WI-LAN Inc. v. Calix, Inc.

Filing 40

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 6/7/2011. (beS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/8/2011)

Case3:09-cv-06038-CRB Document95

1

7

KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP
GREGORY S. GILCHRIST (State Bar No.
111536)
DAVID B. PERRY (State Bar No. 255925)
Two Embarcadero Center, 8th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.576.0300
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]

8

Attorneys for Defendant WI-LAN INC.

9

Filed06/07/11 Page1 of 3

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
Robert A. Cote (pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
One Bryant Park, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

2
3
4
5
6

10
11
12
13
14
15

Michael G. McManus (pro hac vice)
Email: [e-mail]
1700 K Street NW, Suite 740
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

16
17

Attorneys for Defendant WI-LAN INC.

18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

21

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

22
23

CALIX NETWORKS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

24
25
26

Case No. 09-6038 CRB
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

vs.
WI-LAN, INC., a Canadian Corporation,
Defendant.

27
28

Case No. C-09-6038
–1–
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
Dallas 324454v1

Case3:09-cv-06038-CRB Document95

Filed06/07/11 Page2 of 3

1

Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Calix, Inc.

2

(“Calix”) and Defendant Wi-LAN Inc. (“Wi-LAN”), by and through their respective counsel hereby

3

stipulate to the dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims in this action as follows:

4

Plaintiff Calix hereby dismisses, with prejudice, all claims in the complaint filed on

5

December 28, 2009 [Dkt. No. 1] and Wi-LAN hereby dismisses, with prejudice, all claims set forth

6

in its First Amended Answer and Counterclaim filed October 20, 2010 [Dkt. No. 77].

7
For the avoidance of doubt, the aforesaid dismissals with prejudice encompass all claims and
8
counterclaims in this case, including all claims and counterclaims in the case entitled, Wi-LAN Inc. v.
9
Calix, Inc., which was initiated in the United States Federal District Court, Eastern District of Texas
10
(as Case No. 2:10-CV-117), and transferred to the United States Federal District Court, Northern
11
District of California as Case No. C-11-00004 EMC, and which has since been consolidated with
12
this action.
13
14

Each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.

15
16
17

Respectfully submitted,
DATED: June 7, 2011.

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

18
19

By /s/ Michael G. McManus
Michael G. McManus (pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Defendant
Wi-LAN, Inc.

20
21
22
23

DATED: June 7, 2011.

REED SMITH LLP

24
25

By /s/ William R. Overend
William R. Overend
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Calix Networks, Inc.

26
27
28

Case No. C-09-6038
–2–
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
Dallas 324454v1

Case3:09-cv-06038-CRB Document95

Filed06/07/11 Page3 of 3

1
SIGNATURE ATTESTATION

2
3

I hereby attest that I have obtained the concurrence in the filing of this document for any

4

signatures on this document indicated by a “conformed” signature (/s/) and I have on file records to

5

support this concurrence for subsequent production for the Court if so ordered or for inspection upon

6

request.

7

DATED: June 7, 2011.

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.

8
By /s/ Michael G. McManus_________________
Michael G. McManus
Attorneys for Defendant
Wi-LAN Inc..

9
10
11
12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

13
14

The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have

15

consented to electronic service are being served this date with a copy of this document via the

16

Court's CM/ECF system per General Order No. 45(IX)(B). Any other counsel of record will be

17

served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission, and/or first class mail on this same date.
/s/ Michael G. McManus__________________
Michael G. McManus

18
19

UNIT
ED

25

RT

26

har
Judge C

ER

28

A

H

27

reyer

les R. B

Signed: June 7, 2011

FO

24

ERED

LI

23

O ORD
IT IS S

NO

22

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

S

21

R NIA

20

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Case No. C-09-6038
–3–
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DISMISS WITH PREJUDICE
Dallas 324454v1