Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-01885-76/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 

msandonato@venable.com 

John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 

jcarlin@venable.com Natalie Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) 

ndlieber@venable.com 

Christopher M. Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 

cgerson@venable.com 

Jason M. Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

jmdorsky@venable.com 

Stephen K. Yam (admitted pro hac vice) 

syam@venable.com 

Jonathan M. Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) 

jsharret@venable.com 

Joshua D. Calabro (admitted pro hac vice) 

jdcalabro@venable.com Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) 

dapgar@venable.com 

Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) 

rspickens@venable.com 

Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 

smccarthy@venable.com 

Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 

cnbingaman@venable.com 

Stephen J. Krachie (admitted pro hac vice) 

skrachie@venable.com 

VENABLE LLP 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York 10104-3800 

Tel: (212) 218-2100 

Fax: (212) 218-2200 

Chris Holland (SBN 164053) 

cholland@hollandlawllp.com 

Lori L. Holland (SBN 202309) 

lholland@hollandlawllp.com 

Ethan Jacobs (SBN 291838) 

ejacobs@hollandlawllp.com 

HOLLAND LAW LLP 

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Tel: (415) 200-4980 

Fax: (415) 200-4989 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION

IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT 

LITIGATION 

 Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG 

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY 

DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; 

ORDER; NOTICE OF 

WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION 

(DKT. NO. 960)

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 1 of 13
2

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION 

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-7(e), Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips 

Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) hereby withdraws its previously-filed Motion for Dismissal and 

Entry of Permanent Injunction (Dkt. No. 960), presently set for hearing on March 5, 2020, and files 

the current Stipulated and Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and Entry of Permanent 

Injunction in lieu of that motion. 

INTRODUCTION 

Philips and Defendant YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun Inc. (“YiFang”) have entered into a 

confidential settlement agreement resolving all claims between them in this action (“the 

Philips/YiFang Claims”). 

Therefore, Philips and YiFang jointly file this motion under Civil L.R. 7-12 asking the Court 

to enter the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal and Permanent Injunction filed herewith, which asks 

this Court to dismiss the Philips/YiFang Claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) 

(“Rule 41(a)(2)”) and enter the permanent injunction agreed upon by the parties under the terms set 

forth in that Stipulation of Dismissal and Permanent Injunction. 

Lead counsel for Philips has met and conferred with counsel for the remaining parties to this 

action, namely, HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) and ASUS Computer 

International and ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (collectively, “ASUS”), regarding this motion. HTC 

responded that it has no objection to this motion and Asus responded that it takes no position on this 

motion. 

BRIEF PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

Philips initially filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware (1:15-cv1131-GMS), asserting, among other things, that certain of YiFang’s touch-enabled tablet computers 

and touch-enabled laptop computers include hardware and/or software containing functionality 

covered by one more claims of the patents-in-suit. Related actions were contemporaneously filed by 

Philips against other parties, including HTC and ASUS (the “Related Actions”). 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 2 of 13
3

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

On March 27, 2018, this action and the Related Actions were transferred to this Court from 

the District of Delaware, and all of these cases were consolidated under the above-captioned case. 

As indicated, with the present motion, Philips and YiFang jointly move the Court to dismiss 

all of the Philips/YiFang Claims and to enter the permanent injunction agreed upon by the parties 

under the terms of the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal and Permanent Injunction in view of their 

confidential settlement agreement. However, this motion does not seek any relief with respect to the 

pending claims between Philips and any of HTC or ASUS. 

DISCUSSION 

With respect to the requested dismissal of the Philips/YiFang Claims, under Rule 41(a)(2), 

after an opposing party has served an answer or motion for summary judgment, “an action may be 

dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Moreover, a “plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of 

the parties to an action.” Schaeffer v. Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P., 2016 WL 9185388, at *1 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (citing Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 

F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1991)).

The decision to grant or deny a request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is within this 

Court’s sound discretion. Id. (citing Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 

1980)). However, “[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 

41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Id. 

(quoting Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). Legal prejudice means “prejudice to 

some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. (quoting Westlands Water Dist. 

v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)).

With respect to the requested permanent injunction, legal authority allowing the Court to 

grant the Stipulated Motion and enter the permanent injunction can be found in the Patent Act, the 

decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, and in the prior decisions of this Court 

and other judges in this District under similar circumstances. 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 3 of 13
4

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

Specifically, the Patent Act provides that courts “may grant injunctions in accordance with 

the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the 

court deems reasonable.” 35 U.S.C. § 283 (“Section 283”). In applying Section 283, the U.S. 

Supreme Court has established certain factual findings required to support entry of a permanent 

injunction, commonly known as the “eBay factors.” See eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 

U.S. 388, 391 (2006). 

Under the eBay factors, a plaintiff must demonstrate: “(1) that it has suffered an irreparable 

injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate 

for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a 

remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent 

injunction.” Id.; see also i4i Ltd. Partnership v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 861 (Fed. Cir. 

2010), aff’d, 564 U.S. 91 (2011). 

Here, those factors are all supported by the stipulated factual findings discussed below. 

In particular, the parties stipulate and agree to each of the factual findings required by eBay, 

including that Philips has suffered an irreparable injury by the alleged infringement, that remedies 

available at law (such as monetary damages) are inadequate to compensate for that injury, that the 

injunctive remedy in equity is warranted after considering the balance of hardships between Philips 

and YiFang, and that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. 

Under similar circumstances, this Court and other courts in this district have entered 

permanent injunctions agreed upon by the parties. For instance, in Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Last Chance 

Buys, Inc., this Court entered a stipulated permanent injunction enjoining the defendant from future 

acts of trademark and copyright infringement based on certain stipulated facts, including that 

“Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law for the acts of Defendants complained of herein, or for the 

acts of any third parties who have acted in concert with and at the direction of Defendants, as injury 

to Plaintiff’s reputation and goodwill cannot be quantified and such injury cannot be compensated by 

monetary amounts.” Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Last Chance Buys, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-05038-HSG, 2016 WL 

3648607, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2016) (Gilliam, J.). See also Dkt No. 326 of 4:18-cv-1889-HSG 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 4 of 13
5

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

(entering a permanent injunction against Defendants Zowee Marketing Co. Ltd., Shenzen Zowee 

Technology Co., Ltd. and Double Power Technology, Inc. in a case related to this action). 

In doing so, this Court – relying on several similar cases from the Ninth Circuit and various 

California district courts – explained that “[s]tipulations between parties are generally adopted by 

courts and should not be lightly set aside” and “[s]tipulations entering injunctions are typically 

upheld.” Id. (citing Dexter v. Kirschner, 984 F.2d 979, 984 (9th Cir. 1992); In re Lenox, 902 F.2d 

737, 739 (9th Cir. 1990); Levi Strauss & Co. v. California Denim Resources Inc., 2001 WL 348973 

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2001) (entering permanent injunction in connection with settlement based on 

stipulated facts); Bowles v. Dodge, 141 F.2d 969, 970 (9th Cir. 1944) (injunction upheld where law 

provided for entry of a permanent injunction and parties stipulated to the facts and form of the 

injunction); Adobe Systems Inc. v. Shamcy Alghazzy, CAND Case No. 5:15-cv-01443-BLF, Docket 

No. 60 (permanent injunction entered pursuant to settlement and stipulation); Adobe Systems Inc. v. 

Jill Temple, CACD Case No. 2:14-cv-06329-CBM-JPR, Docket No. 58 ; Adobe Systems Inc. v. Los 

Angeles Computer Department LLC, CACD Case No. 2:15-cv-05549-PA-RAO, Docket No. 50; 

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Tran, CAND Case No. 3:15-cv-04252-SI, Docket No. 36; Adobe Systems Inc. 

v. Macpro LA Inc., CAND Case No. 3:15-cv-03541-CRB; Adobe Systems Inc. v. Buy Mac Now LLC,

CAND Case No. 3:15-cv-02367-MMC)); see also Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic,

Inc., 2008 WL 4647384, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2008) (permanent injunction entered where the

parties “stipulated to the form of the injunction”).

The parties believe in good faith and respectfully submit that the precedent cited by this 

Court in Adobe Sys. Inc. v. Last Chance Buys, Inc., as well as the additional authority provided 

herein, give the Court full authority to enter the parties’ stipulated permanent injunction in this case. 

Indeed, doing so would only serve the principles of equity and the public interest by allowing 

parties to resolve their disputes through confidential settlement agreements pursuant to terms they 

deem appropriate under the circumstances. Moreover, because the parties here are in the best 

position to determine the appropriate form of relief, which includes injunctive relief, their agreement 

in that regard should not be set aside. 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 5 of 13
6

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

Here, HTC has indicated that it does not oppose this motion and ASUS has indicated that it 

takes no position on this motion. Moreover, Philips and YiFang do not ask the Court to take any 

action with respect to any of the claims pending between Philips and any of HTC or ASUS. As a 

result, HTC and ASUS will suffer no legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal of the 

Philips/YiFang Claims. 

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the parties respectively request that the Court grant this motion and enter 

the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal and Permanent Injunction filed herewith as the order of this 

Court. 

Dated: February 7, 2020 

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Holland (SBN 164053) 

Lori L. Holland (SBN 202309) 

HOLLAND LAW LLP 

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 200-4980 

Fax: (415) 200-4989 

cholland@hollandlawllp.com 

lholland@hollandlawllp.com 

/s/ Michael P. Sandonato 

Michael P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 

John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 

Christopher M. Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Natalie D. Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jason M. Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

Stephen K. Yam (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jonathan M. Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joshua D. Calabro admitted pro hac vice) 

Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) 

Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 

Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) 

Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 

Stephen J. Krachie (admitted pro hac vice) 

VENABLE LLP 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York, 10104 

+1 (212) 218-2100

+1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile

philipsprosecutionbar@venable.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips 

N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 6 of 13
7

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

/s/ Lucian C. Chen 

Lucian C. Chen (pro hac vice) Michael Song (Bar No. 243675) 

Wing K. Chiu (pro hac vice) LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 

LUCIAN C. CHEN, ESQ. PLLC 300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor 

One Grand Central Place Los Angeles, California, 90071 

60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 +1 (213) 612-8900

New York, New York, 10165 +1 (213) 612-3773 facsimile

+1 (212) 710-3007 michael.song@ltlattorneys.com

+1 (212) 501-2004 facsimile

lucianchen@lcclegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun Inc. 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 7 of 13
8

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 OF DISMISSAL AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, Plaintiffs 

Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendant 

YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun Inc. (“YiFang”), subject to the approval of the Court, that: 

1. Philips has suffered an irreparable injury by the alleged infringement, that remedies

available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that

injury, that a remedy in equity is warranted after considering the balance of hardships

between Philips and YiFang, and that the public interest would not be disserved by a

permanent injunction.

2. Effective as of the date this Stipulation is entered by the Court, YiFang and its

subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, officers, directors, agents, servants, employees,

successors, and assigns, and all other persons and organizations in active concert or

participation with any of the foregoing, are hereby enjoined and restrained from

engaging in any of the following activities:

a. making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or importing into

the United States, any Accused Products, i.e., e-fun MT8000, Next2, Next3,

Next5, Next6, Nextbook 10, Nextbook 10.1, Nextbook 7, Nextbook 8, Nextbook

8 QuadCore Windows 8.1, Nextbook Ares 10A, Nextbook Ares 10L, Nextbook

Ares 11, Nextbook Ares 11A, Nextbook Ares 11A (Gen2), Nextbook Ares 7,

Nextbook Ares 8, Nextbook Ares 8L, Nextbook Flexx 10, Nextbook Flexx 10A,

Nextbook Flexx 11, Nextbook Flexx 11A, Nextbook Flexx 8, Nextbook Flexx 9,

Premium 10SE, Premium 7, Premium 7 Resistive, Premium 7HD, Premium 7SE,

Premium 7SE with Google Play, Premium 8, Premium 8HD, Premium 8Hi,

Premium 8SE, and Premium 9, or any product not colorably different therefrom

until the expiration of the last of the patents asserted against YiFang in this action,

i.e., United States Patent Nos. RE 44,913; 7,184,064; 7,529,806; 5,910,797; and

RE 43,564, (the “Asserted Patents”);

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 8 of 13
9

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

b. making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or importing into

the United States, any product that falls within the scope of one or more claims of

the Asserted Patents;

c. otherwise directly infringing, contributorily infringing, or inducing infringement

of one or more claims of the Asserted Patents with respect to the Accused

Products or any other product that falls within the scope of one or more claims of

any of the Asserted Patents; and

d. assisting, aiding, or abetting any other person or business entity in engaging in or

performing any of the activities referred to in subparagraphs (a) through (c)

above.

3. All claims asserted by Philips against YiFang in this action relating to the “YiFang

Scope Products,” as that term is defined herein, are dismissed without prejudice and

all claims asserted by YiFang against Philips relating to the YiFang Scope Products

are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2),

provided however, that this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms and

provisions of the permanent injunction laid out in paragraph 2 above;

4. For purposes of this Dismissal and Permanent Injunction:

a. “YiFang Scope Product” shall mean any YiFang-branded product accused of

infringement by Philips in this litigation; and

5. Each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 9 of 13
10

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

Dated: February 7, 2020 

Respectfully submitted,

Chris Holland (SBN 164053) 

Lori L. Holland (SBN 202309) 

HOLLAND LAW LLP 

220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

Telephone: (415) 200-4980 

Fax: (415) 200-4989 

cholland@hollandlawllp.com 

lholland@hollandlawllp.com 

/s/ Michael P. Sandonato 

Michael P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 

John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 

Christopher M. Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 

Natalie D. Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jason M. Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 

Stephen K. Yam (admitted pro hac vice) 

Jonathan M. Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) 

Joshua D. Calabro admitted pro hac vice) 

Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) 

Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 

Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) 

Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 

Stephen J. Krachie (admitted pro hac vice) 

VENABLE LLP 

1290 Avenue of the Americas 

New York, New York, 10104 

+1 (212) 218-2100

+1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile

philipsprosecutionbar@venable.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips 

N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 10 of 13
11

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

/s/ Lucian C. Chen 

Lucian C. Chen (pro hac vice) Michael Song (Bar No. 243675) 

Wing K. Chiu (pro hac vice) LTL ATTORNEYS LLP 

LUCIAN C. CHEN, ESQ. PLLC 300 South Grand Avenue, 14th Floor 

One Grand Central Place Los Angeles, California, 90071 

60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600 +1 (213) 612-8900

New York, New York, 10165 +1 (213) 612-3773 facsimile

+1 (212) 710-3007 michael.song@ltlattorneys.com

+1 (212) 501-2004 facsimile

lucianchen@lcclegal.com

Attorneys for Defendant YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun Inc. 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 11 of 13
12

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 

I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed 

above to execute this document on their behalf. 

Dated: February 7, 2020 /s/ Chris Holland 

Chris Holland 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 12 of 13
13

STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND ENTRY OF 

PERMANENT INJUNCTION; ORDER; NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF PRIOR MOTION (DKT. NO. 

960) 

CASE NO. 4:18-CV-01885-HSG

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 

 ORDER 

The Court has now considered Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips 

Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendant YiFang USA, Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun Inc. (“YiFang”) 

Stipulated and Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and Entry of Permanent Injunction (“the 

Motion”). Having considered the moving papers before it and being fully advised, the Court finds 

and orders as follows: 

The Motion is GRANTED in its entirety. The Stipulation of Dismissal and Permanent 

Injunction filed with the Motion is entered as the Order of this Court, and all claims asserted by 

Philips against YiFang or by YiFang against Philips in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED 

pursuant to the terms of that stipulation. Philips’ previously-filed Motion for Dismissal and Entry 

of Permanent Injunction (Dkt. No. 960) is TERMINATED as withdrawn. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 2/7/2020 ____________________________________ 

Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:18-cv-01885-HSG Document 969 Filed 02/07/20 Page 13 of 13