Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03331/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-03331-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 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 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

C 06-02138 CW; C 07-03331 CW

LA1 971845v.1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

ATMEL CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation; ATMEL SWITZERLAND, a 

corporation; ATMEL FRANCE, a corporation; 

and ATMEL SARL, a corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Defendant. 

 Case No. C 06-02138 CW 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FILING 

AUTHENTEC’S FIRST AMENDED 

ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 

AUTHENTEC, INC., a Delaware corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ATMEL CORPORATION, a Delaware 

corporation; ATMEL SWITZERLAND, a 

corporation; ATMEL FRANCE, a corporation; 

and ATMEL SARL, a corporation, 

 Defendants. 

 Case No. C 07-03331 CW 

STIPULATION AND ORDER 

WITHDRAWING ATMEL’S MOTION TO 

DISMISS 

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken

Case 4:07-cv-03331-CW Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 3
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 [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

C 06-02138 CW; C 07-03331 CW

LA1 971845v.1

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12 and 7-7(e), Plaintiffs-Defendants Atmel Corporation, 

Atmel Switzerland, Atmel France, and Atmel SARL (collectively, “Atmel”) and Defendant-Plaintiff 

AuthenTec, Inc. (“AuthenTec”) hereby state that they have resolved the issues related to Atmel’s 

pending Motion to Dismiss in Case No. 07-3331 [Dkt. Nos. 6 & 7] by agreeing that (i) AuthenTec 

will not pursue its state tort claims, and (ii) Atmel will permit AuthenTec to amend its Answer and 

Counterclaim in Case No. 06-2138 to assert the same unenforceability defenses and counterclaim as 

asserted in AuthenTec’s Reply in Case No. 07-3331 [Dkt. No. 10]. 

In view of the foregoing, the parties hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 

1. AuthenTec will not pursue any relief on the basis of its state tort claims (Counts 6-7) 

raised in Case No. 07-3331 and the state tort claims (Counts 6-7) shall be dismissed 

with prejudice. 

2. Atmel’s Motion to Dismiss AuthenTec’s Claims (Counts 5-7) Pursuant to Rule 

12(b)(6) in Case No. 07-3331 [Dkt. Nos. 6 & 7] is hereby withdrawn and the hearing 

noticed for August 16, 2007 shall be taken off-calendar pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-7(e). 

3. Atmel may file its Amended Answer to the First Amended Complaint in Case No. 07-

3331 within 20 days of this Order. 

4. Attached as Exhibit 1 is AuthenTec’s First Amended Answer and First Amended 

Counterclaim, which shall be filed in Case No. 06-2138. Atmel may file its Reply 

within 20 days after being served. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

//

Case 4:07-cv-03331-CW Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 3
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 [PROPOSED] 

ORDER RE MOTION TO DISMISS 

C 06-02138 CW; C 07-03331 CW

LA1 971845v.1

2

STIPULATED AND AGREED. 

DATED: August 2, 2007 By: /s Olivia M. Kim 

 Edward G. Poplawski 

Denise L. McKenzie 

Olivia M. Kim 

SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 

555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 

Los Angeles, California 90013-1010 

Telephone: (213) 896-6000 

Facsimile: (213) 896-6600 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Defendants 

Atmel Corporation; Atmel Switzerland; 

Atmel France; and Atmel SARL 

DATED: August 2, 2007 By: s/ Denise De Mory 

 Henry C. Bunsow 

Denise De Mory 

Brian A.E. Smith 

HOWREY LLP 

525 Market Street, Suite 3600 

San Francisco, California 94105 

Telephone: (415) 848-4900 

Facsimile: (415) 848-4999 

Attorneys for Defendant-Plaintiff 

AuthenTec, Inc. 

ATTESTATION AS TO CONCURRENCE

I, Olivia M. Kim, under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States of America, attest 

that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from each of the other signatories 

to this document. 

 /s Olivia M. Kim 

 Olivia M. Kim 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 August 8 

Dated: ___________________, 2007 

HON. CLAUDIA WILKEN 

JUDGE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

Case 4:07-cv-03331-CW Document 15 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 3