Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03561-11/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rackable Systems, Inc.
Counter-defendant
Super Micro Computer, Inc.
Counter-claimant

Document Text:

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- 

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

USDC CASE NO. C 05-03561 PJH (WDB) 

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGE] 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SUPERMICRO COMPUTER, INC., 

Defendant. 

CASE NO. C 05-03561 PJH (WDB) 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY 

ADJUDICATION AS TO INVALIDITY OF 

CERTAIN CLAIMS OF RACKABLE'S '408 

AND '366 PATENTS AND REGARDING 

CERTAIN MOTIONS HEARD ON 

JANUARY 17, 2007 

 WHEREAS, on October 27, 2006, the Court issued its Order Construing Claims, in which 

the Court decided, among other things, (1) that the term "front" as used in claims of Rackable 

Systems, Inc.'s ("Rackable") '408 patent (and not its '366 patent) is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 

112; and (2) that the phrases "components requiring intermittent physical access" and "the I/O 

connectors including the one or more data transmission ports and to all components requiring 

intermittent access provided for the computer," appearing in certain claims of Rackable's '408 and 

'366 patents are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 with respect to use of the terms "intermittent 

access" and "intermittent physical access." 

 WHEREAS, Rackable respectfully disagrees with the Court's indefiniteness rulings in the 

Order Construing Claims and reserves all rights to appeal said rulings and the Court's Order 

Construing Claims at such time when those rulings may be appealed, and the parties agree that 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 170 Filed 02/05/07 Page 1 of 5
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- 

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

USDC CASE NO. C 05-03561 PJH (WDB) 

this stipulation is subject to and without waiver of any of Rackable's appellate rights, and the 

parties agree that Rackable is not waiving its rights under appropriate circumstances (e.g., an 

appeal that impacts Court's Order Construing Claims or this stipulation, a stipulation, the Court's 

reconsideration of its indefiniteness rulings, or the like) to seek to vacate all or part of this 

stipulated summary adjudication order. 

 WHEREAS, on January 17, 2007, the Court heard defendant Supermicro Computers, 

Inc.'s ("Supermicro") Motion for Summary Adjudication Based Upon Markman Ruling 

("Supermicro's Motion for Summary Adjudication") and Rackable's Motion to Dismiss the 

Action Based on Rackable's '366 Patent for Lack of Case or Controversy and for Conclusion of 

This Case Pending Appeal ("Rackable's Motion to Dismiss"), with Richard Yankwich appearing 

on behalf of Supermicro and Eric Lamison appearing on behalf of Rackable. 

 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their respective 

attorneys of record, and subject to the terms in the WHEREAS provisions above, that it is 

summarily adjudicated that all claims of the '408 patent and claims 15, 16, 38, 46 and 47 of the 

'366 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness. 

 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto, through their 

respective attorneys of record, and subject to the terms in the WHEREAS provisions above, that 

this stipulation shall have no impact on the validity of the remaining claims of Rackable's '366 

patent. 

 SO STIPULATED. 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 170 Filed 02/05/07 Page 2 of 5
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- 

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

USDC CASE NO. C 05-03561 PJH (WDB) 

Dated: January 31, 2007 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

By /s/ Eric Lamison 

Eric R. Lamison (Bar No. 178262) 

Benjamin R. Ostapuk (Bar No. 194364) 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

555 California St., 24th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94104 

Telephone: (415) 439-1400 

Facsimile: (415) 439-1500 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

RACKABLE SYSTEMS, INC. 

Dated: January 31, 2007 

DLA PIPER US LLP 

By /s/ Richard Yankwich_____

Richard I. Yankwich (Bar No. 089924) 

Alan A. Limbach (Bar No. 173059) 

DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP 

2000 University Avenue 

East Palo Alto, California 94303-2215 

Telephone: (650) 833-2000 

Facsimile: (650) 833-2001 

Attorneys for Defendant 

SUPERMICRO COMPUTER, INC. 

 Having considered the foregoing stipulation and the papers submitted and arguments 

presented in support of and in opposition to Supermicro's Motion for Summary Adjudication and 

to Rackable's Motion to Dismiss, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT: 

 In accordance with and subject to the terms of the parties' above Stipulation, it is 

summarily adjudicated that all claims of the '408 patent and claims 15, 16, 38, 46 and 47 of the 

'366 patent are invalid due to indefiniteness. 

 Supermicro's Motion for Summary Adjudication, for non-infringement of the '408 patent 

and of certain claims of the '366 patent, is hereby DENIED. 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 170 Filed 02/05/07 Page 3 of 5
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 

 -4- 

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

USDC CASE NO. C 05-03561 PJH (WDB) 

 Pursuant to this Court's January 18, 2007 Order [Docket No. 157], Rackable's Motion To 

Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows. In light of the Court's Order 

Construing Claims and its indefiniteness decisions, Super Micro's First Counterclaim for a 

Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement of the '408 patent is DISMISSED as moot without 

prejudice. Likewise, to the extent Super Micro's First Counterclaim for a Declaratory Judgment 

of non-infringement of the '366 patent relates to claims 15, 16, 38, 46 and 47 of the '366 patent, 

which have been stipulated as invalid due to indefiniteness under the above Stipulation, Super 

Micro's counterclaim is DISMISSED as moot without prejudice. The Court otherwise declines to 

dismiss Rackable's claims or Super Micro's counterclaims at this time. 

 The Court further notes that, although it does not dismiss Counts I and II of Rackable's 

Complaint, for infringement of the '408 and '366 patents, in light of the Court's indefiniteness 

decisions and subject to the terms of the corresponding Stipulation above, the Court will not 

address the merits of Rackable's infringement allegations against Super Micro on the patent 

claims rendered indefinite by the Court's Order Construing Claims (i.e., all claims of the '408 

patent and claims 15, 16, 38, 46 and 47 of the '366 patent) because those allegations are now 

moot. This aspect of the Court's decision shall have no impact on the remaining claims of the 

'366 patent that have been asserted in this action and that were not found indefinite. 

 SO ORDERED. 

DATED:___________________ 

THE HONORABLE PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 

United States District Judge 

2/5/07

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 170 Filed 02/05/07 Page 4 of 5
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 

 -5- 

STIP & [PROPOSED] ORDER 

USDC CASE NO. C 05-03561 PJH (WDB) 

ATTESTATION PURSUANT TO GENERAL ORDER 45

 I, Eric R. Lamison, attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been 

obtained from counsel for defendant Super Micro Computer, Inc. I declare under penalty of 

perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed this 31st day of January, 2007, at San Francisco, California. 

 

/s/ Eric R. Lamison 

 ___________________________ 

 Eric R. Lamison 

Case 4:05-cv-03561-PJH Document 170 Filed 02/05/07 Page 5 of 5