stipulation; and WHEREAS the parties agree that in light of such withdrawal, the issue of the 004 Patent's validity need not be litigated and resolved at this time; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES STIPULATE AND ASK THE COURT FOR AN ORDER AS FOLLOWS: 1. Dismissing with prejudice SEC's assertions of infringement of the 004 Patent against

Coretronic and Optoma and dismissing without prejudice Coretronic's and Optoma's Counterclaims seeking a declaration regarding the non-infringement and invalidity of the 004 Patent. 2. Directing that each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred to date in

this case in connection with all proceedings related to the 004 Patent. DATED: September 25, 2008 Respectfully submitted, __________/Elizabeth H. Rader/___________ Yitai Hu (CA Bar No. 248085) Elizabeth H. Rader (CA Bar No. 184963) ALSTON+BIRD LLP 2 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 400 Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Coretronic Corporation and Optoma Technology, Inc. __________/William J. Utermohlen/_________ James A. Oliff (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) John W. O'Meara (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) William J. Utermohlen (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) OLIFF & BERRIDGE, PLC 277 South Washington Street, Suite 500 Alexandria, VA 22314 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Susan van Keulen (CA Bar No. 136060) Christopher L. Ogden (CA Bar No. 235517) THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & STEINER LLP 225 West Santa Clara Street, Suite 1200 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation, Epson Research & Development Corporation and Epson America, Inc. 2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 6,558,004 CASE NOS. C 06-6946, 07-6055 MHP

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B) regarding signatures, I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Elizabeth H. Rader. Dated: September 25, 2008 THELEN REID BROWN RAYSMAN & STEINER LLP By: /Christopher L. Ogden/ Christopher L. Ogden, Esq. (State Bar No. 235517)

Attorneys for Seiko Epson Corporation

Having considered the parties' statements and stipulations set forth above, and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. SEC's claims of infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,558,004 against Coretronic and

Optoma are DISMISSED with prejudice and Coretronic's and Optoma's Counterclaims seeking a declaration regarding the non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 6,558,004 are DISMISSED without prejudice. 2. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs incurred to date in this case in

connection with all proceedings related to the 004 Patent.

19 20 21

9/292/008 Dated: ___________________, 2008

24 25 26 27 28 3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS REGARDING U.S. PATENT NO. 6,558,004

N

F D IS T IC T O R

CASE NOS. C 06-6946, 07-6055 MHP

A

23

ER

C

LI

FO

22

ari Judge M

lyn H. P

atel

R NIA

________________________________________ ERED MarilynORD SO Hall Patel IT IS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

UNIT ED

S

18

S DISTRICT TE C TA

RT U O

NO

RT

H