Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03522/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03522-7/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 STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHORTEN 

TIME ON HEARING REGARDING MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO 

SHORTEN TIME ON HEARING 

REGARDING MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS; ORDER GRANTING AS 

MODIFIED 

[L.R. 6-2] 

Date: n/a 

Time: n/a 

Courtroom: 2 

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 106 Filed 06/08/07 Page 1 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

1

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHORTEN 

TIME ON HEARING REGARDING MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER 

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 

Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 6-2, the parties to the above-captioned action hereby 

stipulate to an order shortening the time for the Court to hear Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.’s 

(“MPS”) motion to stay proceedings (“Stay Motion”). Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 7-2, a motion shall 

be heard no less than 35 days after service. In this case, the earliest date for hearing the Stay 

Motion under the usual notice procedures would be July 12, 2007, but due to the Court’s 

unavailability from July 2, 2007 through July 20, 2007, the next available hearing date would be 

July 26, 2007, just over two weeks before the trial in this action is scheduled to begin. For the 

reasons set forth below, the parties stipulate that, subject to Court approval, the hearing on the 

Stay Motion be scheduled for 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2007. The parties further request that the 

deadline for defendant and counterclaimant Taiwan Sumida Electronics, Inc. (“TSE”) to file its 

opposition papers be June 19, 2007 and the deadline for MPS to file its reply papers be June 22, 

2007. 

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, 

1. Concurrently with the filing of this Stipulation, MPS intends to file a 

motion to stay proceedings in the instant action. MPS believes that a stay is appropriate because 

approximately $7 million in liability TSE seeks to impose on MPS in this action will likely be 

nullified because it is based on the alleged infringement by TSE of the same claims of US Patent 

No. 6,396,722 that were recently found by a jury to be invalid in O2 Micro International Ltd., v. 

Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., et al., Case Nos. C 04-2000 and C 04-2929. MPS believes that, 

once the verdict against TSE, now on appeal to the Federal Circuit, is nullified, the remaining 

dispute between MPS and TSE will be quickly settled without the expense of and need for a trial. 

2. TSE, for its part, disagrees that the appeal will make settlement any easier 

than it is today. Instead, any stay will simply postpone resolution to a later date. TSE further 

submits that the delay MPS intends to seek (which can easily exceed 18 months to two years) 

will substantially prejudice TSE in the prosecution of its counterclaims against MPS and in 

obtaining a final resolution of a case that was filed in August 2005; 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 106 Filed 06/08/07 Page 2 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

2

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHORTEN 

TIME ON HEARING REGARDING MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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. Pursuant to Civ. L. R. 7-2, and because of the unavailability of the Court 

from July 2, 2007 to July 20, 2007, the earliest Stay Motion hearing date under the usual notice 

rules would be July 26, 2007; 

4. Pursuant to the Court’s Order for Pretrial Preparation, pretrial preparations 

will need to be completed on or before July 26, 2007; thus, MPS requests that the Stay Motion be 

heard and decided at the earliest possible time. While TSE intends to oppose the motion (and 

further believes that the Court should issue its rulings on the pending summary judgment 

motions before taking up MPS’s Stay Motion), TSE is willing to enter into this stipulation 

shortening time as an accommodation to MPS and its counsel; 

4. The parties have agreed that, should the Court enter this Stipulation and 

schedule the hearing on the Stay Motion for June 28, 2007, TSE’s opposition brief will be due on 

June 19, 2007, and MPS’s reply brief will be due on June 22, 2007. 

NOW, THEREFORE, 

The parties hereby STIPULATE that the hearing on the Stay Motion be scheduled 

for 2:00 p.m. on June 28, 2007, and the filing deadlines for the Stay Motion’s opposition and 

reply papers be set to June 19, 2007 and June 22, 2007, respectively. 

Dated: June 6, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ 

Mark A. Flagel 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, 

INC. 

Dated: June 6, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 

By: /s/ 

Joseph A. Meckes 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

TAIWAN SUMIDA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 106 Filed 06/08/07 Page 3 of 4
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C05-3522 CW

3

STIPULATED REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SHORTEN 

TIME ON HEARING REGARDING MOTION TO STAY 

PROCEEDINGS; [PROPOSED] ORDER

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 

Filer’s Attestation: Pursuant to General Order No. 45, § X(B), I attest that concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained from its signatory. 

Dated: June 6, 2007 

 /s/ 

Mark A. Flagel 

ORDER

The Court having considered the parties’ stipulation to shorten time, and good 

cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the request is GRANTED. The filing 

deadlines for the Stay Motion’s opposition and reply papers are June 19, 2007 and June 22, 

2007, respectively. The matter will be decided on the papers. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 6/8/07 

DATED: 

_______________________________________ The Honorable Claudia Wilken 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 106 Filed 06/08/07 Page 4 of 4