Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05944-324/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

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 OF DISMISSAL

[Stipulating parties listed on signature page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

)

)

)

Case No. 07-5944 SC

MDL No. 1917

This Document Relates to:

Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Hitachi, 

Ltd., et al., No. 3:11-cv-01656-SC

Electrograph Systems, Inc., et al. v. Technicolor 

SA, et al., No. 3:13-cv-05724-SC

CompuCom Sys., Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 

3:11-cv-06396-SC

Interbond Corp. of Am. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al.,

No. 3:11-cv-06276-SC

Interbond Corp. of America v. Technicolor SA, 

et al., No. 3:13-cv-05727-SC

Office Depot, Inc. v. Hitachi, Ltd. et al, No.

3:11-cv-06276-SC

Office Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al., No. 

3:13-cv-05726-SC

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al., v. 

Hitachi, Ltd., et al. ̧ No. 3:12-cv-02648-SC

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corp., et al. v. 

Technicolor SA, et al., No. 3:13-cv-05725-SC

Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of 

Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC v. 

Hitachi, Ltd., et al., No. 3:12-cv-2649-SC

Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of 

Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter Newco, LLC v. 

Technicolor SA., et al., No. 3:13-cv-05668-SC

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 17
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

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 OF DISMISSAL

Plaintiffs Electrograph Systems, Inc. and Electrograph Technologies, Corp. (collectively, 

“Electrograph”); CompuCom Systems, Inc. (“CompuCom”); Interbond Corporation of America 

(“BrandsMart”); Office Depot, Inc. (“Office Depot”); P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation 

(“P.C. Richard”); MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc. (“MARTA”); ABC Appliance, Inc. (“ABC 

Warehouse”); and Schultze Agency Services, LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and Tweeter 

Newco, LLC (“Tweeter”) (collectively, “Stipulating Plaintiffs”), and the undersigned Defendants, by 

their respective attorneys and pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, state 

as follows:

1. On October 3, 2013, Electrograph filed its Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) in 

this case (MDL Dkt. No. 1976). In its SAC, Electrograph asserts claims for relief against all 

Defendants except Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies 

Displays Americas LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions 

America, Inc., and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc.)

under the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, California Unfair Competition Laws, the New 

York Donnelly Act, and New York Unfair Competition Law.

2. On December 20, 2013, Electrograph filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-4) In its FAC, Electrograph asserts claims for 

relief under the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, California Unfair Competition Laws, 

the New York Donnelly Act, New and York Unfair Competition Law.

3. On October 3, 2013, CompuCom filed its First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) in this 

case (MDL Dkt. No. 1975). In its FAC, CompuCom asserts claims for relief against all Defendants 

except Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., 

and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, California 

Unfair Competition Law, and the New York Donnelly Act.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 2 of 17
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

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

3

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

4. On October 3, 2013, BrandsMart filed its First Amended Complaint in this case 

(MDL Dkt. No. 1974). In its FAC, BrandsMart asserts claims for relief against all Defendants 

except Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., 

and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act.

5. On December 20, 2013, BrandsMart filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-6) In its FAC, BrandsMart asserts claims for 

relief under the Sherman Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

6. On October 3, 2013, Office Depot filed its First Amended Complaint in this case 

(MDL Dkt. No. 1977). In its FAC, Office Depot asserts claims for relief against all Defendants 

except Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., 

and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, the California Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition Laws.

7. On December 20, 2013, Office Depot filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-8) In its FAC, Office Depot asserts claims for 

relief under the Sherman Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California 

Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition Laws.

8. On October 3, 2013, P.C. Richard filed its First Amended Complaint in this case 

(MDL Dkt. No. 1979). In its FAC, P.C. Richard asserts claims for relief against all Defendants 

except Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., 

and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act and the New York Donnelly Act.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 3 of 17
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

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

4

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

9. On December 20, 2013, P.C. Richard filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-10) In its FAC, P.C. Richard asserts claims for 

relief under the Sherman Act and the New York Donnelly Act.

10. On October 3, 2013, MARTA filed its First Amended Complaint in this case (MDL 

Dkt. No. 1979). In its FAC, MARTA asserts claims for relief against all Defendants except 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act, the Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 44-1401, et 

seq., and the Illinois Antitrust Act.

11. On December 20, 2013, MARTA filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-10) In its FAC, MARTA asserts claims for relief 

under the Sherman Act, the Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 44-1401, et seq., and the Illinois Antitrust 

Act.

12. On October 3, 2013, ABC Warehouse filed its First Amended Complaint in this case 

(MDL Dkt. No. 1979). In its FAC, ABC Warehouse asserts claims for relief against all Defendants 

except Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., 

and Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act and the Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 

445.771, et seq.

13. On December 20, 2013, ABC Warehouse filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-10) In its FAC, ABC Warehouse asserts claims 

for relief under the Sherman Act and the Michigan Compiled Laws §§ 445.771, et seq.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 4 of 17
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

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

5

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

14. On October 3, 2013, Tweeter filed its First Amended Complaint in this case (MDL 

Dkt. No. 1979). In its FAC, Tweeter asserts claims for relief against all Defendants except 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. under the Sherman Act.

15. On December 20, 2013, Tweeter filed its First Amended Complaint against 

Technicolor SA, Technicolor USA, Inc., Videocon Industries, Ltd., Technologies Displays Americas 

LLC, Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc., and 

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (MDL Dkt. No. 2279-10). In its FAC, Tweeter asserts claims for relief 

under the Sherman Act.

16. Stipulating Plaintiffs now desire to dismiss with prejudice their claims against 

Defendants under the specific state laws outlines in paragraphs 1-13, above, with the exception of 

the claims of BrandsMart and Office Depot under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices 

Act. Except as described in the following Paragraph, BrandsMart and Office Depot are not 

dismissing, and will continue to prosecute, those Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act 

claims. Further, Stipulating Plaintiffs are not dismissing, and will continue to prosecute, all claims 

against Defendants brought pursuant to federal law, including the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

17. Office Depot will not maintain any claim for relief under the Florida Deceptive and 

Unfair Trade Practices Act which is based upon purchases by OfficeMax Incorporated (or its 

subsidiaries) through 2003. With respect to such OfficeMax Incorporated purchases, Office Depot is 

maintaining and will continue to prosecute its claims brought pursuant to federal law, including the 

Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.

18. Stipulating Plaintiffs and Defendants agree that each party shall bear its own costs 

and attorneys’ fees in connection with the dismissed claims.

19. As a result of the dismissals of these state law claims with prejudice, and contingent

upon the Court’s approval of this Stipulation, Defendants will withdraw certain pending summary 

judgment motions, in whole or in part, as follows:

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 5 of 17
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

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

6

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

a. Defendants Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes 

(Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Direct Action Plaintiffs’ 

State Law Claims on Due Process Grounds (MDL Dkt. No. 2973) is withdrawn as to 

CompuCom’s claims under California and New York law, P.C. Richard’s claims 

under New York law, MARTA’s claims under Arizona and Illinois law, ABC 

Warehouse’s claims under Michigan law, and Office Depot’s claims under California 

Law, but continues to apply to all other claims and Plaintiffs addressed in the motion.

b. Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as 

to Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ and Certain Direct Action Plaintiffs’ State Law 

Claims on Statute of Limitations Grounds (MDL Dkt. No. 2978) is withdrawn as to 

Electrograph’s claims under New York law only, and continues to apply to all other 

claims and Plaintiffs addressed in the motion.

c. Thomson Consumer’s Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 

and Partial Summary Judgment (MDL Dkt. No. 2981) is withdrawn as to 

Electrograph’s claims under New York law and P.C. Richard’s claims under New 

York law.

d. Defendant Technologies Displays Americas LLC’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment (MDL Dkt. No. 2984) is withdrawn as to Electrograph’s claims under 

California and New York law, Office Depot’s claims under California law, P.C. 

Richard’s claims under New York law, MARTA’s claims under Arizona and Illinois 

law, and ABC Warehouse’s claims under Michigan law, but remains as to Office 

Depot’s and BrandsMart’s Florida claims.

e. Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment With 

Respect to MARTA (MDL Dkt No. 2994) is withdrawn as to MARTA’s claims under 

Arizona and Illinois law.

f. Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment Against Electrograph, P.C. Richard and MARTA on Choice of Law 

Grounds (MDL Dkt. No. 3000) is withdrawn.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 6 of 17
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

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

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

g. Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment Against CompuCom Systems, Inc. on Choice of Law Grounds (MDL Dkt. 

No. 3002) is withdrawn.

h. Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment Against Office Depot on Choice of Law Grounds (MDL Dkt. No. 3021) is 

withdrawn.

i. Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 

Plaintiffs’ Indirect Purchaser Claims Based on Foreign Sales (MDL Dkt. No. 3005) is 

withdrawn as to Electrograph’s claims under California and New York law, 

CompuCom’s claims under California and New York law, Office Depot’s claims 

under California law, P.C. Richard’s claims under New York law, MARTA’s claims 

under Arizona and Illinois law, and ABC Warehouse’s claims under Michigan law, 

but remains as to Office Depot’s and BrandsMart’s Florida claims.

j. Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Summary Judgment 

Based Upon Plaintiffs’ Failure to Distinguish Between Actionable and NonActionable Damages Under the FTAIA (MDL Dkt. No. 3008) is withdrawn as to 

Electrograph’s claims under California and New York law, CompuCom’s claims 

under California and New York law, Office Depot’s claims under California law, P.C. 

Richard’s claims under New York law, MARTA’s claims under Arizona and Illinois 

law, and ABC Warehouse’s claims under Michigan law, but remains as to Office 

Depot’s and BrandsMart’s Florida claims.

k. Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment Against Certain Direct Action Plaintiffs on Due Process Grounds (MDL 

Dkt. No. 3029) is withdrawn as to CompuCom’s claims under California and New 

York law and Office Depot’s claims under California law. 

l. Defendants’ Joint Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment Against Certain Direct Action Plaintiffs on State Law Claims Limited to 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 7 of 17
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

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

8

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Intrastate Activity (MDL Dkt. No. 3031) is withdrawn as to MARTA’s claims under 

Arizona law, but remains as to Office Depot’s and BrandsMart’s Florida claims.

m. Defendants’ Joint Re-Notice of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 

Against Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs and Certain Direct Action Plaintiffs for Lack of 

Antitrust Injury and Antitrust Standing Under Federal and Certain State Laws (MDL 

Dkt. No. 3123) is withdrawn as to Electrograph’s claims under California and New 

York law, CompuCom’s claims under California and New York law, Office Depot’s 

claims under California law, P.C. Richard’s claims under New York law, MARTA’s 

claims under Illinois law, and ABC Warehouse’s claims under Michigan law, but 

remains as to Office Depot’s and BrandsMart’s Florida claims.

n. Defendant Beijing Matsushita Color CRT Co., Ltd.’s Notice of Motion and 

Motion for Summary Judgment for Failure to Adduce Evidence Sufficient to State a 

Claim in Light of the FTAIA and for Lack of Standing to Seek Injunctive Relief 

(MDL Dkt. No. 2990) is withdrawn as to Electrograph’s claims under California and 

New York law.

o. Any other motion that seeks to dismiss any of the Stipulating Plaintiffs’ state 

law claims referenced in Paragraph 1-13, except BrandsMart’s and Office Depot’s 

Florida claims, is withdrawn as to those claims.

20. This stipulation and the Court’s order thereon shall have no bearing on the 

applicability of the aforementioned motions in the cases of plaintiffs other than the Stipulating 

Plaintiffs.

WHEREFORE, the parties stipulate and agree that the Stipulating Plaintiffs’ state law claims 

referenced in Paragraph 1-13 are dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal does not apply to the 

claims of Stipulating Plaintiffs brought under federal law (including the Sherman Act and the 

Clayton Act), or to the claims of BrandsMart and Office Depot brought under the Florida Deceptive 

and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

***

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 8 of 17
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

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

9

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The undersigned parties jointly and respectfully request that the Court enter this stipulation

as an order.

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:___________________ ______________________________________

Hon. Samuel Conti

United States District Judge 

12/18/2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

Judge Samuel Conti

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 9 of 17
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

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

10

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Pursuant to Local Rule 5-1(i), the filer attests that the concurrence in the filing of this 

document has been obtained from each of the below signatories.

Dated: December 12, 2014 /s/ Philip J. Iovieno

Philip J. Iovieno 

Anne M. Nardacci

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

30 South Pearl Street, 11th Floor

Albany, NY 12207

Telephone: (518) 434-0600

Facsimile: (518) 434-0665

Email: piovieno@bsfllp.com

anardacci@bsfllp.com

William A. Isaacson 

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

5301 Wisconsin Ave. NW, Suite 800

Washington, D.C. 20015

Telephone: (202) 237-2727

Facsimile: (202) 237-6131

Email: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

Stuart Singer

BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP

401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1200

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 356-0011

Facsimile: (954) 356-0022

Email: ssinger@bsfllp.com

Liaison Counsel for Direct Action Plaintiffs 

and Attorneys for Plaintiffs Electrograph 

Systems, Inc. and Electrograph Technologies, 

Corp., Office Depot, Inc., Compucom Systems, 

Inc., and Interbond Corporation of America, 

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, 

MARTA Cooperative of America, Inc., ABC 

Appliance, Inc., and Schultze Agency Services, 

LLC on behalf of Tweeter Opco, LLC and 

Tweeter Newco, LLC

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 10 of 17
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

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

11

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

DATED: December 12, 2014 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

By: /s/ Eliot A. Adelson

Eliot A. Adelson

James Maxwell Cooper

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

555 California Street, 27th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94104

Telephone: (415) 439-1400

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500

Email: eadelson@kirkland.com

Email: max.cooper@kirkland.com

James H. Mutchnik, P.C. (pro hac vice)

Kate Wheaton (pro hac vice)

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP

300 North LaSalle

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Tel: (312) 862-2000

Facsimile: (312) 862-2200

Attorneys for Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi 

Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display Inc.), Hitachi 

America, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd., and Hitachi 

Electronic Devices (USA), Inc. 

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

By: /s/ Hojoon Hwang

JEROME C. ROTH (SBN 159483)

jerome.roth@mto.com

HOJOON HWANG (SBN. 184950)

hojoon.hwang@mto.com

MIRIAM KIM (SBN 238230)

miriam.kim@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

560 Mission Street, Twenty-Seventh Floor

San Francisco, California 94105-2907

Telephone: (415) 512-4000

Facsimile: (415) 512-4077

WILLIAM D. TEMKO (SBN 098858)

William.Temko@mto.com

MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP

355 South Grand Avenue, Thirty-Fifth Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071-1560

Telephone: (213) 683-9100

Facsimile: (213) 687-3702

Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc.; LG, 

LG Electronics USA, Inc.; and LG Electronics 

Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 11 of 17
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

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

12

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

By: /s/ Jeffrey L. Kessler

JEFFREY L. KESSLER (pro hac vice)

JKessler@winston.com

A. PAUL VICTOR (pro hac vice)

PVictor@winston.com

ALDO A. BADINI (SBN 257086)

ABadini@winston.com

EVA W. COLE (pro hac vice)

EWCole@winston.com

MOLLY M. DONOVAN

MMDonovan@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166

Telephone: (212) 294-6700

Facsimile: (212) 294-4700

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

STEVEN A. REISS (pro hac vice)

steven.reiss@weil.com

DAVID L. YOHAI (pro hac vice)

david.yohai@weil.com

ADAM C. HEMLOCK (pro hac vice)

adam.hemlock@weil.com

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, New York 10153-0119

Telephone: (212) 310-8000

Facsimile: (212) 310-8007

Attorneys for Defendants Panasonic Corporation 

(f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.), 

Panasonic Corporation of North America, MT 

Picture Display Co., Ltd.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 12 of 17
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

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

13

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

By: /s/ Lucius B. Lau

CHRISTOPHER M. CURRAN (pro hac vice)

ccurran@whitecase.com

LUCIUS B. LAU (pro hac vice)

alau@whitecase.com

DANA E. FOSTER (pro hac vice)

defoster@whitecase.com

WHITE & CASE LLP

701 Thirteenth Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 626-3600

Facsimile: (202) 639-9355

Attorneys for Defendants Toshiba Corporation, 

Toshiba America, Inc., Toshiba America 

Information Systems, Inc., Toshiba America 

Consumer Products, L.L.C., and Toshiba America 

Electronic Components, Inc.

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON 

LLP

By: /s/ Gary L. Halling

GARY L. HALLING (SBN 66087)

ghalling@sheppardmullin.com

JAMES L. MCGINNIS (SBN 95788)

jmcginnis@sheppardmullin.com

MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH (SBN 203524)

mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com

SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & 

HAMPTON LLP

Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 434-9100

Facsimile: (415) 434-3947

Attorneys for Defendants Samsung SDI America, 

Inc.; Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Samsung SDI 

(Malaysia) SDN. BHD.; Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. 

DE C.V.; Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda.; Shenzen 

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Tianjin Samsung SDI 

Co., Ltd.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 13 of 17
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

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

14

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

BAKER BOTTS LLP

By: /s/ John M. Taladay

JOHN M. TALADAY (pro hac vice)

john.taladay@bakerbotts.com

JOSEPH OSTOYICH (pro hac vice)

joseph.ostoyich@bakerbotts.com

ERIK T. KOONS (pro hac vice)

erik.koons@bakerbotts.com

CHARLES M. MALAISE (pro hac vice)

charles.malaise@bakerbotts.com

BAKER BOTTS LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20004-2400

Telephone: (202) 639-7700

Facsimile: (202) 639-7890

JON V. SWENSON (SBN 233054)

jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com

BAKER BOTTS LLP

1001 Page Mill Road

Building One, Suite 200

Palo Alto, CA 94304

Telephone: (650) 739-7500

Facsimile: (650) 739-7699

E-mail: jon.swenson@bakerbotts.com

Attorneys for Defendants Koninklijke Philips N.V., 

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, 

Philips Taiwan Ltd., and Philips do Brasil, Ltda.

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

By: /s/ Rachel S. Brass

JOEL S. SANDERS (SBN 107234)

jsanders@gibsondunn.com

RACHEL S. BRASS (SBN 219301)

rbrass@gibsondunn.com

AUSTIN V. SCHWING (SBN 211696)

aschwing@gig@gibsondunn.com

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000

San Francisco, California 94105

Tel: (415) 393-8200

Fax: (415) 393-8306

Attorneys for Defendant Chunghwa Picture Tubes, 

Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. 

Bhd. 

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 14 of 17
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

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

15

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US

LLP

By: /s/ Michael Lacorvara

Michael Lacovara (SBN 209279)

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

601 Lexington Avenue, 31st floor

New York, NY 10022

Telephone: (212) 277-4000

Facsimile: (212) 277-4001

Email: michael.lacovara@freshfields.com

TERRY CALVANI (SBN 53260)

Email: terry.calvani@freshfields.com

CHRISTINE LACIAK(pro hac vice)

Email: christine.laciak@freshfields.com

RICHARD SNYDER (pro hac vice)

Email: richard.snyder@freshfields.com

FRESHFIELDS BRUCKHAUS DERINGER US 

LLP

700 13th Street, NW, 10th Floor

Washington, DC 20005

Telephone: (202) 777-4565

Facsimile: (202) 777-4555

Attorneys for Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT 

Company, Ltd.

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

By: /s/ Terrence J. Truax

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

Terrence J. Truax (pro hac vice)

Michael T. Brody (pro hac vice)

353 North Clark Street

Chicago, Illinois 60654-3456

Telephone: (312) 222-9350

Facsimile: (312) 527-0484

ttruax@jenner.com

mbrody@jenner.com

Brent Caslin (SBN 198682)

JENNER & BLOCK LLP

633 West Fifth Street, Suite 3600

Los Angeles, California 90071

Telephone: (213) 239-5100

Facsimile: (213) 239-5199

bcaslin@jenner.com

Attorneys for Defendants Mitsubishi Electric 

Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. and, 

Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 15 of 17
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

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

16

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP

By: /s/ Kathy L. Osborn

Kathy L. Osborn (pro hac vice)

Ryan M. Hurley (pro hac vice)

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP

300 N. Meridian Street, Suite 2700

Indianapolis, IN 46204

Telephone: (317) 237-0300

Facsimile: (317) 237-1000

kathy.osborn@FaegreBD.com

ryan.hurley@FaegreBD.com 

Jeffrey S. Roberts (pro hac vice)

Email: jeff.roberts@FaegreBD.com

FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP

3200 Wells Fargo Center

1700 Lincoln Street

Denver, CO 80203

Telephone: (303) 607-3500

Facsimile: (303) 607-3600

Stephen M. Judge (pro hac vice)

Email: steve.judge@FaegreBd.com

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP

202 S. Michigan Street, Suite 1400

South Bend, IN 46601

Telephone: (574) 234-4149

Facsimile: (574) 239-1900

Attorneys for Defendants Thomson SA and 

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc. 

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

By: /s/ Nathan Lane, III

Nathan Lane, III (SBN 50961)

Mark C. Dosker (SBN 114789)

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

275 Battery Street, Suite 2600

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 954-0200

Facsimile: (415) 393-9887

E-mail: nathan.lane@squiresanders.com

E-mail: mark.dosker@squiresanders.com

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 16 of 17
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

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

17

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Donald A. Wall (Pro Hac Vice)

SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP

1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700

Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Telephone: (602) 528-4005

Facsimile: (602) 253-8129

Email: donald.wall@squirepb.com

Attorneys for Defendant Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC with respect to all cases except Office 

Depot, Inc. v. Technicolor SA, et al. and Sears, 

Roebuck and Co., et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al.

CURTIS, MALLET-PREVOST, COLT & MOSLE 

LLP

By: /s/ Jeffrey I. Zuckerman

Jeffrey I. Zuckerman (Pro Hac Vice) 

Ellen Tobin (Pro Hac Vice)

101 Park Avenue

New York, New York 10178

Telephone: (212) 696-6000

Facsimile: (212) 697-1559

Email: jzuckerman@curtis.com

etobin@curtis.com

Arthur Gaus (SBN 289560)

DILLINGHAM & MURPHY, LLP

601 California Street, Suite 1900

San Francisco, California 94108

Telephone: (415) 397-2700

Facsimile: (415) 397-3300

Email: asg@dillinghammurphy.com

Attorneys for Defendant Technologies Displays 

Americas LLC with respect to Office Depot, Inc. v. 

Technicolor SA, et al. and Sears, Roebuck and Co., 

et al. v. Technicolor SA, et al.

Case 3:07-cv-05944-JST Document 3226 Filed 12/19/14 Page 17 of 17