Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03522/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03522-10/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. C 05-3522 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 

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 OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE AND ORDER

Date: n/a 

Courtroom: 2 

Judge: Hon. Claudia Wilken 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 126 Filed 08/07/07 Page 1 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C 05-3522 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 

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. Pursuant to the Order, the parties participated in a mediation before Magistrate 

Judge Edward A. Infante (Ret.) on July 18, 2007, and reached an agreement in principle at the 

mediation to settle their disputes; 

3. The parties have executed as of July 30, 2007, a settlement agreement resolving 

their dispute (the “Settlement Agreement”); 

4. The Settlement Agreement obligates the parties to negotiate the terms and 

conditions of a letter of credit or escrow agreement, between themselves and with a bank or 

escrow company; 

5. The parties’ negotiations of the terms and conditions of that letter of credit or 

escrow agreement have not yet been concluded; 

6. The parties nonetheless wish to dismiss this action without prejudice to allow 

them to complete their negotiations; 

7. The parties also wish to provide that, in the unlikely event that their negotiations 

do not succeed, their dismissal without prejudice can be set aside upon notice from either party 

without further action by this Court and that the action would be returned to this Court’s docket 

as if the dismissal without prejudice had not been entered; 

NOW, THEREFORE, 

The parties hereby STIPULATE that: 

 (1) Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff and 

Counterclaim Defendant Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and Defendant and Counterclaimant 

Taiwan Sumida Electronics, Inc., through the signature of their counsel, stipulate to dismiss this 

action without prejudice, including all claims, counterclaims and affirmative defenses; 

 (2) If, no earlier than sixty (60) days from the date hereof, the parties are unable to agree 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 126 Filed 08/07/07 Page 2 of 3
ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SILICON VALLEY

Case No. C 05-3522 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 

on the terms and conditions of a letter of credit or an escrow agreement as contemplated by the 

Settlement Agreement, either party may, upon notice filed herein, cause the dismissal of this 

action without prejudice to be set aside and the action to be returned to the Court’s docket as if 

the dismissal without prejudice had not been entered; 

 (3) If the parties agree to the terms and conditions of a letter of credit or any escrow 

agreement, they shall submit to this Court a further stipulation providing that the dismissal 

without prejudice entered pursuant to the present stipulation shall be a dismissal with prejudice; 

and 

 (4) This Court shall retain jurisdiction over this action and the parties to enforce the 

Settlement Agreement and any further obligations undertaken and agreements made pursuant to 

the Settlement Agreement. 

Dated: August 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 

By: /s/ 

Robert Steinberg 

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim 

Defendant MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, 

INC. 

Dated: August 2, 2007 Respectfully submitted, 

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P. 

 

By: /s/ 

Nathan Lane III 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

TAIWAN SUMIDA ELECTRONICS, INC. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 8/7/07 

Dated: ___________________ __________________________________ 

Claudia Wilken 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:05-cv-03522-CW Document 126 Filed 08/07/07 Page 3 of 3