Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05391/USCOURTS-cand-5_08-cv-05391-22/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

STIPULATED REQUEST TO TEMPORARILY STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

5:08-CV-05391 JW (HRL)

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Counsel Listed on Signature Page 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

MULTIVEN, INC., a Delaware corporation

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation 

Defendant. 

Case No. 5:08-cv-05391 JW (HRL)

STIPULATED REQUEST TO 

TEMPORARILY STAY CASE PENDING 

DISMISSAL AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., a California 

corporation, and CISCO TECHNOLOGY, 

INC., a California corporation 

Counterclaimants, 

v. 

MULTIVEN, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

PINGSTA, INC., a Delaware corporation, and 

PETER ALFRED-ADEKEYE, an individual 

Counterdefendants.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 276 Filed 07/26/10 Page 1 of 4
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- 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO TEMPORARILY STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

5:08-CV-05391 JW (HRL)

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

WHEREAS, the parties in the above-entitled action have entered into a settlement agreement 

attached as Exhibit A (“Settlement Agreement”) to the proposed order filed concurrently herewith; 

WHEREAS, Exhibit 4 to the Settlement Agreement contains highly sensitive and 

confidential information regarding the parties’ business operations and therefore is sealable under 

Local Rule 79-5(c); 

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed to request dismissal with prejudice of the claims in this 

action at a later date and dismissal of the counterclaims in this action with prejudice; 

WHEREAS, the parties are facing imminent deadlines as set forth in the June 10, 2009 

Scheduling Order (Docket Entry (“DE”) 30); 

WHEREAS, the parties desire that the Court retain jurisdiction over this action for the 

purpose of enforcing the terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the retention of the power to 

enjoin any action brought in violation of the Settlement Agreement; 

NOW THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated by the undersigned counsel on behalf of the 

parties identified below that: 

1. The case should be temporarily stayed pending the final dismissal with prejudice of 

the entire action. 

2. The Court should enter an order sealing Exhibit 4 to the Settlement Agreement, which 

is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

3. The Court should retain jurisdiction over this action for the purpose of enforcing the 

terms of the Settlement Agreement, including the retention of the power to enjoin any action brought 

in violation of the Settlement Agreement 

Dated: July 21, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

BLECHER & COLLINS, P.C. 

515 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1750 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

By /s/ Donald R. Pepperman DONALD R. PEPPERMAN

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MULTIVEN, INC. 

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 276 Filed 07/26/10 Page 2 of 4
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- 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO TEMPORARILY STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

5:08-CV-05391 JW (HRL)

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

Dated: July 21, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 CADWALADER, WICKERSHAM & TAFT LLP 

700 Sixth Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20001 

By /s/ Joseph J. Bial JOSEPH J. BIAL

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

MULTIVEN, INC. 

Dated: July 21, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 ROPERS, MAJESKI, KOHN & BENTLEY 

 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 1100 

 Los Angeles, CA 90071 

By /s/ Thomas M. O’Leary THOMAS M. O’LEARY

Attorneys for Counterdefendants 

MULTIVEN, INC., PINGSTA, INC. and 

PETER ALFRED-ADEKEYE

Dated: July 21, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 

101 California Street 

 San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

By /s/ Patrick M. Ryan

PATRICK M. RYAN

KRISTA M. ENNS

J. CALEB DONALDSON

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

CISCO SYSTEMS, INC. and Counterclaimant 

CISCO TECHNOLOGY, INC. 

I, Patrick M. Ryan, hereby attest, pursuant to N.D. Cal. General Order No. 45, that the 

concurrence to the filing of this document has been obtained from each signatory hereto. 

 /s/ Patrick M. Ryan 

 PATRICK M. RYAN

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 276 Filed 07/26/10 Page 3 of 4
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- 

STIPULATED REQUEST TO TEMPORARILY STAY CASE AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

5:08-CV-05391 JW (HRL)

Winston & Strawn LLP 

101 California Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111-5802 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Because the parties have entered into a settlement agreement (“Settlement 

Agreement”), the claims and the counterclaims in this action are hereby STAYED pending final 

dismissal of the action. 

2. The parties have established that Exhibit 4 to the Settlement Agreement is sealable 

since it contains confidential and sensitive business information. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the 

parties’ request to seal Exhibit 4 to the Settlement Agreement. Exhibit 4 to the Settlement 

Agreement shall be filed under seal by the Clerk of the Court 

3. The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement 

Agreement entered into by and between Cisco Systems, Inc., Cisco Technology, Inc., Multiven, Inc., 

Pingsta, Inc., and Peter Alfred-Adekeye, attached hereto as Exhibit A (“Settlement Agreement”), 

including the authority to issue injunctions contemplated by the Settlement Agreement against future 

actions brought in violation of the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court will retain 

jurisdiction after the parties file the dismissal(s) of claims. This retention of jurisdiction is necessary 

to provide the Court with the flexibility and authority to effectuate the Settlement Agreement and 

such retention is in the aid of this Court’s jurisdiction and to protect its judgments pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 2283. 

Dated: , 2010 

 JAMES WARE 

 United States District Judge 

Dated: July 26, 2010 ______________________________ 

 JAMES WARE 

 United States District Judge

Case 5:08-cv-05391-JW Document 276 Filed 07/26/10 Page 4 of 4