Apple Inc. v. BYD Company Limited et al

Filing 76

STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 12/28/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Harrison J. Frahn IV (CA Bar No. 206822)
[e-mail]
2475 Hanover Street
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

8

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
Peter C. Thomas (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
900 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

9

Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.

5
6
7

10
11
12
13
14
15

PAUL HASTINGS LLP
Yar Chaikovsky (CA Bar No. 175421)
[e-mail]
D. Stuart Bartow (CA Bar No. 233107)
[e-mail]
1117 S. California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Respondents BYD Company
Limited and BYD Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd.

16
17
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

18
19
APPLE INC.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-04985-RS

20
Petitioner,
STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

21
vs.
22
23
24

BYD PRECISION MANUFACTURING CO.,
LTD. AND BYD COMPANY LIMITED,

Hon. Richard Seeborg
Courtroom: 3, 17th Floor

Respondents.

25
26
27
28
STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), Petitioner Apple Inc.

2

(“Apple”) and Respondents BYD Precision Manufacturing Co., Ltd. and BYD Company Limited

3

(“Respondents”) hereby submit the following Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice.

4

WHEREAS Apple and Respondents executed a Settlement Agreement on or about

5
6

December 20, 2016;
WHEREAS Apple and BYD Company Limited are contemporaneously filing with the

7

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit a Stipulated Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss

8

BYD Company Limited’s appeal from this Court’s March 2, 2016 Order;

9
10
11
12
13

NOW, THEREFORE, It is hereby agreed by the parties and ordered by the Court that:
1. The above matter is dismissed without prejudice as to Apple’s claims and with
prejudice as to Respondents’ defenses; and
2. Each side shall bear its own costs and fees.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: 12/28/16

___________________________________
RICHARD SEEBORG
United States District Judge

Dated: December 27, 2016

SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP

16
17
18
19
20

By: /s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV
Attorneys for Petitioner Apple Inc.

21
22

PAUL HASTINGS LLP

23
24
25
26

By: /s/ Yar R. Chaikovsky
Yar R. Chaikovsky
Attorneys for Respondents BYD Company
Limited and BYD Precision Manufacturing Co.,
Ltd.

27
28
STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS

1
2
3
4

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that concurrence in the filing of this
document has been obtained from the signatories above.
/s/ Harrison J. Frahn IV
Harrison J. Frahn IV

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATED AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

CASE NO. 3:15-CV-04985-RS