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

Filing 399

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE. Responses due by 3/18/2015 at noon.. Signed by Judge Alsup on March 5, 2015. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 No. C 09-05659 WHA Plaintiff, v. uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, POWERCHIP TECHNOLOGY CORP., MAXCHIP ELECTRONICS CORP., SILICON XTAL CORPORATION, AMANDA DAI, and JACKY LEE, REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Defendants. 17 / 18 The Federal Circuit has issued a mandate in the ITC proceeding and no petition for writ 19 of certiorari has been filed. Nevertheless, uPI Semiconductor Corporation (and defendants) 20 contend that the stay should continue during the entire remand proceeding before the ITC and 21 any subsequent appeals. To tee this up, both sides are hereby given the opportunity to fully brief 22 this issue with all relevant facts and authorities. It would be helpful if the parties could please 23 explain, among other things: (1) the schedule and timeline for the ITC proceeding post-remand; 24 (2) the parties’ best estimate of when the ITC proceeding and any subsequent appeals would be 25 completely concluded; (3) how the phrase “until the determination of the Commission becomes 26 final,” 28 U.S.C. 1659, has been interpreted in actions where all that remains for remand before 27 the ITC is review of post-consent order products in an ITC enforcement proceeding; 28 (4) a complete list of claims, defendants, and accused products that remain in this action; (5) the differences (and overlap), if any, between the issues in the ITC proceeding and this action; and 1 (6) the differences (and overlap), if any, between the accused products in the ITC proceeding and 2 this action. To be clear, it is not helpful for uPI to baldly state that there is a “potential overlap” 3 between “issues in the ITC proceeding” and this action because the scope of the ITC remand 4 proceeding has “not yet been decided.” Both sides shall please back up pertinent facts with 5 adequate supporting documents (with highlights and exhibit tabs) on a sworn record. 6 Each side’s brief is limited to fifteen pages. This submission is due by MARCH 18 AT NOON. 7 Defendant Powerchip Technology Corporation states that it continues to “refrain from 8 participating” in this action to preserve its “lack of personal-jurisdiction defense.” After 9 jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing, a June 2011 order denied Powerchip’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 320). Powerchip has until MARCH 18 AT NOON, to file a statement 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 (not to exceed three pages) explaining why it believes it still has a “lack of personal-jurisdiction 12 defense” and showing cause why the stay should not be lifted for the claims against it. Is 13 Powerchip a party to the post-remand ITC proceeding? To be clear, this is not an opportunity to 14 seek reconsideration of the prior order. 15 16 Dated: March 5, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?