Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03522/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03522-9/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Taiwan Sumida Electronics, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW 

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 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

Mark A. Flagel (Bar No. 110635) 

Robert Steinberg (Bar No. 126407) 

John D. Minton (Bar No. 223823) 

140 Scott Drive 

Menlo Park, CA 94025 

Telephone: (650) 328-4600 

Facsimile: (650) 463-2600 

Email: mark.flagel@lw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant 

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC. 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 

 Nathan Lane, III (Bar No. 50961) 

 Joseph A. Meckes (Bar No. 190279) 

One Maritime Plaza, Suite 300 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: (415) 954-0200 

Facsimile: (415) 393-9887 

Email: nlane@ssd.com 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

TAIWAN SUMIDA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

OAKLAND DIVISION 

MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC., a 

Delaware corporation, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

TAIWAN SUMIDA ELECTRONICS, INC., 

a Taiwan corporation, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 05-3522 CW 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

REGARDING: 

1) CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S 

JUNE 25, 2007 ORDER; 

2) MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION; 

3) DISMISSAL OF REMAINING CLAIM 

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND TAKING 

TRIAL OFF CALENDAR; 

4) SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS 

Date: n/a 

Courtroom: 2 

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

1

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

WHEREAS, 

1. The Court issued an Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Sumida’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment and MPS’s Cross-Motion for Summary Adjudication on June 25, 2007 

(“Order”); 

2. The parties seek (and agree to) clarification with respect to certain aspects of the 

Order; 

3. The Order indicates that Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Monolithic Power 

Systems, Inc. (“MPS”) is “to pay or otherwise satisfy any final judgment, including interest and 

costs, entered against Sumida in the Texas action;”1

 

4. MPS seeks clarification that the Order obligates MPS to satisfy such a judgment 

only if, as and when the appeal of the Texas action is decided and the mandate of the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued in Appeal No. 2006-1411 and the judgment of the 

Court of Appeals requires payment of money by Taiwan Sumida Electronics, Inc. (“TSE”). 

Defendant and Counterclaimant TSE agrees this is and should be the intended meaning of the 

Order; 

5. The Order indicates that “Sumida is barred, as a matter of law, from recovering its 

alleged business losses”;2

6. TSE seeks clarification that this ruling relates solely to that portion of TSE’s 

alleged business losses as to which MPS moved for summary adjudication, namely the 

$1,184,840 that constituted alleged lost profits and that, under the Order, TSE is entitled to 

recover from MPS the sum of $430,039 ($398,841 for non-moving stock plus $31,198 for the 

certification fee paid to Samsung) as set forth in Attachment 3 to Exhibit A of the Declaration of 

Christopher L. Fern, CPA, submitted by TSE in support of its summary judgment motion. MPS 

agrees this is and should be the intended meaning of the Order. 

7. The parties have discussed the possibility of filing motions for reconsideration 

 

1

 Order, 22:10-12. 

2

 Order, 20:5-6. 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

2

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 

with respect to the Order but have agreed that such motions should be held in abeyance pending 

the parties’ settlement discussions and that they should suffer no prejudice as a result; 

8. The Order disposes of all claims except for TSE’s counterclaim for breach of the 

covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because this claim sought no relief beyond that sought 

on TSE’s breach of contract claim, on which the Court granted TSE summary judgment, the 

parties agree that TSE’s counterclaim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing 

shall be dismissed without prejudice to TSE’s right to its revival if the summary judgment Order 

is reversed in any relevant respect, and that the trial of this action should therefore be taken off 

calendar; 

9. Pursuant to the Order, the parties have inquired as to Judge Infante’s availability 

for a mediation, but learned that he is unavailable for such a mediation until September 2007; 

10. The parties have agreed to meet in good faith to attempt to settle this action and 

will do so through counsel during the week of July 9, 2007 and, if necessary, through a meeting 

to include client representatives on or before July 18, 2007, and this will satisfy the Court’s 

direction that the parties schedule a further session with Judge Infante; 

11. The parties will advise the Court, no later than August 10, 2007, whether the case 

has settled, and if it has not settled, the parties will also, no later than August 10, 2007, (a) file 

any requests for leave to file motions for reconsideration, together with any such motions, (b) file 

a stipulation agreeing to the amount of fees and expenses chargeable to MPS under the terms of 

the summary judgment Order or, if no agreement can be reached, file a submission setting forth 

their respective positions; and 

12. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall prejudice or compromise the parties’ 

rights in connection with any motion for reconsideration or in connection with any appeal should 

the parties be unable to resolve the matter through settlement. 

NOW, THEREFORE, 

The parties hereby STIPULATE that: 

 (1) Subject to both parties’ rights of appeal, the language “to pay or otherwise satisfy any 

final judgment, including interest and costs, entered against Sumida in the Texas action” in the 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

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 

Order means that MPS is obligated to satisfy such a judgment only if, as and when the appeal of 

the Texas action is decided and the mandate of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has 

issued in Appeal No. 2006-1411 and the judgment of the Court of Appeals requires payment of 

money by Sumida. This clarification shall not in any way affect or diminish the reference in the 

Order to MPS’s “continuing obligation under the indemnification agreement ‘to pay all 

expenses, losses, damages, liabilities and expenses’ in the Texas action”;3

(2) Subject to both parties’ rights of appeal, the term “business losses” in the Order’s 

holding that “Sumida is barred, as a matter of law, from recovering its alleged business losses,” 

refers solely to the $1,184,840 that TSE alleged as lost profits, and TSE is entitled, under the 

Order, to recover from MPS the sum of $430,039 for non-moving stock and the Samsung 

certification fee; 

(3) The parties shall not be obligated to seek to file motions for reconsideration at this 

time and shall suffer no prejudice as a result; 

(4) TSE’s counterclaim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing shall be 

dismissed without prejudice to TSE’s right to its revival if the summary judgment Order is 

reversed in any relevant respect and no equitable or legal defense shall bar such revival; 

(5) The trial of this action, scheduled to begin August 13, 2007, shall be taken off 

calendar and all pretrial compliance dates (including the pre-trial conference date of August 7, 

2007) shall be vacated; 

(6) The parties will meet in good faith to attempt to settle this action and will do so 

through counsel during the week of July 9, 2007 and, if necessary, through a meeting to include 

client representatives on or before July 18, 2007, and this will satisfy the Court’s direction that 

the parties schedule a further session with Judge Infante; 

(7) The parties will advise the Court, no later than August 10, 2007, whether the case has 

settled, and if it has not settled, the parties will also, no later than August 10, 2007, (a) file any 

requests for leave to file motions for reconsideration, together with any such motions, (b) file a 

stipulation agreeing to the amount of fees and expenses chargeable to MPS under the terms of 

 

3

 Order, 22:7-10. 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 5
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

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 

the summary judgment Order or, if no agreement can be reached, file a submission setting forth 

their respective positions; and 

(8) Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall prejudice or compromise the parties’ 

rights in connection with any motion for reconsideration or in connection with any appeal should 

the parties be unable to resolve the matter through settlement. 

Dated: June 29, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ 

Mark A. Flagel 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, 

INC. 

Dated: June 29, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 

 

By: /s/ 

Joseph A. Meckes 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

TAIWAN SUMIDA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ___________________ __________________________________ 

Claudia Wilken 

United States District Judge 

A FURTHER CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2007, AT 2:00 PM. 7/12/07

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 114 Filed 07/12/07 Page 5 of 5