Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. v. O2Micro International Limited

Filing 302

ORDER re 298 Granting As Modified Stipulation Allowing Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 04/13/2010. (scc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/13/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Mark A. Flagel (State Bar No. 110635) Bob Steinberg (State Bar No. 126407) Franklin D. Kang (State Bar No. 192314) 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, California 90071-1560 Telephone: (213) 485-1234 Facsimile: (213) 891-8763 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Dean G. Dunlavey (State Bar No. 115530) 650 Town Center Drive, 20th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1925 Telephone: (714) 755-8260 Facsimile: (714) 755-8290 Attorneys for Plaintiff MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. Scott R. Mosko (State Bar No. 106070) Stanford Research Park 3300 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, California 94304-1203 Telephone: (650) 849-6600 Facsimile: (650) 849-6666 Attorneys for Plaintiff MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. and Counterclaim Defendants ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Defendant. O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, Counterclaimant, v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC., ASUSTEK COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL AMERICA, BENQ CORPORATION, and BENQ AMERICA CORP., Counterclaim-Defendants. Case No. C 08-4567 CW (EDL) STIPULATION AND ORDER ALLOWING FINAL INFRINGEMENT AND INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - AS MODIFIED JUDGE: Honorable Claudia Wilken STIP. RE FINAL INFRINGEMENT & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - Case No. C 08-4567 CW (EDL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// WHEREAS, Defendant and Counterclaimant O2 Micro International Limited ("O2 Micro") asserts it has good cause to serve "Final Infringement Contentions" as a result of the Court's Claim Construction Order (Docket No. 285); and WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. ("MPS") and Counterclaim Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and Asus Computer International (collectively "ASUS") will not dispute O2 Micro's assertion, but assert their right to serve Final Invalidity Contentions in light of the Court's Claim Construction Order and O2 Micro's "Final Infringement Contentions"; and WHEREAS, O2 Micro submitted its proposed "Final Infringement Contentions" to the Court as part of its March 25, 2010 "Motion to Serve Final Infringement Contentions"; and WHEREAS, O2 Micro has confirmed that it is not pursuing a theory of infringement based upon the Doctrine of Equivalents as to any patent claim or any accused product; and WHEREAS, MPS and ASUS intend to serve their "Final Invalidity Contentions" within twenty-one (21) days from the date the Court approves this stipulation; and WHEREAS, MPS and ASUS do not intend to assert new prior art, i.e., prior art that has not previously been identified by way of their preliminary invalidity contentions, in expert reports, at depositions, and/or during the course of the ITC proceeding, as part of their "Final Invalidity Contentions"; and WHEREAS, the parties will not seek to reopen discovery as a result of their respective Final Contentions. IT IS STIPULATED that: (1) The Final Infringement Contentions that O2 Micro submitted to the Court on March 25, 2010 shall be deemed its final infringement contentions; (2) MPS and ASUS shall serve their Final Invalidity Contentions within twentyone (21) days of the date this Court approves this stipulation; and (3) These Final Contentions shall not be a reason for any party to ask that discovery be reopened. -2- STIP. RE FINAL INFRINGEMENT & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - Case No. C 08-4567 CW (EDL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /// /// /// /// HOWEVER, nothing in this Stipulation constitutes an admission that a document, testimony, or other evidence is admissible. By entering into this Stipulation, the parties are not waiving any evidentiary objections they may have. Respectfully submitted, Dated: April 7, 2010 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. /s/ Scott R. Mosko By: ______________________________________ Scott R. Mosko Attorneys for Plaintiff MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. and Counterclaim Defendants ASUSTEK COMPUTER INC. and ASUS COMPUTER INTERNATIONAL Dated: April 7, 2010 LATHAM & WATKINS LLP /s/ Dean G. Dunlavey By: ______________________________________ Dean G. Dunlavey Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. Dated: April 7, 2010 HOWREY LLP /s/ Duane Mathiowetz By: ______________________________________ Duane Mathiowetz Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant O2 MICRO INTERNATIONAL LIMITED -3- STIP. RE FINAL INFRINGEMENT & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - Case No. C 08-4567 CW (EDL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: April 7, 2010 FILER'S ATTESTATION I, Scott R. Mosko, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Allowing Final Infringement and Invalidity Contentions. Pursuant to General Order No. 45, I attest under penalty of perjury that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from Dean G. Dunlavey and Duane Mathiowetz. /s/ Scott R. Mosko ________________________________________ Scott R. Mosko -4- STIP. RE FINAL INFRINGEMENT & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - Case No. C 08-4567 CW (EDL) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: 4/13/2010 ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE (DOCKET #286) IS DENIED AS MOOT. ________________________________________ Claudia Wilken United States District Judge -5- STIP. RE FINAL INFRINGEMENT & INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS - Case No. C 08-4567 CW (EDL)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?