Farhang v. Indian institute of Technology Kharagpur et al

Filing 346

STIPULATION AND ORDER 344 Re: January 12, 2012 Order. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh for Judge Ronald M. Whyte on 1/24/12. (jg, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

I. NEEL CHATTERJEE (STATE BAR NO. 173985)
[e-mail]
THERESA A. SUTTON (STATE BAR NO. 211857)
[e-mail]
NITIN GAMBHIR (STATE BAR NO. 259906)
[e-mail]
MORVARID METANAT (STATE BAR NO. 268228)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone:
650-614-7400
Facsimile:
650-614-7401
KAREN JOHNSON-MCKEWAN (STATE BAR NO. 121570)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone:
650-614-7400
Facsimile:
650-614-7401
Attorneys for Defendants
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, KHARAGPUR;
TECHNOLOGY INCUBATION AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP
TRAINING SOCIETY; and PARTHA P. CHAKRABARTI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

SAN JOSE DIVISION
M.A. MOBILE LTD., a limited liability
company chartered in Dominica; and
MANDANA D. FARHANG,
Plaintiffs,
v.
INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
KHARAGPUR, an Indian Institute of
Technology incorporated under the “Institutes
of Technology Act, 1961”; TECHNOLOGY
INCUBATION AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP TRAINING
SOCIETY, an Indian society; PARTHA P.
CHAKRABARTI; RAKESH GUPTA;
PRAVANJAN CHOUDHRY; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive,

Case No. C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)
STIPULATION AND []
ORDER RE JANUARY 12, 2012,
ORDER
Dept: Courtroom 6, 4th Floor
Judge: Honorable Ronald M. Whyte

Defendants.

28
STIPULATION AND [ ORDER
RE CLARIFICATION OF JANUARY 12, 2012 ORDER
C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)

1

STIPULATION

2

Defendant Technology Incubation and Entrepreneurship Society (“the Society”), on the

3

one hand; and Plaintiffs Mandana D. Farhang and M.A. Mobile Ltd, on the other, through their

4

undersigned counsel, hereby submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order:

5

Whereas the parties agree that, given the Court’s prior rulings, its January 12, 2012, Order

6

intended to resolve plaintiffs’ Breach of the Non-Use Provision of the NDA claim as applied to

7

the Society;

8
9
10
11
12

Whereas the Court has previously held that the TAC fails to state a claim for breach of the
Non-Use Provision against Defendant Chakrabarti and against Defendant IITK (see Dkt. Nos.
201, 341);
Whereas the parties hereby agree to clarify the Court’s January 12, 2012, Order with
respect to the Society’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

13

Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate that plaintiffs’ claim for Breach of the Non-Use

14

Provision of the NDA as applied to the Society is hereby dismissed, and that in all other aspects,

15

the Society’s motion is denied as stated in the Court’s previous order.

16
17
18

This Stipulation is not intended to affect, modify or change any other finding in this
Court’s January 12, 2012, Order.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
RE CLARIFICATION OF JANUARY 12, 2012 ORDER
C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)

1
2

Dated: January 17, 2012

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
/s/ Theresa A. Sutton /s/
Theresa A. Sutton
Attorneys for Defendant
TECHNOLOGY INCUBATION AND
ENTREPRENEURSHIP SOCIETY

3
4
5
6
7

Dated: January 17, 2012

SANJIV N. SINGH, A PROFESSIONAL LAW
CORPORATION

8
/s/ Sanjiv N. Singh /s/
Sanjiv N. Singh
On behalf of Plaintiffs
MANDANA D. FARHANG and M.A. MOBILE

9
10
11
12

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, §X(B), I attest under penalty of

13

perjury that concurrence in the filing of the document has been obtained from its signatory.

14

Dated: January 17, 2012

15
16

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Theresa A. Sutton /s/
Theresa A. Sutton

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION AND [D] ORDER
RE CLARIFICATION OF JANUARY 12, 2012 ORDER
C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)

1

[] ORDER

2
3

Plaintiffs’ claim for Breach of the Non-Use Provision of the NDA, as applied to
Defendant Technology Incubation and Entrepreneurship Society (“the Society”), is dismissed. In

5

all other aspects, the Society’s motion is denied as stated in the Court’s previous order.

Dated: ______________

R NIA

h

A

H

8

cy H. Ko

FO

RT

Judge Lu

ER

ED

ORDER

LI

UNIT
ED

IT IS SO

NO

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

RT
U
O

6

S

4

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

Honorable Ronald M. Whyte
United States District Judge
Northern District of California

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-1-

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
RE CLARIFICATION OF JANUARY 12, 2012 ORDER
C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

4

I hereby certify that this document(s) filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on January 17,
2012.

5

Dated: January 17, 2012

3

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ /s/
Theresa A. Sutton

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER
RE CLARIFICATION OF JANUARY 12, 2012 ORDER
C-08-02658-RMW (HRL)