Tessera, Inc. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al

Filing 1208

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING THE ASE DEFENDANTS 1200 MOTION TO ADOPT THE SPECIAL MASTERS JUNE 19, 2013 ORAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. 1202 Motion to Shorten Time and 1203 Stipulation are denied as moot. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2013)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

TESSERA, INC.,
Plaintiff,

5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 05-4063 CW

v.
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.;
SPANSION, LLC; SPANSION, INC;
SPANSION TECHNOLOGY, INC.;
ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR
ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE (U.S.),
INC.; CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD.;
SILICONWARE USA, INC.;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V.;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC.; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC.; STATS CHIPPAC
(BVI), LTD.; and STATS CHIPPAC,
LTD.,

ORDER GRANTING THE
ASE DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO ADOPT
THE SPECIAL
MASTER’S JUNE 19,
2013 ORAL REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
(Docket Nos. 1200,
1202 and 1203)

Defendants.
________________________________/
AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/
Defendants Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc. and ASE

18

(U.S.), Inc. (ASE Defendants) request that the Court adopt the

19

June 19, 2013 oral report and recommendation made by the Special

20

Master to resolve the ASE Defendants’ motion to enforce their

21

agreement with Plaintiff Tessera, Inc. that Tessera’s infringement

22

and damages expert reports were due by May 15, 2013.

23

opposes the motion.

24

the Court should utilize to review the Special Master’s report and

25

recommendation.

26

Tessera

The parties also dispute the standard that

Having considered the papers filed by the parties, the Court

27

grants ASE’s motion and adopts the Special Master’s report and

28

recommendation, under either the de novo or abuse of discretion

1

standard, for the reasons set forth by the Special Master orally

2

at the hearing.

3

email exchange and then again in the March 28, 2013 email

4

exchange, that Tessera’s expert reports on infringement and

5

damages with respect to the ASE Defendants would be due on May 15,

6

2013.

7

to serve supplemental expert reports on May 31, 2013, on the basis

8

that the ASE Defendants did not complete their production of die

9

thickness information until April 8, 2013; Tessera knew, at the

The parties agreed, first in the March 22, 2013

Tessera has not shown that it had substantial justification

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

time of the March 28, 2013 affirmation, that it would not receive

11

this production until April 8, 2013 and cannot now complain that

12

the agreed-upon schedule left it with insufficient time.

13

Tessera has not shown that the delay would not prejudice the ASE

14

Defendants.

15

Further,

Accordingly, as recommended by the Special Master, the Court

16

orders that Tessera may not rely on the expert reports of

17

Professors Fan, Han, Sullivan, or Start served on May 31, 2013

18

with respect to any infringement or damages claim against ASE.

19

The Court denies ASE’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs

20

incurred in connection with comparing the original reports to the

21

supplemental reports and in bringing the motion to enforce the

22

agreement.

23
24
25

The motion and stipulation to shorten time are denied as
moot.

This Order resolves Docket Nos. 1200, 1202 and 1203.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: 7/19/2013

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge
2