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)

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