Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. v. Islam et al

Filing 38

ORDER to extend hearing date re 36 Stipulation filed by Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Set/Reset Deadlines as to 36 Stipulation, 13 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Motion Hearing set for 5/7/2010 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco.. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/24/2010. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(be, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 11 A Professional Corporation San Jose MICHAEL J. IOANNOU (SBN 95208) mioannou@rmkb.com LITA M. VERRIER (SBN 181183) lverrier@rmkb.com LAEL D. ANDARA (SBN 215416) landara@rmkb.com ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 50 W. San Fernando St., #1400 San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: (408) 287-6262 Facsimile: (408) 918-4501 Attorneys for Plaintiff MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. DIDAR ISLAM aka MOHAMMED DIDARUL ISLAM, an individual, POWER IC LTD., an Indian company, HIP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a California corporation aka HIP SEMICONDUCTOR, Defendants. CASE NO. C10 00144 CRB (ADR) STIPULATION TO EXTEND THE HEARING DATE OF MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; [PROPOSED] ORDER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties hereto, that the hearing on Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.'s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, presently scheduled for April 2, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitled court, be extended for a period of at least thirty (30) days or the Court's closest available date. IT IS ALSO STIPULATED that Defendants, and each of them, shall remove all references to any Maxim trademarks Maxim, MAXQ, uMAX, including MAX alone or in combination with any numbered products and any accompanying datasheets from their respective websites, and that all advertising, manufacturing, distribution, importation, and sales of any RC1/5531843.1/LMV Stip. to Continue Hearing Date on Mot. For Prelim. Injunction; [Proposed] Order Case No. C10 00144 CRB (ADR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 11 A Professional Corporation San Jose defendants' products using or marked in any way with Maxim trademarks Maxim, MAXQ, uMAX, including the mark MAX alone or in combination with any numbered products and any accompanying datasheets shall cease pending this Court's Order on the hearing for Preliminary Injunction. Good cause exists for the continuance of the hearing as the parties are involved in settlement negotiations. Dated: March 24, 2010 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY By: s/Michael J. Ioannou MICHAEL J. IOANNOU LITA M. VERRIER Attorneys for Plaintiff MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC. Dated: March ____, 2010 POWER IC LTD. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RC1/5531843.1/LMV By: DIDAR ISLAM President and CEO For Defendant POWER IC. LTD Dated: March ____, 2010 By: DIDAR ISLAM Defendant Dated: March ____, 2010 HIP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. By: AZZAM A. ABDO President For Defendant HIP TECHNOLOGIES, INC. -2- Stip. to Continue Hearing Date on Mot. For Prelim. Injunction; [Proposed] Order Case No. C10 00144 CRB (ADR) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [PROPOSED] ORDER PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS ORDERED that the hearing on Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.'s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is continued from April 2, 2010, to May 7, 2010 _____________________________, at 10:00 a.m. _________________________________________ ERED JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT O ORD . Breyer harles R Judge C UNIT ED S S DISTRICT TE C TA RT U O Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley 11 A Professional Corporation San Jose N F D IS T IC T O R 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RC1/5531843.1/LMV -3- Stip. to Continue Hearing Date on Mot. For Prelim. Injunction; [Proposed] Order Case No. C10 00144 CRB (ADR) A 10 ER C LI FO 9 R NIA IT IS S NO RT H

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?