Copytele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 108

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 107 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER of Dismissal with Prejudice filed by Copytele, Inc.. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 1/6/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/6/2015)

1

6

Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260)
[e-mail]
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
[e-mail]
Katherine C. Lubin (State Bar No. 259826)
[e-mail]
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc.

2
3
4
5

8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

COPYTELE, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff,

13
14

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH
PREJUDICE

v.

15

Case No. 3:13-cv-00380-EMC

AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, a
Taiwanese corporation; E INK
HOLDINGS, INC., a Taiwanese
corporation; and E INK CORPORATION,
a Delaware corporation,

The Honorable Edward M. Chen
16
17
18

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24

WHEREAS, Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. desires to voluntarily dismiss with prejudice any and
all claims it has brought against any and all parties to this action;
WHEREAS, Defendants AU Optronics Corporation, E Ink Holdings, Inc., and E Ink
Corporation have no objection to the dismissal with prejudice of all of Plaintiff’s claims;

25

WHEREAS, there are no counterclaims in this action that require resolution;

26

WHEREAS the parties agree to bear their own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs;

27

NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and Civil

28

Local Rule 7-12, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and AGREED by and between the parties
-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00380-EMC

1

through their designated counsel that this action in its entirety should be dismissed with prejudice,

2

with each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs. The parties respectfully

3

request that the Court enter an ORDER pursuant to this stipulation DISMISSING THIS ACTION

4

WITH PREJUDICE.

5
6

Dated: January 5, 2015

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN
& BERNSTEIN, LLP

7
8

By:

9

/s/ Eric B. Fastiff
Eric B. Fastiff

14

Eric B. Fastiff
David T. Rudolph
Katherine C. Lubin
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

15

Attorneys for Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc.

10
11
12
13

16

Dated: January 5, 2015

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22

By:

/s/ Matthew Rawlinson
Matthew Rawlinson

Lawrence J. Gotts
555 Eleventh Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

25

Matthew Rawlinson
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

26

Attorneys for Defendant AU Optronics Corp.

23
24

27
28
-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00380-EMC

1

Dated: January 5, 2015

CROWELL & MORING LLP

2
By:
3
4

/s/ Beatrice B. Nguyen
Beatrice B. Nguyen

Beatrice B. Nguyen
275 Battery Street, Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
[e-mail]

5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendants E Ink Holdings, Inc. and E
Ink Corporation

8
9
10
11
12

ATTESTATION
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in the

13

filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatories.

14

Dated: January 5, 2015

/s/ Eric B. Fastiff
Eric B. Fastiff

15
16
17

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

ER

26

R NIA

n

FO

M. Che

H

25

RT

24

O

dward
Judge E

NO

23

O
IT IS S

LI

22

______________________________
The Honorable Edward M. Chen
United States District JudgeERED
RD

UNIT
ED

21

1/6/15
Dated: _________________

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

20

S

19

A

18

[PROPOSED] ORDER

N

D IS T IC T
R

OF

C

27
28
-3-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
CASE NO. 3:13-CV-00380-EMC