Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05387/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-05387-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER STAYING ACTION ONLY AS BETWEEN ADOBE AND LINOTYPE 

CASE NO. C06 05387 

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 

MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP

IAN FEINBERG (SBN 88324)

ERIC B. EVANS (SBN 232476)

Two Palo Alto Square, Suite 300 

3000 El Camino Real

Palo Alto, CA 94306 

Telephone: (650) 331-2000 

Facsimile: (650) 331-4555 

ifeinberg@mayerbrownrowe.com

Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and

Third-Party Plaintiff

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN AG,

a German Corporation,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation,

 Defendant,

Civil Action No. C 06-5387 RMW (RSx)

STIPULATION AND [] 

ORDER STAYING ACTION ONLY AS

BETWEEN ADOBE AND LINOTYPE

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware Corporation,

Counterclaimant,

 v.

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN AG, a German Corporation,

 

 Counterdefendant,

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED, 

a Delaware Corporation,

Third-party Plaintiff,

 v.

LINOTYPE GmbH,

 a German Corporation,

 Third-party Defendant.

LIBA/1758576.3

44032463

*E-FILED - 3/2/07*

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/02/07 Page 1 of 5
 

 -2- STIPULATION AND [] ORDER STAYING ACTION ONLY AS BETWEEN ADOBE AND LINOTYPE 

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 

Pursuant to Local Rules 7-12 and 16-2, Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG (“HDM”), Defendant, Counterclaimant, and Third-party

Plaintiff Adobe Systems Incorporated (“Adobe”) and Third-party Defendant Linotype GmbH

(“Linotype”) respectfully request that this Court enter an order staying this action only as

between Adobe and Linotype (on the Adobe’s Third-Party Complaint) until August 15, 2007 to

enable Adobe and Linotype to negotiate a new agreement which would moot the Third Party

Complaint. The parties do not seek a stay of the dispute between HDM and Adobe because a 

new agreement between Adobe and Linotype would not affect HDM and Adobe’s claims against

each other.

 Good cause exists for this Court to stay the action against Linotype because:

(1) HDM filed the complaint in this action (“the Complaint”) on August 31, 2006.

(2) HDM served the Complaint on Adobe on September 20, 2006.

(3) On October 30, 2006, Adobe answered the Complaint, brought counterclaims against

Heidelberger and brought third-party claims against Linotype.

(4) Adobe brought third-party claims against Linotype largely to avoid the possibility

that Adobe might be estopped by any portion of a judgment adverse to Adobe, but

Linotype might not be estopped by any portion of a judgment adverse to HDM. 

(5) Linotype agrees to accept service of Adobe’s third-party complaint, effective upon

entry of this Stipulation and Proposed Order, thereby avoiding the necessity for

service of process on Linotype pursuant to The Hague Convention.

(6) Adobe and Linotype are negotiating revised agreements between themselves. If the 

negotiations are successful, they will moot the Third-Party Complaint brought by

Adobe against Linotype, and Linotype will be dismissed with prejudice from the case. 

However, Adobe and Linotype believe that the negotiations are likely to take until

August 15, 2007 since the existing agreements between them are complex and 

voluminous. Adobe and Linotype wish to avoid the expense of litigation between

CASE NO. C06 05387 

LIBA/1758576.3 

44032463

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/02/07 Page 2 of 5
 

 -3- STIPULATION AND [] ORDER STAYING ACTION ONLY AS BETWEEN ADOBE AND LINOTYPE 

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 

themselves, and perhaps the hardening of positions which sometimes results from

litigation.

(7) Accordingly, the parties request that this Court stay the entire Action between Adobe 

and Linotype (on the Third-Party Complaint) until August 15, 2007 (the “Stay

Period”).

(8) The parties agree that should Adobe and Linotype not reach an agreement mooting 

the Third-Party Complaint by Adobe against Linotype, Adobe and Linotype shall be

entitled to take discovery against each other, including reopening depositions if

necessary. However, Adobe will not be entitled to reopen depositions that it had 

already taken, except that, as to current Linotype personnel, it would be permitted to 

reopen depositions solely on events occurring after March 31, 2006.

(9) Adobe and Linotype agree that (i) any positions taken by HDM or Adobe during the 

Stay Period and (ii) matters adjudicated during the Stay Period will have no

preclusive or estoppel effect as between Adobe and Linotype. Adobe and Linotype 

further agree not to assert any such preclusive or estoppel effect against the other. 

(10) The parties agree that Linotype’s time to file a response to the Third Party

Complaint, including any motions pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, shall be twenty (20) days from the later of (i) the denial by this Court of

this Stipulation and Proposed Order or (ii) the end of the Stay Period if this Court

approves this Stipulation and Proposed Order. 

(11) Because Linotype may have access and/or control over various documents and 

witnesses relevant to the dispute between HDM and Adobe, Linotype agrees to

cooperate in discovery initiated by HDM or Adobe against one another relating to the 

respective claims of HDM or Adobe, and to make documents and witnesses available 

without subpoena.

(12) Linotype and Adobe specifically agree that they will not seek to change any trial

date assigned by this Court based upon the proposed stay and the preference of

CASE NO. C06 05387 

LIBA/1758576.3 

44032463

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/02/07 Page 3 of 5
 

 -4- STIPULATION AND [] ORDER STAYING ACTION ONLY AS BETWEEN ADOBE AND LINOTYPE 

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 

Linotype and Adobe to discuss their dispute rather than litigate it during the Stay

Period.

(13) Counsel for Adobe, HDM, and Linotype have conferred, as required by Civil L.R.

16-2(d)(2). Adobe and Linotype support this request for relief and HDM does not 

object to it based on the statements herein.

February 8, 2007 MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP 

Ian N. Feinberg

Eric B. Evans

By: /s/ 

Ian N. Feinberg

Attorneys for Defendant, Counterclaimant, and

Third-party Plaintiff

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

February 8, 2007 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &

HAMPTON LLP

Steven B. Sacks

M. Elizabeth McDaniel

David DeGroot

By: /s/ 

Steven B. Sacks

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim

Defendant

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN

February 8, 2007 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

Patrick S. Thompson

By: ___/s/___________ 

Patrick S. Thompson

Attorneys for Third-party Defendant

LINOTYPE GMBH 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), Ian Feinberg hereby 

attests that the signatories’ concurrences in the filing of this document have been obtained.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

CASE NO. C06 05387 

LIBA/1758576.3 

44032463

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/02/07 Page 4 of 5
 

 -5- STIPULATION AND [] ORDER STAYING ACTION ONLY AS BETWEEN ADOBE AND LINOTYPE 

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 

(1) The entire Action between Adobe and Linotype (on the Third-Party Complaint) is

stayed until August 15, 2007 (the “Stay Period”).

(2) Should Adobe and Linotype not reach an agreement mooting the Third-Party

Complaint by Adobe against Linotype, Adobe and Linotype shall be entitled to take 

discovery against each other, including reopening depositions if necessary. However,

Adobe will not be entitled to reopen depositions that it had already taken, except that,

as to current Linotype personnel, it would be permitted to reopen depositions soley on

events occurring after March 31, 2006.

(3) Linotype’s time to respond to the Third Party Complaint, including any motions

pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, shall be twenty (20) days

from the end of the Stay Period.

(4) Linotype shall cooperate in discovery initiated by HDM or Adobe against one another

relating to the respective claims of HDM or Adobe, and to make documents and 

witnesses available without subpoena.

DATED: _________________________ ________________________________ 

The Honorable Ronald M. Whyte 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

CASE NO. C06 05387 

LIBA/1758576.3 

44032463

3/2/07

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 16 Filed 03/02/07 Page 5 of 5