YMAX Corporation et al v. AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P.

Filing 41

ORDER FOR DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/23/2011. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/24/2011)

Case3:10-cv-02515-CRB Document40-1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Filed06/22/11 Page1 of 2

DARRYL M. WOO (CSB NO. 100513)
[e-mail]
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI (CSB NO. 168633)
[e-mail]
SAINA S. SHAMILOV (CSB NO. 215636)
[e-mail]
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants
YMAX CORPORATION, YMAX
COMMUNICATIONS CORP., MAGICJACK LP,
and TIGER JET NETWORKS, INC.

9
10

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

13

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

14
15
16

YMAX CORPORATION, YMAX
COMMUNICATIONS CORP.,
MAGICJACK LP, and TIGER JET
NETWORKS, INC.,

17
Plaintiffs-Counterdefendants,
18
v.
19
20
21

AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II,
L.P.,
Defendant-Counterclaimant.

22
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION
CASE NO. C 10-02515 CRB

Case No. C 10-02515 CRB
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF
ENTIRE ACTION

Case3:10-cv-02515-CRB Document40-1

1
2
3

Filed06/22/11 Page2 of 2

CAME ON THIS DAY for consideration of the Stipulated Motion for Dismissal the entire
action, and the Court being of the opinion that said motion should be GRANTED, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the entire case is hereby dismissed with

4

prejudice, with the exception of YMax’s defenses to patent infringement, which are dismissed

5

without prejudice.

6
7

It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees and costs are to be borne by the party that
incurred them.

8
IT IS SO ORDERED

RT

15

ER

H

16
17

er

R. Brey

FO

harles
Judge C

LI

14

NO

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SAN FRANCISCO

13

R NIA

The Honorable Charles EDBreyer
RDER R.
S SO O District Judge
United
IT I States

12
F ENWICK & W EST LLP

______________________________________

UNIT
ED

Dated: _________________, 2011
June 23

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

11

S

10

A

9

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL OF ENTIRE ACTION
CASE NO. C 10-02515 CRB

1