Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-01268-6/pdf.json

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

---

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 

STIPULATION RE: UNIRAM’S RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 10, 11, AND 12 

Case No. CV-04-01268 VRW 

SV1:\242607\02\577302!.DOC\76835.0003 

[Counsel Listed Below] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO 

UniRAM TECHNOLOGY, INC., a California 

corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MONOLITHIC SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY, a 

Delaware corporation; TAIWAN 

SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURING 

COMPANY LTD., a Taiwan corporation, and 

TSMC NORTH AMERICA, a California 

corporation, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CV 04-01268-VRW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE: UNIRAM’S RESPONSES 

TO INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 10, 

11, AND 12 

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 158 Filed 03/06/06 Page 1 of 3
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 

STIPULATION RE: UNIRAM’S RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 10, 11, AND 12 2 

Case NoCV 04-01268 VRW 

SV1:\242607\02\577302!.DOC\76835.0003. 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to narrow and focus their disputes and cooperate on 

discovery, 

WHEREAS, the Court issued rulings on February 14, 2006 Ordering UniRAM to 

supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 10 and 12 as set forth more fully in those rulings, 

In view of the foregoing, the parties HEREBY STIPULATE AS FOLLOWS: 

1. The date for UniRAM to respond to the Court’s February 14, 2006 rulings is extended to 

and includes March 29, 2006. 

2. By March 29, 2006, UniRAM will respond to TSMC’s Interrogatory No. 11 by listing 

which trade secrets UniRAM contends were not disclosed in UniRAM’s patents. 

3. UniRAM will supplement the introductory text in its responses to TSMC’s Interrogatory 

Nos. 1 and 2 so as to identify supporting documentation (on a claim by claim basis) with 

the same degree of specificity required by the Court’s Orders concerning Interrogatory 

Nos. 10 and 12 no later than April 12, 2006. UniRAM agrees to supplement the tables 

only to the extent necessary to provide the requisite level of specificity for the materials 

cited in the introductory text of its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. 

4. The parties will meet and confer in person within a week of UniRAM’s responses above 

to determine if they are acceptable to both parties. 

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 158 Filed 03/06/06 Page 2 of 3
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 

STIPULATION RE: UNIRAM’S RESPONSES TO 

INTERROGATORY NOS. 1, 2, 10, 11, AND 12 3 

Case NoCV 04-01268 VRW 

SV1:\242607\02\577302!.DOC\76835.0003. 

Dated: March 3, 2006 By: /S/ Edward R. Reines 

Edward R. Reines 

Attorneys for Defendants 

Taiwan Semiconductor 

Manufacturing Company, Ltd, and 

TSMC North America 

Dated: March 3, 2006 By: /S/ Tracy M. Clements 

Tracy M. Clements 

Attorneys for Defendant 

Monolithic System Technology 

Dated: March 3, 2006 By: /S/ Joseph Grinstein 

Joseph Grinstein 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UniRAM Technology Inc. 

ATTESTATION

I hereby attest that I have on file all holograph signatures for any signatures 

indicated by a “conformed” signature (/S/) within this efiled document. 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March ____, 2006 By:_______________________________ 

 Honorable Maria-Elena James 

6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Maria-Elena James

Case 3:04-cv-01268-VRW Document 158 Filed 03/06/06 Page 3 of 3