Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01733/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01733-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1 

REVISED STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

CASE NO. C 06-01733 (MJJ)(EMC)

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 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

MICHAEL J. BETTINGER, SBN 122196 

ANUP TIKKU, SBN 184612 

PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP 

55 Second Street, Suite 1700 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: (415) 882-8200 

Facsimile: (415) 882-8220 

mikeb@prestongates.com 

anupt@prestongates.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SPANSION LLC 

JONATHAN C. DICKEY, SBN 088226 

H. MARK LYON, SBN 162061 

STEVEN J. JOHNSON, SBN 121568 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

1881 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, California 94304 

Telephone: (650) 849-5300 

Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 

jdickey@gibsondunn.com 

mlyon@gibsondunn.com 

sjjohnson@gibsondunn.com 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD. 

MACRONIX AMERICA, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

SPANSION LLC, a Delaware corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

 v. 

MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD., a 

Taiwan corporation, and MACRONIX 

AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, 

Defendants. 

CASE NO. C 06-01733 (MJJ) (EMC) 

REVISED STIPULATED [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES AND 

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND 

FURTHER RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORIES 

Case 3:06-cv-01733-MJJ Document 58 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 1 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-01733-MJJ Document 59 Filed 10/27/06 Page 1 of 3
2 

STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

CASE NO. C 06-01733 (MJJ)(EMC) 

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 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

On September 20, 2006, Defendants Macronix International Co., Ltd. (“MXIC”) and 

Macronix America, Inc. (“MXA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) filed their Motion To Compel 

Plaintiff Spansion LLC (“Spansion”) to produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to 

Document Request Nos. 28 and 62, and to provide supplemental responses to Interrogatory Nos. 5 

and 6. Spansion filed an Opposition on October 11, 2006 and Defendants submitted a Reply 

Memorandum on October 18, 2006. The motion is set for a hearing before the Honorable Magistrate 

Judge Edward M. Chen on November 1, 2006. The parties have continued to meet and confer and 

respectfully ask the Court to vacate the schedule hearing and instead enter the following stipulated 

order (“Order”): 

Spansion shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Defendants’ Document 

Request No. 28. 

Spansion shall produce all nonprivileged documents responsive to Defendants’ Document 

Request No. 62. 

Spansion shall provide a supplemental response to MXA’s Interrogatory No. 5, identifying all 

facts currently known to Spansion that support Spansion’s allegations in paragraphs 6, 35, 47, and 56 

of the First Amended Complaint that Spansion has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, 

copyright and lack of attribution damages, and alleged damages based on Spansion’s alleged lost 

sales of MirrorBit® products. In particular, Spansion shall state whether it is claiming any damages 

based on alleged lost MirrorBit® sales based on its own sales information regarding MirrorBit®, and 

if so, what damages based on alleged lost MirrorBit® sales it is claiming. 

/ / 

Case 3:06-cv-01733-MJJ Document 58 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 2 of 3
 Case 3:06-cv-01733-MJJ Document 59 Filed 10/27/06 Page 2 of 3
3 

STIPULATED ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 

CASE NO. C 06-01733 (MJJ)(EMC) 

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 

Gibson, Dunn & 

Crutcher LLP 

Spansion shall provide a supplemental response to MXA’s Interrogatory No. 6, identifying 

any and all customers currently known that Spansion claims were deceived, as alleged in paragraphs 

18, 19, 20, 30, 31, and 32 of the First Amended Complaint, or otherwise “induced” to act under a 

“mistaken belief,” as alleged in paragraphs 46 and 56 of the First Amended Complaint. If Spansion 

cannot identify any customers that it contends were deceived or induced to act under a mistaken 

belief at this stage of the case, Spansion shall so state in its supplemental response. 

The hearing set for November 1, 2006 shall be taken off calendar. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: October ___, 2006 _________________________________ 

 The Honorable Edward M. Chen 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Agreed by and between counsel: 

DATED: October 26, 2006 ___________/s/__________________

Steven J. Johnson 

Attorneys for Defendants, 

MACRONIX INTERNATIONAL CO., LTD 

and MACRONIX AMERICA, INC. 

DATED: October 26, 2006 ___________/s/__________________

Anup Tikku 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SPANSION LLC 

Case 3:06-cv-01733-MJJ Document 58 Filed 10/26/2006 Page 3 of 3

27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Edward M. Chen

Case 3:06-cv-01733-MJJ Document 59 Filed 10/27/06 Page 3 of 3