Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. et al v. Promate Electronic Co., LTD., et al

Filing 140

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #139 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment, filed by Chengdu Monolithic Power Systems Co., Ltd., Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.. Signed by Judge Derek T. Gilliland. (sm3)

Case 6:20-cv-00876-ADA-DTG Document 140 Filed 04/04/23 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION
MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND CHENGDU MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS CO., LTD., A
CHINESE CORPORATION;
sPlaintiff,
v.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL NO. W-20-CV-00876-ADA-DTG

PROMATE ELECTRONIC CO., LTD.,
A TAIWANESE CORPORATION;
QINGMI (BEIJING) TECHNOLOGY
CO., LTD., SHENZHEN TIMES INNOVATION TECHNOLOGY CO.
LTD.,
Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
TO:

THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), and Rules 1(f) and 4(b) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. Before the Court is the Parties’ Joint Motion
for Entry of Consent Judgment (ECF No. 139). After careful consideration of the briefs and the
applicable law, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion be GRANTED and the Consent
Judgment entered as described below.
I.

DISCUSSION

On March 31, 2023, the Parties filed their Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment (ECF
No. 139). The parties have agreed to resolve all claims among them according to the terms of

Case 6:20-cv-00876-ADA-DTG Document 140 Filed 04/04/23 Page 2 of 5

the consent judgment (as described below) and consent to a final judgment being entered in this
case. Id. at 1.
II.

RECOMMENDATION

For the above reasons, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate
Judge to the United States District Judge that the Motion be GRANTED. Plaintiffs Monolithic
Power Systems, Inc. and Chengdu Monolithic Power Systems Co., Ltd. (collectively, “MPS” or
“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant Shenzhen Times Innovation Technology Co. Ltd. (“STIT”) hereby
stipulate and consent to entry of final judgment as follows:
WHEREAS, MPS filed a third amended complaint in this lawsuit against Meraki Integrated
Circuit (Shenzhen) Technology, Ltd. (“Meraki”), STIT, and other parties on November 29, 2021
asserting infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,400,790 (“the ’790 Patent”), and
10,432,104 (“the ’104 Patent”) (together, the “Asserted Patents”) in addition to other claims
against Meraki, which is not affiliated with STIT; and WHEREAS, the products MPS accuses of
infringement are synchronous rectifier products manufactured and sold by Meraki, consisting of
(1) the MK180X series, including MK1807, MK1808, MK91808; and MK171X series, including
MK1715, MK1716, MK1718, MK1719, MK91735, MK91736, MK91738, MK91718, and any
substantially similar products that are based on, related to, or perform substantially similar functions to those products related to the AR8X and AR9X die series; and (2) the MK173X0 series,
including MK17350, MK17360; and MK170X series, including MK1705A, MK1706, MK1708,
MK1709 and any substantially similar products that are based on, related to, or perform substantially similar functions to those products related to the VT8X die series. MPS has also accused of
infringement any downstream product that incorporates any of these Meraki products, by virtue
of the operation of the Meraki product incorporated into that product, including without limita-

2

Case 6:20-cv-00876-ADA-DTG Document 140 Filed 04/04/23 Page 3 of 5

tion chargers or any other power delivery device for handheld devices, tablets, netbooks, notebooks, workstations, hubs, docks, and other peripherals (together, the “Accused Products”). That
includes certain fast charger products manufactured and sold by STIT and imported into the
United States, including without limitation the Baseus Compact Quick Charger U+C 20W, Baseus Super Si Quick Charger 1C 25W, the Baseus GaN2 100W Fast Charger (and the Baseus
100W Quick Charge 5.0, if different) (the “STIT Accused Products”); and WHEREAS, STIT has
not yet filed an answer or otherwise responded to this lawsuit; and WHEREAS, STIT has represented that it is no longer selling the STIT Accused Products in the United States, selling the
STIT Accused Products for importation into the United States or importing the STIT Accused
Products into the United States without a license, and the parties have settled all of their disputes
in this Action and have agreed to entry of a Final Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction as
set forth herein;
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED ORDERED, ADJUDICATED, AND DECREED
THAT:
1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action as well as personal jurisdiction
over STIT.
2.

Venue is proper in this judicial district.

3.

Plaintiffs Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and Chengdu Monolithic Power Systems Co.,
Ltd. are the owners of the Asserted Patents.

4. The Asserted Patents are valid and enforceable.
5. Upon inducement by Meraki, STIT imported into the United States and sold certain models of the STIT Accused Products including without limitation the Baseus Compact
Quick Charger U+C 20W, Baseus Super Si Quick Charger 1C 25W, the Baseus GaN2

3

Case 6:20-cv-00876-ADA-DTG Document 140 Filed 04/04/23 Page 4 of 5

100W Fast Charger incorporating certain Meraki components accused of infringement,
including without limitation the MK91736 and MK91808.
6. STIT does not contest the STIT Accused Products infringe at least one claim of each of
the Asserted Patents.
7. STIT, and its agents, representatives, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, and related companies, employees, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of this Order are hereby permanently enjoined from making, using,
selling, offering for sale, or importing into the United States the Accused Products, any
merely colorable variations thereof, and any STIT products incorporating such Accused
Products or variations, including without limitation the STIT Accused Products without a
license.
8. MPS’s claims against STIT for infringement of the Asserted Patents are dismissed with
prejudice.
9. For all costs and attorneys’ fees for this action, each party will bear its own costs and
fees.
10. No other or further relief is granted to any party.
11. The parties affirmatively waive any and all rights to appeal this Final Consent Judgment
and Permanent Injunction.
12. No just reason for delay prevents entry of this Final Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction.
13. The Court retains jurisdiction over this Final Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction for the purpose of ensuring compliance with the terms hereof.

III.

OBJECTIONS
4

Case 6:20-cv-00876-ADA-DTG Document 140 Filed 04/04/23 Page 5 of 5

The parties may wish to file objections to this Report and Recommendation. Parties filing
objections must specifically identify those findings or recommendations to which they object.
The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections. See Battle v.
U.S. Parole Comm’n, 834 F.2d 419, 421 (5th Cir. 1987).
A party’s failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations
contained in this Report within fourteen (14) days after the party is served with a copy of the Report shall bar that party from de novo review by the District Court of the proposed findings and
recommendations in the Report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas v Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
150–53 (1985); Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
Except upon grounds of plain error, failing to object shall further bar the party from appellate
review of unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the District
Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150–53; Douglass, 79 F.3d at 1415.

SIGNED this 4th of April, 2023.
____________________________________
DEREK T. GILLILAND
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5