Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02386/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-02386-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:145 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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 04/16/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

INTERSIL CORPORATION, et al.,

 Plaintiffs, 

 v. 

TECHNOLOGY LICENSING 

CORPORATION, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 09-02386 RS 

ORDER RE STAGING OF 

PROCEEDINGS 

The Court has reviewed the parties’ respective proposals as to how litigation of the claims 

against Ross Video should proceed. As reflected in prior orders, the circumstances do not entitle 

Ross Video simply to have the litigation against it stayed, with it retaining full rights to litigate any 

and all issues as it may choose upon the stay being lifted. Accordingly, absent agreement by Ross 

Video to limitations designed to ensure this litigation proceeds efficiently and fairly, there would be 

no basis to delay litigation of the claims against it. In light of Ross Video’s apparent willingness to 

accept such limitations, litigation of all claims against Ross Video shall be deferred, pending further 

order of court, provided that Ross Video submits a written consent to all of the following terms 

within five days of the date of this order. 

Case 5:09-cv-02386-RS Document 59 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 2
2 

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

United 

States District 

Court

For the Northern District of California 

1. Ross Video will be bound by any and all claim construction rulings issued herein. 

2. Ross Video will be bound by any and all determinations made herein as to validity of the 

claims of the patents-in-suit. 

3. In the event that TLC asserts that Ross Video’s use of Gennum chips infringes one or 

more claims of the patents-in-suit that are not at issue in the proceedings against Elantec, nothing in 

this order precludes further claim construction proceedings with respect to those claims, nor will 

Ross Video be precluded from challenging the validity of those claims. 

4. With respect to claims that are asserted against Elantec, while Ross Video will be bound 

by any claim construction order that issues, nothing in this order precludes Ross Video from seeking 

to have additional claim terms construed, in the event there is a good faith argument that such 

additional constructions are necessary to analyze whether the Gennum chips infringe. 

5. Discovery is permitted with respect to Ross Video as it pertains to Ross Video’s use or 

sale of Elantec products. 

Dated: 04/16/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:09-cv-02386-RS Document 59 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 2