Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-04063-50/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TESSERA, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC. et al.,

Defendants. /

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

 /

No. C 05-4063 CW

ORDER GRANTING

TESSERA’S MOTION FOR

A RULING THAT IT HAS

COMPLIED WITH THE

COURT’S ORDER OF

NOVEMBER 1, 2007

Tessera moves for a ruling that it has complied with the

Court’s November 1, 2007 preliminary injunction. Defendants STATS

ChipPAC Ltd., STATS ChipPAC (BVI) Limited, STATS ChipPAC, Inc.,

Advanced Semiconductor Engineering, Inc., ASE (U.S.) Inc., ChipMOS

Technologies, Inc. and ChipMOS, U.S.A., Inc. oppose Tessera’s

motion. The matter was submitted on the papers. Having considered

all of the papers submitted by the parties, the Court grants

Tessera’s motion.

The Court’s previous orders on various Defendants’ motions for

preliminary injunctions discuss the facts and legal issues relevant

to the present motion. See Docket Nos. 570, 686, 742. The Court’s

order of November 1, 2007 provided:

Before filing any complaint against the ASP Defendants,

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 758 Filed 02/19/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff must give them notice of its proposed action,

accompanied by a copy of the proposed complaint. The

notice must identify the accused products and demonstrate

that they do not fall within the scope of Plaintiff's

license agreements with the ASP Defendants. The ASP

Defendants may respond to the notice within ten days. If

they take the position that the products are covered by

their licenses, Plaintiff may not bring its proposed

action. If they do not, Plaintiff will be permitted to

proceed with its action.

Docket No. 570 at 13-14.

Tessera has now provided the moving Defendants with a proposed

ITC complaint naming them as respondents. The complaint identifies

only laminate-based chip packages as representative of the accused

products, whereas the relevant license agreements cover only tapebased packages. The complaint also explicitly refers to the

license agreements and the Court’s preliminary injunction,

representing that Tessera is not pursuing claims based on tapebased products or products otherwise within the licensed field of

use. Brown Dec. Ex. B ¶¶ 17-27. In a letter to ChipMOS, Tessera

also offered to stipulate that “laminate-based package substrate

. . . products are not covered by the license agreement.” Id. Ex.

I.

The moving Defendants have not taken the position that any of

the representative accused products in the ITC complaint are

covered by their licenses. But they maintain that Tessera will not

have complied with the Court’s order if it files its ITC complaint

without first signing a stipulation agreeing that “laminate-based

package substrate . . . products do not give rise to any cause of

action against any of the ChipMOS defendants or their customers for

breach of contract in connection with the License Agreement” Id.

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 758 Filed 02/19/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Ex. L.

The Court’s preliminary injunction does not require Tessera to

sign such a stipulation. In order for Tessera to be precluded from

pursuing an infringement claim in the ITC, there must be an actual

dispute over whether particular sales of the accused products fall

within the scope of the license agreement. The forum selection

clause simply does not bind the parties vis-a-vis infringement

claims based on products or sales that nobody argues are subject to

the terms of the license agreement.

For these reasons, Tessera’s motion (Docket No. 712) is

GRANTED. Tessera may proceed with its proposed ITC action against

the moving Defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2/19/08

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-04063-CW Document 758 Filed 02/19/08 Page 3 of 3