Oracle Amercia, Inc v. Micron Technology, Inc. et al

Filing 30

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CLARIFY COMPLAINT AND WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF MOTION TO DISMISS re 26 Stipulation filed by Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., Micron Technology, Inc. Signed by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton on 12/3/10. (nah, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/3/2010)

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

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP JOEL S. SANDERS, SBN 107234 [e-mail] G. CHARLES NIERLICH, SBN 196611 [e-mail] MICHAEL CECCHINI, SBN 237508 [e-mail] JENNA MUSSELMAN YOTT, SBN 251901 [e-mail] 555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 San Francisco, CA 94105-2933 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Attorneys for Defendants MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC. [Additional counsel listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION

ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff, v. MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC. and MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants.

CASE NO. 10-cv-04340 PJH Action Filed: September 24, 2010 STIPULATION TO CLARIFY COMPLAINT AND WITHDRAW PORTIONS OF MOTION TO DISMISS AND [PROPOSED] ORDER Hearing Date: Hearing Time: Location: Judge: Trial Date: January 12, 2011 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton None set

STIPULATION TO CLARIFY COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

10-cv-04340 PJH

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

STIPULATION TO CLARIFY COMPLAINT AND PARTIALLY WITHDRAW MOTION TO DISMISS WHEREAS, Plaintiff Oracle America, Inc. ("Oracle") filed a complaint (the "Complaint") in the above-captioned matter against Defendants Micron Technology, Inc. and Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc. (collectively, "Micron"). Oracle asserts that it is the successor-in-interest to Sun Microsystems, Inc. ("Sun"). The Complaint asserts claims for violation of the Sherman Act, California's Cartwright Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law based on Sun's purchases of dynamic random access memory ("DRAM"). WHEREAS, on November 5, 2010, Micron filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint for Failure to State a Claim, Failure to Satisfy Rule 8's Notice Pleading Requirement, and Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (the "Motion to Dismiss"). The Motion to Dismiss is scheduled to be heard at 9:00 a.m. on January 12, 2011 in Courtroom 3, 3rd Floor. The Motion to Dismiss is based in part on Micron's reading of the Complaint to include claims to recover for indirect purchases of DRAM through Sun's external manufacturers under federal antitrust law and to recover for Sun's and its external manufacturers' foreign purchases of DRAM. WHEREAS, Oracle stipulates that its Complaint asserts claims based solely on purchases of DRAM by Sun and its external manufacturers in the United States, and the Complaint does not assert any claims based on purchases of DRAM by Sun's foreign subsidiaries or external manufacturers located outside the United States or for any other DRAM purchases outside the United States; WHEREAS, Oracle further stipulates that its Complaint seeks to recover damages for purchases of DRAM incorporated into products that Sun purchased from external manufacturers in the United States, and that Oracle seeks to recover for such purchases only as an indirect purchaser under California state law, and not under the Sherman Act; WHEREAS, based on Oracle's stipulation that the Complaint asserts claims based solely on purchases of DRAM by Sun and its external manufacturers in the United States and does not assert any claims based on purchases of DRAM by Sun's foreign subsidiaries and external manufacturers located outside the United States, or for any DRAM initially delivered abroad , Micron partially withdraws its Motion to Dismiss.

STIPULATION TO CLARIFY COMPLAINT AND [PROPOSED] ORDER

10-cv-04340 PJH

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

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between Oracle and Micron, through their respective attorneys of record, based on the foregoing, and subject to the approval of this Court, that: (1) Oracle is not asserting any claim for damages or other relief based on purchases of DRAM by Sun's foreign subsidiaries or external manufacturers located outside the United States, or any oth