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 [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

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 [phone]
Fax [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

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
[e-mail]
TERRY KEARNEY, State Bar No. 160054
[e-mail]
RICHARD G. FRENKEL, State Bar No. 204133
[e-mail]
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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