Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al

Filing 65

ORDER Seeking Clarification re 64 Joint Stipulation for Stay and Alternative Dispute Resolution. Parties' Response Required by Thursday, March 10, 2011. Signed by Judge Koh on 3/7/2011. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2011)

Microchip Technology, Inc., et al v. United Module Corp. et al

Doc. 65

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196, 11-CV-0430 ORDER SEEKING CLARIFICIATION REGARDING PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY, INC. and SILICON STORAGE TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiffs, CASE NO.: CV-10-05196-LHK v. CASE NO.: CV-10-05290-LHK UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, LLC, CASE NO.: CV-11-00430-LHK ORDER SEEKING CLARIFICATION REGARDING PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION FOR STAY AND ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Related Cases: CASE NO.: CV-10-04241-LHK

FREESCALE SEMICONDUCOR, INC., NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., and ANALOG DEVICES, INC. Plaintiffs, v. UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, LLC, Defendants.

1 2 3 4 5 6

TAIWAN SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING CO., LTD., TSMC NORTH AMERICA, and UBICOM, INC., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, LLC, Defendants.

7 8 9 Plaintiffs, 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California v. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196, 11-CV-0430 ORDER SEEKING CLARIFICIATION REGARDING PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., and SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,

UNITED MODULE CORP., and KERANOS, LLC, Defendants.

During the March 3, 2011 hearing on the pending motions, all parties indicated they may be willing to stay these cases and participate in alternative dispute resolution. On March 7, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation seeking stay of these related cases until June 6, 2011. See March 7, 2011 Joint Stipulation [dkt. #64]. The parties state that they will attempt to agree on an ADR process, and "if such an agreement is reached," they will engage in some form of ADR. The Court is prepared to rule on the pending motions, and will not delay its ruling based on speculative representations that the parties may engage in ADR. If, however, the parties select a specific form of ADR by Thursday, March 10, 2011, the Court will defer ruling upon the pending motions until June 6, 2011. Otherwise, the Court will issue its ruling promptly. The parties shall

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

file their election of how they wish to proceed by March 10, 2011. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2011

_________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge

3
Case No.: 10-CV-04241, 10-CV-5290, 10-CV-5196, 11-CV-0430 ORDER SEEKING CLARIFICIATION REGARDING PARTIES' JOINT STIPULATION