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

Filing 496

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORP.S AND NON-PARTIES ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.S AND BEST DATA PRODUCTS D/B/A DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA, INC.S STIPULATED REQUEST TO ALLOW USE OF ITC DISCOVERY by Hon. William Alsup granting 495 Stipulation.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/10/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Yitai Hu (SBN 248085) (yitai.hu@alston.com) Ryan W. Koppelman (SBN 290704) (ryan.koppelman@alston.com) Hsin-Yi (Cindy) Huang (SBN 215152) (cindy.huang@alston.com) Samuel T. Lam (SBN 285135) (sam.lam@alston.com) ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1950 University Avenue, 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303 Telephone: 650-838-2000 Facsimile: 650-838-2001 Elizabeth H. Rader (SBN 184963) (elizabeth.rader@alston.com) Jennifer (Celine) Liu (SBN 268990) (celine.liu@alston.com) ALSTON & BIRD LLP 950 F Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-239-3008 Facsimile: 202-239-3333 Attorneys for Plaintiff RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORP. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 15 16 RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, Order re: 17 18 19 20 21 22 No. C 09-05659 WHA Plaintiff, v. uPI SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, POWERCHIP TECHNOLOGY CORP., MAXCHIP ELECTRONICS CORP., SILICON XTAL CORPORATION, AMANDA DAI, and JACKY LEE, PLAINTIFF RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORP.’S AND NON-PARTIES ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.’S AND BEST DATA PRODUCTS D/B/A DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA, INC.’S STIPULATED REQUEST TO ALLOW USE OF ITC DISCOVERY Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 Order re: -1PL.’S & NON-PARTIES AMD & DIAMOND’S STIP. TO USE ITC DISCOVERY LEGAL02/36367481v1 Case No. 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiff Richtek Technology Corporation and non-parties 1 2 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”) and Best Data Products d/b/a Diamond Multimedia, Inc. 3 (“Diamond”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby jointly submit the following 4 Stipulation in the above-entitled action: 5 WHEREAS, AMD and Diamond produced to Richtek certain documents in the related ITC 6 Investigation No. 337-TA-698, Certain DC-DC Controllers and Products Containing the Same (the 7 “ITC Proceedings”); 8 WHEREAS, on March 31, 2016, Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ordered that “[a]ll discovery 9 that Richtek and uPI produced in the related ITC investigation will be treated as if it were produced in 10 this lawsuit, protected by a similar protective order” (Dkt. No. 473 at 4); 11 WHEREAS, Richtek has requested AMD’s and Diamond’s consent to treat discovery produced 12 by AMD and Diamond in the ITC Proceedings as if it were produced in the instant lawsuit, protected by 13 the Protective Order in this case; and WHEREAS, AMD and Diamond do not object to the use in this case of documents that AMD 14 15 and Diamond produced in the ITC proceedings, provided that documents designated as containing 16 Confidential Business Information in the ITC Proceedings are designated as “Highly Confidential – 17 Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective Order in this case, and documents designated as containing 18 Highly Sensitive Information in the ITC Proceedings are designed as “Highly Confidential – Source 19 Code” under the Protective Order in this case; NOW, THEREFORE, AMD, Diamond, and Richtek jointly request that all discovery that 20 21 AMD and Diamond produced in the ITC Proceedings be treated as if it were produced in this lawsuit, 22 provided that documents designated as containing Confidential Business Information in the ITC 23 Proceedings are designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” under the Protective Order 24 in this case, and documents designated as containing Highly Sensitive Information in the ITC 25 Proceedings are designed as “Highly Confidential – Source Code” under the Protective Order in this 26 case. 27 28 -2PL.’S & NON-PARTIES AMD & DIAMOND’S STIP. TO USE ITC DISCOVERY LEGAL02/36367481v1 Case No. 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Order re: 1 Dated: May 9, 2016 2 Respectfully submitted, ALSTON & BIRD LLP 3 By: /s/Samuel T. Lam Yitai Hu (SBN 248085) yitai.hu@alston.com Ryan W. Koppelman (SBN 290704) ryan.koppelman@alston.com Samuel T. Lam (SBN 285135) sam.lam@alston.com ALSTON & BIRD LLP 1950 University Ave., 5th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2282 Tel: (650) 838-2000 Fax: (650) 838-2001 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Elizabeth H. Rader (SBN 183963) elizabeth.rader@alston.com Jennifer (Celine) Liu (SBN 268990) (celine.liu@alston.com) ALSTON & BIRD LLP 950 F Street Washington, D.C. 20004 Tel: (202) 239-3008 Fax: (202) 239-3333 11 12 13 14 15 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY CORP. 17 18 O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 19 By: /s/Vision L. Winter Vision L. Winter (SBN 234172) vwinter@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tel: (213) 430-6000 Fax: (213) 430-6407 20 21 22 23 24 Darin W. Snyder (SBN 136003) dsnyder@omm.com O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 984-8700 Fax: (415) 984-8701 25 26 27 28 Order re: -3PL.’S & NON-PARTIES AMD & DIAMOND’S STIP. TO USE ITC DISCOVERY LEGAL02/36367481v1 Case No. 3:09-cv-05659-WHA 1 2 Attorneys for Non-Party ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. and BEST DATA PRODUCTS D/B/A DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA, INC. 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 -4Order re: PL.’S & NON-PARTIES AMD & DIAMOND’S STIP. TO USE ITC DISCOVERY LEGAL02/36367481v1 Case No. 3:09-cv-05659-WHA 1 FILER’S ATTESTATION 2 Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I, Samuel T. Lam, attest that 3 concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained. 4 /s/Samuel T. Lam Samuel T. Lam 5 6 7 8 9 10 [PROPOSED] ORDER 11 PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 May 10 Dated: ____________________, 2016 14 ___________________________________ United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5PL.’S & NON-PARTIES AMD & DIAMOND’S STIP. TO USE ITC DISCOVERY LEGAL02/36367481v1 Case No. 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Order re:

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?