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

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

---

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO. C06 5387 RMW (RSx)

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 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@mayerbrown.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 OF DISMISSAL WITH

PREJUDICE

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.

*E-FILED -2/12/08*

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 27 Filed 02/12/08 Page 1 of 3
-2-

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO. C06 5387 RMW (RSx

)

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 [] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between plaintiff and counterclaim defendant

Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG, a German Corporation (“Heidelberg”), and defendant and

counterclaimant Adobe Systems Incorporated, a Delaware corporation (“Adobe”), that:

1. Heidelberg’s former subsidiary, Linotype GmbH (“Linotype”), and Adobe are

parties to a series of license and other agreements for typefaces and font software (the “AdobeLinotype Agreements”).

2. Heidelberg asserts that when it sold Linotype to Monotype Imaging, Inc.

(“Monotype”), it retained certain claims that Linotype had for allegedly underreported and

unpaid royalties due by Adobe to Linotype under the Adobe-Linotype Agreements through

March 31, 2006 (the “Linotype Assigned Claims”). Adobe asserts that Linotype underreported

and underpaid royalties due Adobe under the Adobe-Linotype Agreements (the "Adobe

Claims").

3. On August 31, 2006, Heidelberg filed a lawsuit captioned Heidelberger

Druckmaschinen AG v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California, San Jose Division, Action No. 06-CV-05387 RMW (RSx) (the

“Lawsuit”) alleging breach of contract arising out of the Linotype Assigned Claims.

4. On October 30, 2006, Adobe filed a counterclaim in the Lawsuit alleging breach

of contract arising out of the Adobe Claims. Adobe also filed a third-party complaint against

Linotype GmbH, which has not appeared in the Lawsuit.

5. Adobe and Heidelberg have settled the Linotype Assigned Claims and Adobe’s

related counterclaims against Heidelberg that accrued on or before March 31, 2006.

6. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), Adobe and Heidelberg now stipulate to the

dismissal of all of their claims against each other in the Lawsuit with prejudice.

///

///

///

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 27 Filed 02/12/08 Page 2 of 3
-3-

STIPULATION AND [] ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

CASE NO. C06 5387 RMW (RSx

)

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

7. Each party will bear its own legal expenses, including without limitation,

attorneys’ fees and costs.

February 7, 2008 MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP

Ian N. Feinberg

Eric B. Evans

By:U /s/ U

Ian N. Feinberg

Attorneys for Defendant

ADOBE SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

February 7, 2008 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &

HAMPTON LLP

Steven B. Sacks

M. Elizabeth McDaniel

David DeGroot

By:U /s/ U

Steven B. Sacks

Attorneys for Plaintiff

HEIDELBERGER DRUCKMASCHINEN AG

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 THE ABOVE STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), all Heidelberg’s complaint against Adobe and

Adobe’s counterclaim against Heidelberg are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

2. Each of Heidelberg and Adobe will bear its own legal expenses, including without

limitation, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Dated: _______________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

2/12/08

Case 5:06-cv-05387-RMW Document 27 Filed 02/12/08 Page 3 of 3