Intersil Corporation et al v. Technology Licensing Corporation et al

Filing 59

ORDER RE: 57 , 58 STAGING OF PROCEEDINGS. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 04/16/2010. (rslc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2010)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

**E-filed 04/16/2010**

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

INTERSIL CORPORATION, et al., v. Plaintiffs,

No. C 09-02386 RS ORDER RE STAGING OF PROCEEDINGS

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. ____________________________________/

The Court has reviewed the parties' respective proposals as to how litigation of the claims against Ross Video should proceed. As reflected in prior orders, the circumstances do not entitle Ross Video simply to have the litigation against it stayed, with it retaining full rights to litigate any and all issues as it may choose upon the stay being lifted. Accordingly, absent agreement by Ross Video to limitations designed to ensure this litigation proceeds efficiently and fairly, there would be no basis to delay litigation of the claims against it. In light of Ross Video's apparent willingness to accept such limitations, litigation of all claims against Ross Video shall be deferred, pending further order of court, provided that Ross Video submits a written consent to all of the following terms within five days of the date of this order.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Ross Video will be bound by any and all claim construction rulings issued herein. 2. Ross Video will be bound by any and all determinations made herein as to validity of the claims of the patents-in-suit. 3. In the event that TLC asserts that Ross Video's use of Gennum chips infringes one or more claims of the patents-in-suit that are not at issue in the proceedings against Elantec, nothing in this order precludes further claim construction proceedings with respect to those claims, nor will Ross Video be precluded from challenging the validity of those claims. 4. With respect to claims that are asserted against Elantec, while Ross Video will be bound by any claim construction order that issues, nothing in this order precludes Ross Video from seeking to have additional claim terms construed, in the event there is a good faith argument that such additional constructions are necessary to analyze whether the Gennum chips infringe. 5. Discovery is permitted with respect to Ross Video as it pertains to Ross Video's use or sale of Elantec products.

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Dated: 04/16/2010 RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2