Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-md-01819-99/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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 AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (4:07-md-1819 CW) 

Lee H. Rubin (State Bar #141331) 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

Two Palo Alto Square 

Suite 300 

3000 El Camino Real 

Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 

(650) 331-2000 

lrubin@mayerbrown.com 

Robert E. Bloch (pro hac vice) 

Gary A. Winters (pro hac vice) 

Aimée D. Latimer-Zayets (pro hac vice) 

MAYER BROWN LLP 

1999 K Street NW 

Washington, DC 20006-1101 

(202) 263-3000 

rbloch@mayerbrown.com 

gwinters@mayerbrown.com

alatimer-zayets@mayerbrown.com 

Counsel for Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation 

[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

IN RE STATIC RANDOM ACCESS 

MEMORY (SRAM) ANTITRUST 

LITIGATION 

Master File 4:07-md-1819-CW

MDL No. 1819 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 

FOR CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION’S MOTIONS FOR 

SEPARATE TRIALS AND TO 

EXPEDITE RULING ON THE FTAIA’S 

IMPACT ON INDIRECT PURCHASER 

CLAIMS 

This Document Relates To:

ALL DIRECT AND INDIRECT 

PURCHASER ACTIONS 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1234 Filed 01/03/11 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 

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (4:07-md-1819 CW) 

WHEREAS, on December 30, 2010, Defendant Cypress Semiconductor Corporation 

(“Cypress”) filed a motion for separate trials with the Court (the “Motion for Separate Trials”); 

WHEREAS, Samsung and the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs support Cypress’s Motion for 

Separate Trials; 

WHEREAS, also on December 30, 2010, Cypress filed a motion to expedite ruling on the 

FTAIA’s impact on indirect purchaser claims (the “Motion to Expedite”); 

WHEREAS, Cypress and the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs have agreed to the following 

briefing schedule for both of Cypress’s Motions: 

(1) Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs shall have until January 12, 2011 to respond to 

Cypress’s Motions; 

(2) Cypress shall have until 9 a.m. on January 17, 2011 to reply; 

(3) For the convenience of the Court and of the parties, the hearing on Cypress’s 

Motions shall take place on January 18, 2011, at the time of the further pretrial 

conference. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: December 30, 2010 MAYER BROWN LLP 

________________/s/_______________

Gary A. Winters 

Counsel for Defendant Cypress 

Semiconductor Corporation

Dated: December 30, 2010 ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & 

MASON LLP 

________________/s/_______________

Christopher T. Micheletti 

Lead Counsel for Indirect Purchaser 

Plaintiffs 

Pursuant to General Order No. 45, Section X(B), I hereby attest that the above signatories 

concur in the filing of this document. 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1234 Filed 01/03/11 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 

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER (4:07-md-1819 CW) 

 ___/s/ _______ 

 

 

ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. Motion to Expedite is granted. 

DATED: January 3, 2011 ____________________________

 Hon. Claudia Wilken 

 United States District Court Judge 

Case 4:07-md-01819-CW Document 1234 Filed 01/03/11 Page 3 of 3