Microchip Technology Inc. et al v. GTMI, Inc. et al

Filing 24

ORDER RE SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF CASE WITH PREJUDICE (approving re 23 ). Signed by Judge Beth Labson Freeman on 3/27/2024. (blflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/27/2024)

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

TRAVIS JENSEN (SBN 259925)
[e-mail]
DENISE M. MINGRONE (SBN 135224)
[e-mail]
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
LLP
1000 Marsh Road
Menlo Park, CA 94025-1015
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]

John V. Picone III (SBN 187226)
Spencer Fane LLP
225 West Santa Clara St, Suite 1500 | San
Jose, CA 95113
408.918.2805
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants
GTMI, INC., CANG NGUYEN and
JERRY CHANG

ANDREW SCHREIBER (Bar No. 90012714)
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
LLP
Columbia Center
1152 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005-1706
Telephone:[phone]
Facsimile:[phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. and
MICROSEMI CORP.

13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14
15
16
17
18
19

MICROCHIP TECHNOLOGY INC. and
MICROSEMI CORP.,

Case No. 5:23-cv-6400-BLF

Plaintiffs,

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL OF
CASE WITH PREJUDICE

v.

20

GTMI, INC., CANG NGUYEN, and JERRY
CHANG,

21

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE
SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL
5:23-CV-6400-BLF

1

WHEREAS Plaintiffs Microchip Technology Inc. and Microsemi Corporation

2

(“Plaintiffs”) and Defendants GTMi, Cang Nguyen and Jerry Chang (“Defendants”) are parties

3

to a civil action entitled Microchip Technology Inc. and Microsemi Corporation v. GTMi, Cang

4

Nguyen and Jerry Chang, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of

5

California, Case No. 5:23-cv-6400-BLF (the “Litigation”);

6

WHEREAS Plaintiffs have filed a complaint against Defendants alleging conversion,

7

breach of contract, and unfair competition concerning various physical and intellectual

8

proprietary property owned by Plaintiffs including but not limited to custom capacitors and data

9

sheets. Defendants have not yet responded to these allegations; and

10

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and in consideration of the

11

payments, promises, and mutual undertakings set forth herein and in the Parties’ Confidential

12

Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) executed by Plaintiffs and Defendants and incorporated

13

herein by reference, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Court orders as

14

follows.

15
16
17
18

1. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, affiliated
companies, assigns and successors in interest, and those persons in active concert or
participation with them are permanently enjoined from using or otherwise accessing
Plaintiffs’ proprietary or confidential information, intellectual property, or physical
property, including but not limited to: product designs, layouts, datasheets, test
procedures, or proprietary equipment or components including, but not limited to,
Plaintiffs’ custom capacitors.

19
20
21
22

2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to enforce the terms of the
Agreement without the necessity of any party’s filing a separate lawsuit to do so. In
any contest over an alleged violation of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall
recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

23

3. All claims filed herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice. Each party shall bear its
own fees and costs.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

March 27, 2024
Dated: _____________________

HONORABLE BETH L FREEMAN
United States District Judge

28
ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
SUTCLIFFE LLP

-1-

[PROPOSED] ORDER RE SETTLEMENT
AND DISMISSAL
5:23-CV-6400-BLF