Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05659/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-05659-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY

CORPORATION and RICHTEK USA, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

UPI SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 09-05659 WHA

ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

This action is the fifth in a series legal actions addressing the same affair. Plaintiffs have

initiated civil, criminal, and injunctive actions in Taiwan and also have convinced the United

States International Trade Commission to institute an investigation on their behalf. These other

actions were brought against various subsets of the defendants named here and address essentially

the same set of grievances voiced here. Plaintiffs have settled their ITC dispute with each of the

several companies named as respondents, but the Taiwanese actions remain pending.

This action’s factual center of gravity is Taiwan. The vast majority of the parties,

witnesses, documents, and other evidence are located in Taiwan, and the alleged illegal acts were

committed in Taiwan. To avoid what may quickly become a burdensome and unnecessary

duplication of judicial efforts, it seems appropriate to stay this action pending the outcome of the

Taiwanese actions. Any party that disagrees is directed to show cause why this action should not 

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 211 Filed 01/03/11 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

be stayed by NOON ON JANUARY 6, 2011. In particular, the parties are requested to identify the

patents asserted in the Taiwanese civil and injunctive actions and address the relationship

between these Taiwanese patents and the U.S. patents asserted here.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2011. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-05659-WHA Document 211 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2