Asetek Holdings, Inc et al v. Cooler Master Co., Ltd. et al

Filing 341

ORDER re 338 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER - Joint Stipulation to Approve Bond and to Stay Execution of Judgment through Appeal Pursuant to FRCP 62; [Proposed] Order filed by CMI USA, Inc. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 21, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2015)

1

COOLEY LLP

2

REUBEN H. CHEN (SBN 228725)
[e-mail]
KYLE D. CHEN (SBN 239501)
[e-mail]
3175 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]

3
4
5
6
7

Attorneys for Defendant
CMI USA, Inc.

8
9

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
ROBERT F. MCCAULEY (SBN 162056)
[e-mail]
ERIK R. PUKNYS (SBN 190926)
[e-mail]
JEFFREY D. SMYTH (SBN 280665)
[e-mail]
3300 Hillview Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94304
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
ARPITA BHATTACHARYYA
(pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
Two Seaport Lane, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02210-2001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12
13

Attorneys for Plaintiff
ASETEK DANMARK A/S

14
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19
20

ASETEK DANMARK A/S,

21

Plaintiff,

22
23

v.
CMI USA., INC. fka COOLER MASTER
USA, INC.,

24
Defendant.
25

Case No. 3:13-cv-00457 JST
JOINT STIPULATION TO APPROVE
BOND AND TO STAY EXECUTION OF
JUDGMENT THROUGH APPEAL
PURSUANT TO FRCP 62; [PROPOSED]
ORDER
Complaint Filed:
Trial Date:
Judge:

January 31, 2013
December 2, 2014
Jon S. Tigar

26
27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-00457 JST

JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO APPROVE
BOND AND TO STAY JUDGMENT

1

Plaintiff Asetek Danmark A/S (“Asetek”) and Defendant CMI USA, Inc. (“CMI”)

2

(collectively the “Parties”) respectfully submit this joint stipulation pursuant to Federal Rule of

3

Civil Procedure 62(d) (“Rule 62(d)”) for entry of an order by this Court: (1) approving the

4

supersedeas bond in the amount of $607,500.00 submitted herewith in combination with a

5

supplemental cash deposit in the amount of $37,000 as the “supersedeas bond” provided in Rule

6

62(d), and (2) staying execution of the Court’s “Revised Judgment” entered on June 2, 2015 (Dkt.

7

No. 261) and the amended judgment to be entered pursuant to the Court’s September 22, 2015

8

Order Denying Defendant’s Post-Trial Motions; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff’s

9

Post-Trial Motions (Dkt. No. 322, hereinafter the “Order”) (collectively the “Judgment”), pending

10

CMI’s appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Said bond in the

11

amount of $607,500.00 is attached as Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Kyle Chen in Support of the

12

Parties’ Stipulation. The parties have met and conferred and stipulate that the cash deposit of

13

$37,000 will be submitted to the Court to hold in escrow pending the appeal. CMI will submit a

14

cashier’s check or equivalent form of payment to the Court within ten (10) days of the Court’s

15

expected order approving this joint stipulation. As directed on the Court’s website, the check will

16

be made payable to “Clerk, U.S. District Court,” will include reference to the case number, and

17

will be delivered or mailed to “U.S. District Court, 450 Golden Gate Avenue., San Francisco, CA

18

94102,” along with a copy of the expected order approving this stipulation.

19

CMI filed a Notice of Appeal on September 30, 2015 (Dkt. No. 323) within the time limit

20

prescribed in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 after the Order. Rule 62(d) states: “[i]f an

21

appeal is taken, the appellant may obtain a stay by supersedeas bond” and “[t]he stay takes effect

22

when the court approves the bond.” 1 The Parties hereby stipulate that the bond in the amount of

23

$607,500.00 in combination with the supplemental cash deposit of $37,000 to be deposited with

24

the Court (collectively the “Plaintiff’s Security”) satisfies and has the same legal effect as the

25
1

26
27

Rule 62(d) provides that enforcement of a judgment may be stayed as a matter of right pending
appeal, provided a supersedeas bond is posted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(d); Fed. Prescription Serv.,
Inc. v. Am. Pharm. Ass’n, 636 F.2d 755, 760-61 (D.C. Cir. 1980); 12-62 Moore’s Federal
Practice – Civil § 62.03 (2015).

28
Case No. 3:13-cv-00457 JST

-1-

JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO APPROVE
BOND AND TO STAY JUDGMENT

1

“supersedeas bond” requirement under Rule 62(d). The Parties thus respectfully request that this

2

Court approve the Plaintiff’s Security as the “supersedeas bond” under Rule 62(d) and stay

3

execution of the Judgment pending CMI’s appeal. Asetek shall not be permitted to collect on the

4

Plaintiff’s Security absent further order from this Court, and the Plaintiff’s Security will remain in

5

place until released by order of this Court. IT IS SO STIPULATED.

6
7

By his signature below, counsel for CMI attests that counsel for Asetek concurs in the
filing of this document.

8
9

Dated: October 20, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
COOLEY LLP
REUBEN H. CHEN
KYLE D. CHEN

10
11
12

BY:
13

/s/ Kyle D. Chen
Kyle D. Chen (SBN 239501)

Attorneys for Defendant
CMI USA, INC.

14
15
16

FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP

17

BY:

18

/s/ Robert F. McCauley
_____
Robert F. McCauley (SBN 162056)

19
Attorneys for Plaintiff ASETEK
DANMARK A/S

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-00457 JST

-2-

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO APPROVE BOND AND TO
STAY JUDGMENT

1
2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to the Parties’ joint stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

October 21
Dated: ____________, 2015

5

________________________________________
The Honorable Jon S. Tigar
United States District Judge
Northern District of California

6
7
8
118282431

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 3:13-cv-00457 JST

-3-

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER TO APPROVE BOND AND TO
STAY JUDGMENT