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

Filing 974

ORDER REGARDING SELECTION OF COURT-APPOINTED EXPERT. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 3/7/2012. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2012)

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

v.

27
28

ORDER REGARDING
SELECTION OF
COURT-APPOINTED
EXPERT

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., a
Delaware corporation; SPANSION,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation; SPANSION, INC., a
Delaware corporation; SPANSION
TECHNOLOGY, INC., a Delaware
corporation; ADVANCED
SEMICONDUCTOR ENGINEERING, INC.,
a Republic of China corporation;
ASE (U.S.), INC., a California
corporation; CHIPMOS
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Republic of
China corporation; CHIPMOS
U.S.A., INC., a California
corporation; SILICONWARE
PRECISION INDUSTRIES CO., LTD., a
Republic of China corporation;
SILICONWARE USA, INC., a
California corporation;
STMICROELECTRONICS N.V., a
Netherlands corporation;
STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., a
Delaware corporation; STATS
CHIPPAC, INC., a Delaware
corporation; STATS CHIPPAC (BVI),
INC., a British Virgin Islands
company; STATS CHIPPAC, LTD., a
Singapore company,
Defendants.
________________________________/
SILICONWARE PRECISION INDUSTRIES
CO, LTD; SILICONWARE U.S.A.,
INC.,
Plaintiffs,

25
26

No. C 05-4063 CW

v.
TESSERA, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

No. C 08-3667 CW

1
2

CHIPMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;
CHIPMOS U.S.A., INC.; CHIPMOS
TECHNOLOGIES (BERMUDA), LTD.,

3
4

Plaintiffs,
v.

5

TESSERA, INC.,

6

Defendant.
________________________________/

7
8
9

ADVANCED SEMICONDUCTOR
ENGINEERING, INC.; ASE TEST
LIMITED; ASE (U.S.), INC.,

11
12

No. C 08-3726 CW

Plaintiffs,

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

No. C 08-3827 CW

v.
TESSERA, INC.,

13

Defendant.
________________________________/

14

SPANSION, INC.,

15
16

et al.,

No. C 10-4954 CW

Plaintiffs,
v.

17

TESSERA, INC.,

18

Claimant.
________________________________/

19
20

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC.,
Plaintiff,

21
22
23
24
25

No. C 10-945 CW

v.
TESSERA, INC.,
Defendant.
________________________________/

26
27
28
2

1

POWERTECH TECHNOLOGY INC.,

2
3
4

No. C 11-6121 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
TESSERA, INC.,

5

Defendant.

6

________________________________/

7

TESSERA, INC.,

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

No. C 12-692 CW

Plaintiff,
v.
QUALCOMM, INC.; FREESCALE
SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; ATI
TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,

12

Defendants.

13

________________________________/

14

AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS
/

15

At the January 4, 2012 case management conference, the Court
16
directed the parties to meet and confer regarding the selection of
17
a court-appointed expert, and to submit proposals to the Court if
18
they were unable to agree on a selection.

Subsequently, Tessera

19
and Defendants1 each submitted two proposed experts, along with
20
objections to the experts proposed by the opposing side.
21
After the parties filed their proposals of experts, the Court
22
related a newly-transferred case, Tessera, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.,
23
et al., Case No. 12-692.

The parties have represented in their

24
25
26
1

27
28

For ease of reference, the Court will collectively refer to
the parties opposing Tessera, Inc. in each case as Defendants,
even though they are the plaintiffs in some of the related cases.
3

1

filings that Defendants in the newly-transferred case have

2

participated in the selection of Defendants’ proposed experts.

3

However, it does not appear that Powertech Technology, Inc.

4

(PTI) has participated in the selection of proposed court-

5

appointed experts.

6

with the Court a notice that it has joined in the proposals put

7

forward by either Defendants or Tessera or a brief statement

8

expressing its support and opposition to each of the nominees.

Within five days of this order, PTI shall file

Having considered the parties’ submissions regarding the

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

selection of a court-appointed expert, the Court further ORDERS as

11

follows:

12

1.

The parties shall jointly speak with Dr. Peter Borgeson

13

to clarify the facts of his statements during their shared meeting

14

with him, and shall, within seven days of this order, file a joint

15

letter setting forth the agreed facts of his statements.

16

Tessera withdraws its objection to Dr. Borgeson after such

17

clarification, it shall notify the Court of its withdrawal by that

18

date.

19

2.

If

The parties shall jointly speak with Dr. Reinhold

20

Dauskardt regarding a proposal to address the issue of consulting

21

opportunities that may arise during the case and shall, within

22

seven days of this order, file a stipulation setting forward their

23

agreement on a resolution of this issue.

24

parties are unable to reach a resolution satisfactory to them and

25

Dr. Dauskardt, they shall by that day a joint letter advising the

26

Court of their good faith efforts and the status thereof.

27
28

3.

Alternatively, if the

The parties shall, within ten days of this order,

jointly file a proposed order instructing the court-appointed
4

1

expert as to his duties in connection with this case.

2

use the Court’s order of May 22, 2009 (Docket No. 96) in

3

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro International, Ltd.,

4

Case No. 08-4567, and the Court’s Order of May 5, 2008 (Docket No.

5

302) in Fujitsu Ltd. v. Nanya Tech. Corp., Case No. 06-6613, as

6

models.

7

4.

They may

The parties shall submit, within ten days of this order,

8

a proposed schedule indicating the deadline by which the parties

9

will provide the court-appointed expert with information, what

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

information will be provided, and the deadline by which the

11

parties will depose the court-appointed expert.

12

already set August 1, 2013 as the date by which the

13

court-appointed expert’s report is due.

14

The Court has

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17

Dated: 3/7/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5