In re Ricoh Company Ltd. Patent Litigation
Filing
800
STIPULATION AND ORDER SUPPLEMENTING THE COURT'S APRIL 26, 2012 ORDER AWARDING COSTS WITH AGREED-TO PAYMENT SCHEDULE re 798 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge James Ware on June 12, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/12/2012)
Gary M. Hoffman (Pro Hac Vice)
Kenneth W. Brothers (Pro Hac Vice)
Cathy Chen (Pro Hac Vice)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
1825 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006-5403
Phone (202) 420-2200
Fax (202) 420-2201
Email: hoffmang@dicksteinshapiro.com
brothersk@dicksteinshapiro.com
chenc@dicksteinshpiro.com
8
Attorneys for S DISTRIC
Plaintiff SYNOPSYS, INC.
Krista Carter (State bar No. 225229)
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
700 Hansen Way
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1016
Phone (650) 690-9500
Fax (650) 690-9501
Email: carterk@dicksteinshapiro.com
6
10
11
m
Judge Ja
ER
H
14
RT
13
O ORD
IT IS S
NO
12
TC
RT
U
O
9
TE
TA
ERED
es Ware
R NIA
5
FO
4
LI
3
A
2
S
7
RON E. SHULMAN, State Bar No. 178263
ron.shulman@lw.com
TERRY KEARNEY, State Bar No. 160054
terry.kearney@lw.com
RICHARD G. FRENKEL, State Bar No. 204133
rick.frenkel@lw.com
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 328-4600
Facsimile: (650) 463-2600
UNIT
ED
1
N
Attorneys for Defendant
RICOH COMPANY, LTD.
C
F
D IS T IC T O
R
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IN RE RICOH COMPANY LTD.
PATENT LITIGATION
CASE NO. C 03-02289 JW
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER SUPPLEMENTING THE
COURT’S APRIL 26, 2012 ORDER
AWARDING COSTS WITH AGREED-TO
PAYMENT SCHEDULE
Date: June 18, 2012
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Judge: Hon. James Ware
Dept.: Courtroom 9, 19th Floor
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUPPLEMENTING
APRIL 26, 2012 ORDER REGARDING PAYMENT OF COSTS
CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW
1
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2012, the Court issued an order requiring Defendant Ricoh
2
Company, Ltd. (“Ricoh”) to pay to Plaintiff Synopsys, Inc. (“Synopsys”) the amount of
3
$675,154.75 by May 25, 2012 (D.I. 790, “the April 26 Order”);
4
WHEREAS, Ricoh has not yet paid the amount or posted a bond, but instead filed a
5
Notice of Appeal on April 21, 2012 (D.I. 791) and a Motion for Stay of April 26, 2012 Order
6
Pending Appeal and for Expedited Consideration on May 23, 2012 (D.I. 793);
7
WHEREAS, Synopsys opposes Ricoh’s Motion for Stay;
8
WHEREAS, the parties wish to resolve their differences regarding procedures associated
9
with Ricoh’s payment of the $675,154.75 award to Synopsys without the Court’s involvement;
10
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have met and conferred and agreed upon an alternate
11
payment schedule for the costs awarded to Synopsys as set forth below, which the parties jointly
12
and respectfully request that the Court adopt.
13
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil
14
L.R. 7-12, that the April 26 Order should be supplemented as set forth herein:
15
1.
16
17
By July 3, 2012, Ricoh will pay the awarded costs into an interest bearing escrow account
administered by Dickstein Shapiro LLP (“the Escrow Account”).
2.
Ricoh intends to appeal the April 26 Order as to some or all of the $675,154.75 awarded
18
by the Court in costs to Synopsys. The date Ricoh files its appellant’s brief is defined as
19
the “Appeal Date.”
20
3.
Any amount in the Escrow Account that is not part of the portion of the April 26 Order
21
appealed by Ricoh in its appellate brief filed on the Appeal Date shall be known as the
22
“Unappealed Portion.”
23
4.
Within two (2) weeks of the Appeal Date, Ricoh (or Dickstein Shapiro LLP, on behalf of
24
Ricoh) will pay to Synopsys the following amounts:
25
a.
The Unappealed Portion;
26
b.
Proportional Interest on the Unappealed Portion. As used herein, “Proportional
27
Interest” is interest on the portion then in the Escrow Account, multiplied by a
28
fraction representing the percentage of the amount in the Escrow Account to be
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y
1
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUPPLEMENTING
APRIL 26, 2012 ORDER REGARDING PAYMENT OF COSTS
CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW
1
paid. In other words, if there is $675,000 in the Escrow Account, and Ricoh pays
2
out $135,000, the Proportional Interest is 20% of the interest accrued at the time
3
of payment. Later, if out of the $540,000 in remaining principle, $270,000 is
4
paid, the Proportional Interest is 50% of the then-accrued interest at the time of
5
payment.
6
5.
7
8
Synopsys will provide wire instructions for all payments by Ricoh, by sending them to
counsel of record for Ricoh.
6.
9
Following the issuance of the Federal Circuit’s mandate after a decision on Ricoh’s
appeal, the remaining amount in the Escrow Account will be settled as follows, within
10
two (2) weeks of the issuance of the mandate:
11
a.
12
Any amount affirmed by the Federal Circuit will be paid to Synopsys plus
Proportional Interest.
13
b.
14
Any amount reversed by the Federal Circuit will be refunded to Ricoh plus
Proportional Interest.
15
c.
Any amount remanded by the Federal Circuit plus Proportional Interest will be
16
kept in the Escrow Account, pending further order by the district court or further
17
stipulation among the parties.
18
7.
Ricoh (or Dickstein Shapiro LLP, on behalf of Ricoh) will provide Synopsys with
19
account statements beginning on June 30, 2012 and every three months thereafter until
20
the full amount of costs awarded by the Federal Circuit plus Proportional Interest has
21
been paid.
22
23
8.
Each party reserves all further rights and remedies not specified within this stipulation,
such as the right to seek attorneys’ fees on appeal or subsequent remand.
24
25
SO STIPULATED THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y
2
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUPPLEMENTING
APRIL 26, 2012 ORDER REGARDING PAYMENT OF COSTS
CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW
1
2
3
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 7, 2012
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
4
5
7
By: /s/ Richard G. Frenkel
Ron E. Shulman
Terry Kearney
Richard G. Frenkel
8
Attorneys for SYNOPSYS, INC.
6
9
Dated: June 7, 2012
DICKSTEIN SHAPIRO LLP
10
11
14
By: /s/ Gary M. Hoffman
Gary M. Hoffman
Kenneth W. Brothers
Krista Carter
Cathy Chen
15
Attorneys for RICOH COMPANY, LTD.
12
13
16
17
PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
18
19
Dated: ____________, 2012
June 12
Hon. Chief Judge James Ware
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SILICON VA LLE Y
3
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER SUPPLEMENTING
APRIL 26, 2012 ORDER REGARDING PAYMENT OF COSTS
CASE NO.: C 03-02289 JW
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?