2212
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View 2212 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,112
- Pages: 8
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 1 of 8
Attorneys Listed on Signature Page
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
10 11 12
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,
13 14 15
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants.
17
19 20 21 22 23 24
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(ii)
vs.
16
18
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
STIPULATION WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint in this matter on June 6, 2005; WHEREAS Count IX of the First Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,789 (“the ‘789 patent”); WHEREAS Count X of the First Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,496,897 (“the ‘897 patent”); WHEREAS defendants Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
25
America, Inc., and Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
26
UK Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (“Hynix”) filed Counterclaims in this
27
matter on June 27, 2005 and July 30, 2007;
28 -1-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS Hynix’s Counterclaims 6, 7, and 8 of its June 27, 2005 Answer to
1 2
First Amended Complaint and Counterclaims and its July 30, 2007 Hynix's Answer To Rambus's
3
Reply to Hynix's First Amended Answer and Counterclaims and Rambus's Counterclaims in
4
Reply seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and
5
unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents; WHEREAS defendants Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
6 7
America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P.
8
(“Samsung”) filed Counterclaims in this matter on January 31, 2007 and January 4, 2008;
9
WHEREAS Samsung’s Counts VIII, IX, and X of its January 31, 2007 and
10
January 4, 2008 Counterclaims seek, inter alia, declaratory judgments of noninfringement,
11
invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents; WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus filed Counterclaims against Hynix and Samsung on
12 13
July 9, 2007; WHEREAS Counts V and VI of Rambus’s Counterclaims against Hynix and
14 15
Samsung assert infringement of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents respectfully; WHEREAS defendants Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology
16 17
Corporation USA (“Nanya”) filed Counterclaims in this matter on July 9, 2007 and December 21,
18
2007.
19
WHEREAS Nanya’s Counterclaims 5, 6, and 7 of its July 9, 2007 First Amended
20
Answer to First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Affirmative Defenses, and
21
Counterclaims and December 21, 2007 Reply to Rambus Inc.’s Counterclaims in Reply,
22
Affirmative Defenses thereto, and Counterclaims in Reply thereto seek, inter alia, declaratory
23
judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents;
24
WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus filed Counterclaims against Nanya on July 24, 2007;
25
WHEREAS Counts V and VI of Rambus’s Counterclaims against Nanya assert
26 27 28
infringement of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents respectfully; WHEREAS, defendant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) has filed with the Court and provided to Samsung, Hynix, and Nanya a covenant not to sue with respect to the ‘789 Patent and -2-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 3 of 8
the ‘897 Patents, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“the Covenant”);
2
WHEREAS the parties agree that the Covenant eliminates any need for declaratory
3
relief that Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix may have had with respect to the ‘789 Patent and the ‘897
4
Patent, and mutually wish to dismiss all claims and counterclaims relating to the ‘789 and ‘897
5
patents;
6
WHEREAS Hynix, Nanya, and Samsung each do not concede that the ‘789 Patent
7
and the ‘897 Patent are valid, enforceable, or infringed by Hynix, Nanya, or Samsung, but, to the
8
contrary, contend that those patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed; WHEREAS, in granting the Covenant to the Manufacturers, Rambus in no way
9 10
concedes the allegations of Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix that the ’789 patent and the ’897 patent
11
are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the Manufacturers, but, to the contrary, denies
12
those allegations; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate
13 14
to the dismissal with prejudice of Rambus’s claims and counterclaims for infringement of the
15
‘789 and ‘897 patents and Samsung’s, Nanya’s, and Hynix’s counterclaims for declarations that
16
the ‘789 Patent and the ‘897 Patent are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
17 18
//
19
//
20
//
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
// -3-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
DATED: September 16, 2008
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 4 of 8
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
3 4
By: /s/ Jennifer L. Polse JENNIFER L. POLSE
5 6
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
7 8
DATED: September 16, 2008
THEODORE BROWN III TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW, LLP
9 10 By /s/ Theodore Brown III THEODORE BROWN III
11 12
Attorneys for HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
13 14 15 16 17
DATED: September 16, 2008
MATTHEW ANTONELLI WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
18 19 20 21 22 23
By: /s/ Matthew Antonelli MATTHEW ANTONELLI Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., AND SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.
24 25 26 27 28 -4-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
DATED: September 16, 2008
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 5 of 8
THERESA NORTON ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2 3 By: /s/ Theresa E. Norton THERESA E. NORTON
4 5
Attorneys for NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
6 7 8 9
Filer's Attestation:
10 11
I, Jennifer L. Polse, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to
12
file this STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(II). In compliance
13
with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Theodore Brown, Matthew Antonelli and Theresa
14
Norton concur in this filing.
15 16
By: ________/s/ Jennifer L. Polse_______________ Jennifer L. Polse
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 8
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 7 of 8
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 8 of 8
1
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 1 of 8
Attorneys Listed on Signature Page
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
10 11 12
RAMBUS INC., Plaintiff,
13 14 15
Hon. Ronald M. Whyte HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., et al., Defendants.
17
19 20 21 22 23 24
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(a)(ii)
vs.
16
18
CASE NO.: C 05-00334 RMW
STIPULATION WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus Inc. filed a First Amended Complaint in this matter on June 6, 2005; WHEREAS Count IX of the First Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,493,789 (“the ‘789 patent”); WHEREAS Count X of the First Amended Complaint asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,496,897 (“the ‘897 patent”); WHEREAS defendants Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
25
America, Inc., and Hynix Semiconductor Manufacturing America, Inc., Hynix Semiconductor
26
UK Ltd., and Hynix Semiconductor Deutschland GmbH (“Hynix”) filed Counterclaims in this
27
matter on June 27, 2005 and July 30, 2007;
28 -1-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 2 of 8
WHEREAS Hynix’s Counterclaims 6, 7, and 8 of its June 27, 2005 Answer to
1 2
First Amended Complaint and Counterclaims and its July 30, 2007 Hynix's Answer To Rambus's
3
Reply to Hynix's First Amended Answer and Counterclaims and Rambus's Counterclaims in
4
Reply seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and
5
unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents; WHEREAS defendants Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
6 7
America, Inc., Samsung Semiconductor Inc., and Samsung Austin Semiconductor, L.P.
8
(“Samsung”) filed Counterclaims in this matter on January 31, 2007 and January 4, 2008;
9
WHEREAS Samsung’s Counts VIII, IX, and X of its January 31, 2007 and
10
January 4, 2008 Counterclaims seek, inter alia, declaratory judgments of noninfringement,
11
invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents; WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus filed Counterclaims against Hynix and Samsung on
12 13
July 9, 2007; WHEREAS Counts V and VI of Rambus’s Counterclaims against Hynix and
14 15
Samsung assert infringement of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents respectfully; WHEREAS defendants Nanya Technology Corporation and Nanya Technology
16 17
Corporation USA (“Nanya”) filed Counterclaims in this matter on July 9, 2007 and December 21,
18
2007.
19
WHEREAS Nanya’s Counterclaims 5, 6, and 7 of its July 9, 2007 First Amended
20
Answer to First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement, Affirmative Defenses, and
21
Counterclaims and December 21, 2007 Reply to Rambus Inc.’s Counterclaims in Reply,
22
Affirmative Defenses thereto, and Counterclaims in Reply thereto seek, inter alia, declaratory
23
judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents;
24
WHEREAS plaintiff Rambus filed Counterclaims against Nanya on July 24, 2007;
25
WHEREAS Counts V and VI of Rambus’s Counterclaims against Nanya assert
26 27 28
infringement of the ‘789 and ‘897 patents respectfully; WHEREAS, defendant Rambus Inc. (“Rambus”) has filed with the Court and provided to Samsung, Hynix, and Nanya a covenant not to sue with respect to the ‘789 Patent and -2-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 3 of 8
the ‘897 Patents, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“the Covenant”);
2
WHEREAS the parties agree that the Covenant eliminates any need for declaratory
3
relief that Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix may have had with respect to the ‘789 Patent and the ‘897
4
Patent, and mutually wish to dismiss all claims and counterclaims relating to the ‘789 and ‘897
5
patents;
6
WHEREAS Hynix, Nanya, and Samsung each do not concede that the ‘789 Patent
7
and the ‘897 Patent are valid, enforceable, or infringed by Hynix, Nanya, or Samsung, but, to the
8
contrary, contend that those patents are invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed; WHEREAS, in granting the Covenant to the Manufacturers, Rambus in no way
9 10
concedes the allegations of Samsung, Nanya, and Hynix that the ’789 patent and the ’897 patent
11
are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the Manufacturers, but, to the contrary, denies
12
those allegations; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, by their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate
13 14
to the dismissal with prejudice of Rambus’s claims and counterclaims for infringement of the
15
‘789 and ‘897 patents and Samsung’s, Nanya’s, and Hynix’s counterclaims for declarations that
16
the ‘789 Patent and the ‘897 Patent are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. Each party shall bear its own costs and fees.
17 18
//
19
//
20
//
21
//
22
//
23
//
24
//
25
//
26
//
27
//
28
// -3-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
DATED: September 16, 2008
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 4 of 8
MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2
McKOOL SMITH P.C.
3 4
By: /s/ Jennifer L. Polse JENNIFER L. POLSE
5 6
Attorneys for RAMBUS INC.
7 8
DATED: September 16, 2008
THEODORE BROWN III TOWNSEND and TOWNSEND and CREW, LLP
9 10 By /s/ Theodore Brown III THEODORE BROWN III
11 12
Attorneys for HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR U.K. LTD., and HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR DEUTSCHLAND GmbH
13 14 15 16 17
DATED: September 16, 2008
MATTHEW ANTONELLI WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
18 19 20 21 22 23
By: /s/ Matthew Antonelli MATTHEW ANTONELLI Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., AND SAMSUNG AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.
24 25 26 27 28 -4-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
1
DATED: September 16, 2008
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 5 of 8
THERESA NORTON ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
2 3 By: /s/ Theresa E. Norton THERESA E. NORTON
4 5
Attorneys for NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
6 7 8 9
Filer's Attestation:
10 11
I, Jennifer L. Polse, am the ECF user whose identification and password are being used to
12
file this STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 41(A)(II). In compliance
13
with General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Theodore Brown, Matthew Antonelli and Theresa
14
Norton concur in this filing.
15 16
By: ________/s/ Jennifer L. Polse_______________ Jennifer L. Polse
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -5-
STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL CASE NO. C 05-334 RMW
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Exhibit A
Page 6 of 8
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 7 of 8
Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW
Document 2212
Filed 09/16/2008
Page 8 of 8
Related Documents
2212
May 2020 15
2212
October 2019 41
2212-s
June 2020 10
2212-001
May 2020 12
09 Kim Teng 2212
November 2019 20
