Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04379/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-04379-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1126 Patent Infringement

---

1 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY

Case No. C 04-4379-JF; C 05-5021-JF 

US1DOCS 6485768v1

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 

MICHAEL A. LADRA, State Bar No. 064307 

mladra@wsgr.com 

JAMES C. YOON, State Bar No. 177155 

jyoon@wsgr.com 

JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, State Bar No. 196942 

jholloway@wsgr.com 

ARIANA M. CHUNG-HAN, State Bar No. 197572 

achung@wsgr.com 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 

Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SANDISK CORPORATION 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

SANDISK CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation, 

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V., a Dutch 

company, and DOES I to X, 

 Defendants. 

Case No.: C 04-4379 JF 

Related Case No.: C 05-5021 JF 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER TO STAY THE PROCEDURAL 

SCHEDULE PENDING RESOLUTION OF 

SANDISK’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

WHEREAS on September 6, 2007, defendants STMicroelectronics, Inc. and 

STMicroelectronics N.V. (collectively, “ST”) filed its Answer and Counterclaims to plaintiff 

SanDisk Corporation’s Second Amended Complaint. 

WHEREAS on September 7, 2007, the Court held a case management conference and set 

the current procedural schedule in this case; 

WHEREAS on October 19, 2007, SanDisk filed a Motion to Dismiss Counts 1 through 5 

of ST’s Counterclaims (the “Antitrust Counterclaims”); 

**E-filed 12/20/07** ---------------

Case 5:04-cv-04379-JF Document 143 Filed 12/20/07 Page 1 of 5
2 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY

Case No. C 04-4379-JF; C 05-5021-JF 

US1DOCS 6485768v1

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 

WHEREAS on October 31, 2007, ST served its First Set of Requests for Documents; 

WHEREAS on November 26, 2007 ST filed its opposition to SanDisk’s motion to dismiss. 

WHEREAS on December 3, SanDisk filed its reply in support of its motion to dismiss; 

WHEREAS on December 3, 2007, SanDisk responded to ST’s First Set of Requests for 

Documents and objected to producing any discovery solely relevant to the Antitrust 

Counterclaims; 

WHEREAS the Court is scheduled to hear argument on SanDisk’s motion to dismiss on 

January 14; 

WHEREAS the parties wish to avoid filing motions to compel and/or for protective order 

regarding the issue of whether SanDisk has a legal obligation to produce discovery, but do not 

wish to deprive either party of adequate time for fact or expert discovery on its claims or defenses 

following resolution of SanDisk’s motion to dismiss; 

Pursuant to Local Rule 6-2, the parties hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 

1. All deadlines in the procedural schedule are stayed until the Court resolves plaintiff’s 

pending motion to dismiss defendants’ Sherman Act and state law counterclaims. 

2. After the Court resolves SanDisk’s motion to dismiss, the parties will contact the 

Court to schedule a case management conference in order to reset the discovery and other deadlines 

in the schedule in light of the issues remaining in the case. If the Court denies SanDisk’s motion to 

dismiss, SanDisk will not oppose a motion by ST to extend the remaining deadlines in the schedule 

including the trial setting by an amount of time equal to the period the case remains stayed pursuant 

to paragraph 1.

Case 5:04-cv-04379-JF Document 143 Filed 12/20/07 Page 2 of 5
3 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY

Case No. C 04-4379-JF; C 05-5021-JF 

US1DOCS 6485768v1

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 

 NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 6-2, the parties respectfully request the 

Court to grant the accompanying proposed order to stay all deadlines in the case pending resolution 

of SanDisk’s motion to dismiss and to hold a case management conference following resolution of 

SanDisk’s motion in order to reset the discovery and other deadlines in light of the issues remaining 

in the case. 

 Dated: December 18, 2007 

Dated: December 18, 2007 

By: /s/Gregory H. Lantier 

 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING 

 HALE and DORR, LLP 

Attorneys for Defendants 

STMICROELECTRONICS, INC. and 

STMICROELECTRONICS N.V. 

By: /s/Ariana Chung-Han 

 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & 

ROSATI LLP 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

SANDISK CORPORATION 

Case 5:04-cv-04379-JF Document 143 Filed 12/20/07 Page 3 of 5
4 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY

Case No. C 04-4379-JF; C 05-5021-JF 

US1DOCS 6485768v1

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 

SIGNATURE ATTESTATION 

 I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each 

of the other signatories. I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 18th day of December in San Francisco, California. 

 /s/Ariana Chung-Han 

 Ariana Chung-Han 

Case 5:04-cv-04379-JF Document 143 Filed 12/20/07 Page 4 of 5
5 STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER TO STAY

Case No. C 04-4379-JF; C 05-5021-JF 

US1DOCS 6485768v1

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 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

The Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request as follows: 

1. All deadlines in the procedural schedule are stayed until the Court resolves plaintiff’s 

pending motion to dismiss defendants’ Sherman Act and state law counterclaims. 

2. After the Court resolves SanDisk’s motion to dismiss, the parties will contact the 

Court to schedule a case management conference in order to reset the discovery and other deadlines 

in the schedule in light of the issues remaining in the case. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED 

DATED: ____________________________ __________________________________ Hon. Jeremy Fogel 

 United States District Court Judge 

-------------- 12/20/07

Case 5:04-cv-04379-JF Document 143 Filed 12/20/07 Page 5 of 5