Symantec Corporation v. Acronis, Inc

Filing 334

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 330 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER conditional dismissal with prejudice filed by Symantec Corporation. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 4/21/14. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/21/2014)

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330 Filed04/15/14 Page1 of 4

1 Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
2 Eric E. Wall (Bar No. 248692)
[e-mail]
3 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
4 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
5 Facsimile: [phone]
6 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant
Symantec Corporation
7
Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819/[e-mail])
8
Olga I. May (SBN 232012/[e-mail])
9 Aleksandr Gelberg (SBN 279989/[e-mail])
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
10 12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, California 92130
11 Telephone: [phone]/Facsimile: [phone]
12 Attorneys for Defendants-Counterclaimants Acronis, Inc.,
Acronis International GmbH and OOO Acronis
13
14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

Symantec Corporation,

Case No. 11-cv-5310 EMC

17
Plaintiff,
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITH PREJUDICE

18
vs.

19
20

Acronis, Inc, Acronis International GmbH, and
OOO Acronis

21

Defendants.

22
23
Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2), Plaintiff Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) hereby
24
dismisses its complaint and all causes of action as against Defendant Acronis, Inc, Acronis
25
International GmbH, and OOO Acronis (“Acronis”), with prejudice subject to the following
26
conditions:
27
28

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330 Filed04/15/14 Page2 of 4

1

Acronis shall comply with the terms of the confidential Settlement Agreement dated

2 March 27, 2014.
3

Acronis hereby dismisses its counter-claims and all causes of action as against Symantec

4 with prejudice, subject to the following conditions:
5
6

Symantec shall comply with the terms of the confidential Settlement Agreement dated
March 27, 2014.

7
8

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the confidential Settlement Agreement for the

9 purposes of enforcing the terms of the confidential Settlement Agreement including entering the
10 Consent Judgment (as set forth in Section 4.2 of the confidential Settlement Agreement and
11 attached as Exhibit A to this stipulation) should Acronis breach the confidential Settlement
12 Agreement by not making the agreed upon payments to Symantec as set forth in Section 4.1 and
13 4.2 of the confidential Settlement Agreement.
14

The parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

15 DATED: April 15, 2014

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN

16

By: /s/ Jennifer Kash
Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
Eric E. Wall (Bar No. 248692)
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Dave Nelson (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Brianne Straka (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

26
27

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant
Symantec Corporation

28

2

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330 Filed04/15/14 Page3 of 4

1 DATED: April 15, 2014

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

2

By: Olga I. May

3

John W. Thornburgh
Olga I. May
Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, California 92130
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

Attorneys for Defendants-Counterclaimants
Acronis, Inc., Acronis Int’l GmbH, and OOO Acronis

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330 Filed04/15/14 Page4 of 4

1
2

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45(X)(B), I hereby certify that concurrence in the filing of

3 this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above.
4

Kate E Cassidy
_/s/____________________________

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-1 Filed04/15/14 Page1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

1
2
3

4 Symantec Corporation,
Plaintiff,

5
6

Case No. 11-cv-5310 EMC

vs.

7 Acronis, Inc, Acronis International GmbH,
8

and OOO Acronis
Defendants.

9
10
11
12

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Before this Court is the Stipulation regarding dismissal of Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”)’s

13 complaint and Acronis, Inc, Acronis International GmbH, and Acronis International GmbH (“Acronis”)’s
14 counterclaims with prejudice. After having considered the same, the Court is of the opinion that such
15 relief be GRANTED.
16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

17

1.

This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the confidential Settlement Agreement for the

18 purposes of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement including entering the Consent Judgment (as
19 set forth in Section 4.2 of the confidential Settlement Agreement and attached as Exhibit A to this Order)
20 should Acronis breach the confidential Settlement Agreement by not making the agreed upon payments to
21 Symantec as set forth in Section 4.1 and 4.2 of the confidential Settlement Agreement.
22

2.

Within five days after the Court receives notification from Symantec that Acronis has

23 breached the confidential Settlement Agreement by not making the agreed upon payments to Symantec as
24 set forth in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement, this Court shall enter the Consent Judgment regarding
25 that breach which is attached as Exhibit A.
26

3.

Subject to these conditions, all claims by Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) against

27 Acronis in the patent-infringement litigation of the above captioned case are dismissed WITH
28 PREJUDICE and all claims by Acronis against Symantec are dismissed WITH PREJUDICE.

5

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-1 Filed04/15/14 Page2 of 2

Acronis and Symantec will each bear its own costs, expenses and legal fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
4/21/14

RT

8

dwar
Judge E

ER

H

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

6

en

d M. Ch

NO

7

Honorable Edward M. Chen
ANTED States District Judge
GR United

R NIA

6

UNIT
ED

5

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
_______________________________

RT
U
O

4

S

3 DATED:____________________________

FO

2

LI

4.

A

1

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-2 Filed04/15/14 Page1 of 6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

EXHIBIT A-1 [Redacted Version]

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-2 Filed04/15/14 Page2 of 6

1
2 Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
3 Eric E. Wall (Bar No. 248692)
[e-mail]
4 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
5 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
6 Facsimile: [phone]
7 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant
Symantec Corporation
8
Jason W. Wolff (SBN 215819/[e-mail])
9 Olga I. May (SBN 232012/[e-mail])
10 Aleksandr Gelberg (SBN 279989/[e-mail])
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
11 12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, California 92130
12 Telephone: [phone]/Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for Defendants-Counterclaimants Acronis, Inc.,
Acronis International GmbH and OOO Acronis
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15
16

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18 SYMANTEC CORPORATION,
Case No. 3:11-cv-05310-EMC
19

Plaintiff-Counterclaim
Defendant,

20

REDACTED STIPULATED FINAL
JUDGMENT AND CONSENT ORDER

vs.
21
ACRONIS INC., ACRONIS
22 INTERNATIONAL GMBH, AND OOO
ACRONIS
23
Defendants-Counterclaimants.
24
25

The Parties (Symantec Corporation (“Symantec”) and Acronis, Inc., Acronis International

26 GmbH, and OOO Acronis (collectively, “Acronis”)), by and through their respective counsel,
27

agree to the entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment and Consent Order (“Consent Judgment”).

28

14

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-2 Filed04/15/14 Page3 of 6

1

This Court has jurisdiction to enter this Consent Judgment because it expressly retained

2 jurisdiction over the Parties March 27, 2014 confidential Settlement Agreement (“Settlement
3
4

Agreement”) pursuant to this Court’s March ___, 2014 order in the above captioned case.
Symantec and Acronis acknowledge that they have knowingly and voluntarily entered into

5
6
7

this Consent Judgment and the Settlement Agreement after reviewing the same with their counsel
or having had ample opportunity to consult with counsel. Symantec and Acronis understand the

8 undertakings, obligations and terms of this Consent Judgment and the Settlement Agreement.
9

Acronis has agreed to the jurisdiction of this Court to enforce this Consent Judgment and

10 to waive any right to appeal, seek judicial review, or to otherwise challenge or contest the validity
11

of this Consent Judgment.

12
The Parties having requested the entry of this Consent Judgment, it is therefore
13
14
15

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
15.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action and personal jurisdiction

16 over the parties, venue is proper in this district, and the Court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment
17 pursuant to the terms of this Consent Judgment as final resolution of this action.
18
19

16.

On March 27, 2014 Symantec and Acronis entered into a confidential Settlement

Agreement (“Agreement”) in settlement for three civil actions:

20
21
22
23
24
25

d. United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Symantec Corp. v. Acronis Inc. et al, Case No. 3:11-cv-5310 EMC (“Acronis I”),
e. United States District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Symantec Corp. v. Acronis Inc. et al, Case No. 3:12-cv-5331 JST (“Acronis II”),
f. United States District Court for the District of Delaware captioned Acronis Int’l
GmbH et al v. Symantec Corporation Civil Action No. 12-372 (SLR) (“Acronis
Delaware”)

26
27
28

15

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-2 Filed04/15/14 Page4 of 6

1

17.

That Agreement required Acronis to make certain payments within a specified

2 period of time. If Acronis did not satisfy its payment obligations, the parties agreed that this
3
4

Consent Judgment would be entered.
18.

On ______ Symantec notified Acronis of its failure to make a payment under

5
6
7

Section ___.
19.

Acronis did not cure the non-payment within 30 days of that notice which made all

8 remaining payments immediately due and payable (“Accelerated Payment”).
9

20.

As of _____, Acronis has not made the Accelerated Payment under Section 4.2 of

10 the Agreement.
11

21.

Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement, the parties have stipulated to and jointly

12
file this Consent Judgment.
13
14

22.

Pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Agreement, Acronis has stipulated to damages of

15 $[redacted] for Acronis’s breach of the Agreement. Symantec is therefore AWARDED
16 $[redacted].
17

23.

Symantec is further AWARDED $[redacted] for attorneys’ fees and costs which

18 Acronis has agreed to pay to cover Symantec’s fees and costs to enforce this Consent Judgment.
19

24.

Symantec is further AWARDED interest on $[redacted] for any time period

20
between the entry of this Consent Judgment and the date upon which Symantec receives payment
21
22

from Acronis as ordered herein.

23

25.

All relief not granted in this Consent Judgment is DENIED.

24

26.

All pending motions not previously resolved are DENIED.

25

27.

This Court will retain jurisdiction over the parties, as necessary, to enforce the

26

terms of this Consent Judgment.

27
28

16

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-2 Filed04/15/14 Page5 of 6

1

28.

The parties hereby stipulate and agree, without further notice to any of them, to

2 entry of this Consent Judgment, which shall constitute a final judgment against Acronis.
3
4 DATED: _____________

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN

5

By: /s/ Jennifer Kash
Jennifer A. Kash (Bar No. 203679)
[e-mail]
Eric E. Wall (Bar No. 248692)
[e-mail]
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10

Dave Nelson (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Brianne Straka (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
500 West Madison Street, Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12
13
14
15
16

Attorneys for Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant
Symantec Corporation

17 DATED: ______________

FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

18

By: Olga I. May

19

John W. Thornburgh
Olga I. May
Fish & Richardson P.C.
12390 El Camino Real
San Diego, California 92130
Tel.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

20
21
22
23

Attorneys for Defendants-Counterclaimants
Acronis, Inc., Acronis Int’l GmbH, and OOO Acronis

24
25
26

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION
Pursuant to General Order No. 45(X)(B), I hereby certify that concurrence in the filing of

27 this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories shown above.
28

_/s/____________________________
17

Case3:11-cv-05310-EMC Document330-2 Filed04/15/14 Page6 of 6

1
2
3

[PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 DATED:____________________________

_______________________________

5

Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18