Copytele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation et al

Filing 35

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 30 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Stipulation of Dismissal Without Prejudice of Defendant AU Optronics Corporation America and Waiver of Service of Summons By AU Optronics Corporation filed by AU Optronics Corporation, AU Optronics Corporation America. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 3/13/13. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/13/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Lawrence J. Gotts (pro hac vice admission pending)
[e-mail]
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: +1.202.637.2201
Matthew Rawlinson (CA State Bar No. 231890)
[e-mail]
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: +1. 650.463.2600

8
9
10
11
12

Casey R. O’Connor (CA State Bar No. 261755)
[e-mail]
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics
Corporation America and AU Optronics Corporation

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

COPYTELE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 13-cv-00380-MMC

17
18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, a
Taiwanese corporation; AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION AMERICA, a California
corporation; E INK HOLDINGS, INC.,
a Taiwanese corporation; and E INK
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation,

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL
WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF
DEFENDANT AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION AMERICA AND
WAIVER OF SERVICE OF
SUMMONS BY AU OPTRONICS
CORPORATION

Defendants.

23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
CASE NO. 13-CV-00380-JCS

1

Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. (“CopyTele”) and Defendants AU Optronics Corporation

2

(“AUO”) and AU Optronics Corporation America (“AUO America”) hereby stipulate to dismiss

3

the Complaint as filed by CopyTele against Defendant AUO America in the above-captioned

4

action. The action will continue against AUO. It is further stipulated that this dismissal is

5

without prejudice and is contingent upon the following stipulations:

6

1. AUO America stipulates that, to the extent that it has documents, witnesses, and

7

information in its custody and control that are related to the claims for relief

8

asserted in the Complaint against AUO, AUO America agrees, subject to all

9

objections and privileges otherwise available under the Federal Rules of Civil

10

Procedure or Federal Law, to provide CopyTele with such documents, witnesses,

11

and information in response to discovery requests, including deposition notices,

12

propounded to AUO by CopyTele to the same extent AUO America would be

13

required to do so if it were a party to this action, and AUO’s counsel agrees to

14

accept service of such requests on AUO America’s behalf;

15

2. AUO America agrees that, in the event CopyTele learns of facts that CopyTele, in

16

its sole discretion, believes requires the addition or joining of AUO America as a

17

defendant in the above-captioned action, it shall promptly seek to do so upon

18

learning such facts, AUO America shall not oppose any such addition or joining

19

of AUO America as a defendant on any grounds related to the instant stipulation

20

and AUO America agrees to be bound by all prior orders, and further agrees that

21

the statute of limitations as to all claims against AUO America shall be tolled as

22

of the filing of the Complaint;

23

3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a), CopyTele, AUO, and AUO America agree to

24

dismiss all claims against AUO America in the above-captioned action, without

25

prejudice, each of the parties to bear its own costs, expenses and fees.

26

4. AUO waives service of summons pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4,

27

and shall have 90 days from the date of the filing of the Complaint to file its

28

response to the Complaint. AUO agrees and stipulates that its waiver of service
1

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
CASE NO. 13-CV-00380-JCS

1

will operate as if AUO had been served by the clerk of the court in Taiwan in

2

accordance with Article 123 of the R.O.C. Code of Civil Procedure.

3
4

Dated: March 6, 2013

Respectfully Submitted:
LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

5
6

/s/ Eric B. Fastiff
Eric B. Fastiff

7

11

Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260)
([e-mail])
David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)
([e-mail])
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

12

Attorneys for Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc.

8
9
10

13
14

Dated: March 6, 2013

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
/s/ Matthew Rawlinson
Matthew Rawlinson

15
16

Lawrence J. Gotts
([e-mail])
555 Eleventh Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
Phone: [phone]

17
18
19

Matthew Rawlinson
([e-mail])
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Phone: [phone]

20
21
22

Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and
AU Optronics Corporation America

23
24
25

//

26

//

27

//

28

//
2

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
CASE NO. 13-CV-00380-JCS

1

ATTESTATION

2

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

3

concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory.

4

DATED: March 6, 2013

_______/s/Matthew Rawlinson____
Matthew Rawlinson

5

RT
U
O

NO

12

RT

13

15

. Chen

ward M
udge Ed

J

ER

H

14

R NIA

11

DERED
SO OR ED
IT IS
DIFI
AS MO

FO

10

LI

9

A

8

Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation above, IT IS SO ORDERED.
3/13/13
S DISTRICT
DATED:
____________________________________
TE
C
Senior District JudgeA
T Maxine M. Chesney

S

7

[PROPOSED] ORDER

UNIT
ED

6

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF AU
OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA
CASE NO. 13-CV-00380-JCS