Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03378/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03378-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Access Co., Ltd.
Defendant
Unisys Corporation
Plaintiff

Document Text:

MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7292571.1 CV-05-03378 (TEH) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER

WILLIAM W FRIEDMAN (State Bar No. 215185) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

One Market Street - Spear Street Tower 

San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 

Tel: 415.442.1000 

Fax: 415.442.1001 

Email: wfriedman@morganlewis.com 

ERIC KRAEUTLER (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1701 Market Street 

Philadelphia, PA 19103 

Tel: 215.963.5000 

Fax: 215.963.5001 

Attorneys for Petitioner Unisys Corporation

JAMES M. SCHURZ (State Bar No. 145875) 

MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 

425 Market Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 

Tel: 415.268.7000 

Fax: 415.268.7522 

Email: jschurz@mofo.com

 

JEFFREY S. DICKEY (admitted Pro Hac Vice) 

LERNER, DAVID, LITTENBERG, KRUMHOLZ 

& MENTLIK, LLP 

600 South Avenue West 

Westfield, NJ 07090 

Tel: 908.654.5000 

Fax: 908.654.7866 

Email: wmentlik@ldlkm.com 

Attorneys for Respondent ACCESS Co., Ltd. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

UNISYS CORPORATION, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

ACCESS CO., LTD., 

Respondent. 

Case No. CV-05-03378 (TEH) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

CONSENT ORDER 

 

Judge: Honorable Thelton E. Henderson 

Court: Courtroom 12 - 19th Floor 

Action Filed: August 19, 2005 

Trial Date: Not yet set 
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7292571.1 1 CV-05-03378 (TEH) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER

WHEREAS, on or about September 22, 2004, ACCESS Co. Ltd. (“ACCESS”) filed a 

lawsuit in the Tokyo District Court of Japan alleging, inter alia, that Unisys Corporation’s 

(“Unisys”) request for certain payments under the GIF Software Patent Licensing Agreement 

executed on December 29, 2000 (the “GIF Agreement”), violated the Japanese Anti-Monopoly 

Act (the “Japanese Action”); and 

WHEREAS, on or about August 19, 2005, Unisys initiated the above-captioned action by 

filing a Petition to Compel Arbitration and Enjoin Respondent From Proceeding With Foreign 

Action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “U.S. 

Action”); and 

WHEREAS, on or about August 24, 2005, Unisys filed a Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction (the “PI Motion”) in the U.S. Action, requesting that ACCESS be enjoined from 

maintaining the Japanese Action; and 

WHEREAS, on or about September 7, 2005, the parties voluntarily agreed to suspend the 

Japanese Action until a final, non-appealable decision is reached in the U.S. Action; and 

WHEREAS, on or about September 19, 2005, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), ACCESS 

filed a motion to transfer venue of the U.S. Action from the Northern District of California to the 

Eastern District of Pennsylvania (the “Motion to Transfer”); 

NOW THEREFORE, based on the foregoing, and in order to resolve the Motion to 

Transfer and proceed with the U.S. Action in an orderly and efficient manner, it is hereby 

stipulated and agreed by and between the parties through their undersigned counsel, subject to the 

approval of the Court, as follows: 

 1. Pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the trial on the 

merits of the U.S. Action shall be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the PI Motion. 

 2. The hearing of the PI Motion, currently scheduled for October 31, 2005, is postponed 

until further order of the Court. 

 3. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, the time within which ACCESS shall be 

required to file any opposition to the PI Motion shall be extended until after the Motion to 

Transfer is decided or six months after the date of this Order, whichever is earlier. Specifically, 
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7292571.1 2 CV-05-03378 (TEH) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER

unless otherwise ordered by the Court, ACCESS shall file any opposition to the PI Motion within 

28 days of the date of the Court’s order granting or denying the Motion to Transfer, or within 180 

days of the date of this Order, whichever is earlier. Unisys shall have an opportunity to file a 

reply memorandum in support of the PI Motion within 14 days of service via facsimile and firstclass mail of any opposition to the PI Motion. 

 4. The consolidated hearing on the PI Motion and trial on the merits of the U.S. Action 

shall be scheduled as soon as practical after the briefing on the PI Motion is completed. The 

parties agree that no discovery will be required or taken in the U.S. Action. The parties further 

agree that, unless otherwise determined by the Court, the U.S. Action can be resolved based only 

on the papers submitted and oral argument by counsel, and without testimony by live witnesses. 

The parties agree that the PI Motion may be treated as a motion for summary judgment and that 

any evidence received in connection with the PI Motion which would be admissible upon the trial 

on the merits shall become part of the record on the trial and need not be repeated upon the trial. 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

// 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Thelton E. Henderson

09/28/05
MORGAN, LEWIS &

BOCKIUS LLP 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

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-SF/7292571.1 3 CV-05-03378 (TEH) 

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] CONSENT ORDER

STIPULATED AND CONSENTED TO BY: 

Dated: September 28, 2005 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

By: /s/ William W. Friedman 

William W. Friedman 

Attorneys for Petitioner 

UNISYS CORPORATION 

Dated: September 28, 2005 MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP 

By: /s/ James M. Schurz 

James M. Schurz 

Attorneys for Respondent 

ACCESS CORPORATION 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______________ ___, 2005 ________________________________ 

 HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON 

 United States District Court 

 Northern District Of California