Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Filing 344

ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL re 340 Proposed Order filed by Silicon Xtal, uPI Semiconductor Corporation (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/10/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 GLENN E. WESTREICH (SBN 100457) JASON M. GONDER (SBN 257522) INCHAN A. KWON (SBN 247614) HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP 2033 Gateway Place, Suite 300 San Jose, California 95110 Tel: (408) 660-4120 Fax: (408) 660-4121 Email: upi@haynesboone.com Attorneys for Defendants, uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION and SILICON XTAL CORPORATION 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 13 14 15 RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Plaintiff, 16 17 18 19 20 v. Case No. CV 09-05659 WHA [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION and SILICON XTAL CORPORATION uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Case No. 09-cv-5659 WHA 1 Having considered the SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS uPI 2 SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION and SILICON XTAL CORPORATION and GOOD 3 CAUSE appearing therefore, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Hogan Lovells US LLP is substituted into the above- 5 captioned matter as sole counsel of record for uPI and SXC in place of Haynes and Boone, LLP. 6 Haynes and Boone, LLP shall be removed from the service list and Court roll. Steven M. 7 Levitan, Edward C. Kwok, Jennifer M. Lantz, and Clark S. Stone of Hogan Lovells US LLP 8 have entered their appearance and are authorized to receive service of all pleadings, notices, 9 orders, and other papers on uPI and SXC’s behalf. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED: 11 12 January 8, 2013. DATED: _________________ THE HON. WILLIAM H. ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 [PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL Case No. 09-cv-5659 WHA

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?