2 3 4 8 9 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 10 STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY 11 DISMISSAL; ORDER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and 3 Defendants Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”) have 4 entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving all claims between them in this action 5 (“the Philips/Microsoft Claims”). 6 Therefore, Philips and Microsoft jointly file this motion under Civil L.R. 7-12 asking the 7 Court to enter the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith, which dismisses the 8 Philips/Microsoft Claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (“Rule 41(a)(2)”) 9 under the terms set forth in that Stipulation of Dismissal. 10 Of note, lead counsel for Philips has attempted to meet and confer with counsel for all the 11 remaining parties to this action, namely, HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”), 12 ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (collectively, “ASUS”), and YiFang 13 USA Inc. d/b/a E-Fun, Inc. (“YiFang”), regarding this motion. While YiFang has not responded to 14 date, HTC and ASUS have both indicated they will not oppose this motion. 16 Philips initially filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware (1:15-cv- 17 1126-GMS), asserting, among other things, that certain of HTC’s, Asus’s, and YiFang’s computing 18 devices include hardware and/or software containing functionality covered by one more claims of 19 the patents-in-suit (“Related Actions”). 20 Subsequently, Microsoft filed a Complaint in Intervention in the Asus action and the YiFang 21 action as the supplier of the operating system incorporated into some of Asus’s and YiFang’s 22 accused products. In their collective pleadings, Microsoft asserts against Philips counterclaims of 23 non-infringement under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202, and Philips 24 asserts against Microsoft claims of direct and indirect infringement. Dkt. Nos. 74, 86, 93, 154. 25 On March 27, 2018, this action and the Related Actions were transferred to this Court from 26 the District of Delaware, and all of these cases were consolidated under the above-captioned case. 27 As indicated, with the present motion, Philips and Microsoft jointly move the Court to 28 dismiss all of the Philips/Microsoft Claims under the terms of the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal in 2 respect to the pending claims between Philips and any of HTC, ASUS, or YiFang. 4 Under Rule 41(a)(2), after an opposing party has served an answer or motion for summary 5 judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that 6 the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Moreover, a “plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) 7 to dismiss fewer than all of the parties to an action.” Schaeffer v. Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P., 2016 8 WL 9185388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (citing Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. 9 Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 The decision to grant or deny a request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is within this 11 Court’s sound discretion. Id. (citing Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 12 1980)). However, “[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 13 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Id. 14 (quoting Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). Legal prejudice means “prejudice to 15 some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. (quoting Westlands Water Dist. 16 v.United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). 17 Here, YiFang has thus far voiced no objection, and HTC and ASUS have indicated that they 18 do not oppose this motion. Moreover, via this Stipulated and Unopposed Motion, Philips and 19 Microsoft do not ask the Court to take any action with respect to any of the claims pending between 20 Philips and any of HTC, ASUS, or YiFang. As a result, HTC, ASUS, and YiFang will suffer no 21 legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal of the Philips/Microsoft Claims. 23 For these reasons, the parties respectively request that the Court grant this motion and enter 24 the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith as the order of this Court. 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 Chris Holland (SBN 164053) /s/ Michael Sandonato Lori Holland (SBN 202309) Michael Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 4 HOLLAND LAW LLP John Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Christopher Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Natalie Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) Telephone: (415) 200-4980 Jason Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 6 Fax: (415) 200-4989 Jonathan Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) cholland@hollandlawllp.com Joshua Calabro (admitted pro hac vice) 7 lholland@hollandlawllp.com Daniel Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) Sean McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Robert Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 9 VENABLE LLP 10 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York, 10104 11 +1 (212) 218-2100 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile 12 philipsprosecutionbar@venable.com 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Judith Jennison (Bar No. 165929) Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice) Christina McCullough (Bar No. 245944) PERKINS COIE LLP 2 Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Bar No. 109506) 131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700 3 Antoine McNamara (Bar No. 261980) Chicago, Illinois, 60603 Theresa H. Nguyen (Bar No. 284581) +1 (312) 324-8400 4 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (312) 324-9400 facsimile 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 5 Seattle, Washington, 98101 Sarah E. Fowler (Bar No. 264838) +1 (206) 359-8000 PERKINS COIE LLP 6 +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile 3150 Porter Drive 7 msft-philipsteam@perkinscoie.com Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 (650) 838-4300 8 Chad Campbell (Bar No. 258723) +1 (650) 838-4350 PERKINS COIE LLP 9 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Patrick McKeever 10 Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (602) 351-8000 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 11 +1 (602) 648-7000 facsimile San Diego, California, 92130-2080 +1 (858) 720-5722 12 +1 (858) 720-5822 facsimile 13 Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants-in-Intervention Microsoft Corp. and 14 Microsoft Mobile, Inc. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, Plaintiffs 3 Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants 4 Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”), subject to the approval 5 of the Court, that: 6 1. All claims asserted by Philips against Microsoft in this action are dismissed with 7 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 8 2. All claims asserted by Microsoft against Philips in this action are dismissed with 9 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 10 3.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 3 4 8 9 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION 10 STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY 11 DISMISSAL; ORDER 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and 3 Defendants Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”) have 4 entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving all claims between them in this action 5 (“the Philips/Microsoft Claims”). 6 Therefore, Philips and Microsoft jointly file this motion under Civil L.R. 7-12 asking the 7 Court to enter the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith, which dismisses the 8 Philips/Microsoft Claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (“Rule 41(a)(2)”) 9 under the terms set forth in that Stipulation of Dismissal. 10 Of note, lead counsel for Philips has attempted to meet and confer with counsel for all the 11 remaining parties to this action, namely, HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”), 12 ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (collectively, “ASUS”), and YiFang 13 USA Inc. d/b/a E-Fun, Inc. (“YiFang”), regarding this motion. While YiFang has not responded to 14 date, HTC and ASUS have both indicated they will not oppose this motion. 16 Philips initially filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware (1:15-cv- 17 1126-GMS), asserting, among other things, that certain of HTC’s, Asus’s, and YiFang’s computing 18 devices include hardware and/or software containing functionality covered by one more claims of 19 the patents-in-suit (“Related Actions”). 20 Subsequently, Microsoft filed a Complaint in Intervention in the Asus action and the YiFang 21 action as the supplier of the operating system incorporated into some of Asus’s and YiFang’s 22 accused products. In their collective pleadings, Microsoft asserts against Philips counterclaims of 23 non-infringement under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202, and Philips 24 asserts against Microsoft claims of direct and indirect infringement. Dkt. Nos. 74, 86, 93, 154. 25 On March 27, 2018, this action and the Related Actions were transferred to this Court from 26 the District of Delaware, and all of these cases were consolidated under the above-captioned case. 27 As indicated, with the present motion, Philips and Microsoft jointly move the Court to 28 dismiss all of the Philips/Microsoft Claims under the terms of the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal in 2 respect to the pending claims between Philips and any of HTC, ASUS, or YiFang. 4 Under Rule 41(a)(2), after an opposing party has served an answer or motion for summary 5 judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that 6 the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Moreover, a “plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) 7 to dismiss fewer than all of the parties to an action.” Schaeffer v. Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P., 2016 8 WL 9185388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (citing Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. 9 Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1991)). 10 The decision to grant or deny a request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is within this 11 Court’s sound discretion. Id. (citing Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 12 1980)). However, “[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 13 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Id. 14 (quoting Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). Legal prejudice means “prejudice to 15 some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. (quoting Westlands Water Dist. 16 v.United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)). 17 Here, YiFang has thus far voiced no objection, and HTC and ASUS have indicated that they 18 do not oppose this motion. Moreover, via this Stipulated and Unopposed Motion, Philips and 19 Microsoft do not ask the Court to take any action with respect to any of the claims pending between 20 Philips and any of HTC, ASUS, or YiFang. As a result, HTC, ASUS, and YiFang will suffer no 21 legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal of the Philips/Microsoft Claims. 23 For these reasons, the parties respectively request that the Court grant this motion and enter 24 the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith as the order of this Court. 25 26 27 28 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 Chris Holland (SBN 164053) /s/ Michael Sandonato Lori Holland (SBN 202309) Michael Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 4 HOLLAND LAW LLP John Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Christopher Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 5 San Francisco, CA 94104 Natalie Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) Telephone: (415) 200-4980 Jason Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 6 Fax: (415) 200-4989 Jonathan Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) cholland@hollandlawllp.com Joshua Calabro (admitted pro hac vice) 7 lholland@hollandlawllp.com Daniel Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) Sean McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Robert Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 9 VENABLE LLP 10 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York, 10104 11 +1 (212) 218-2100 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile 12 philipsprosecutionbar@venable.com 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Judith Jennison (Bar No. 165929) Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice) Christina McCullough (Bar No. 245944) PERKINS COIE LLP 2 Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Bar No. 109506) 131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700 3 Antoine McNamara (Bar No. 261980) Chicago, Illinois, 60603 Theresa H. Nguyen (Bar No. 284581) +1 (312) 324-8400 4 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (312) 324-9400 facsimile 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 5 Seattle, Washington, 98101 Sarah E. Fowler (Bar No. 264838) +1 (206) 359-8000 PERKINS COIE LLP 6 +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile 3150 Porter Drive 7 msft-philipsteam@perkinscoie.com Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 (650) 838-4300 8 Chad Campbell (Bar No. 258723) +1 (650) 838-4350 PERKINS COIE LLP 9 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Patrick McKeever 10 Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (602) 351-8000 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 11 +1 (602) 648-7000 facsimile San Diego, California, 92130-2080 +1 (858) 720-5722 12 +1 (858) 720-5822 facsimile 13 Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants-in-Intervention Microsoft Corp. and 14 Microsoft Mobile, Inc. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, Plaintiffs 3 Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants 4 Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”), subject to the approval 5 of the Court, that: 6 1. All claims asserted by Philips against Microsoft in this action are dismissed with 7 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 8 2. All claims asserted by Microsoft against Philips in this action are dismissed with 9 prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). 10 3. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 11 12 Dated: January 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 13 14 Chris Holland (SBN 164053) /s/ Michael Sandonato Lori Holland (SBN 202309) Michael Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) 15 HOLLAND LAW LLP John Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Christopher Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) 16 San Francisco, CA 94104 Natalie Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) Telephone: (415) 200-4980 Jason Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) 17 Fax: (415) 200-4989 Jonathan Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) cholland@hollandlawllp.com Joshua Calabro (admitted pro hac vice) 18 lholland@hollandlawllp.com Daniel Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) Sean McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 19 Robert Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 20 VENABLE LLP 21 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York, 10104 22 +1 (212) 218-2100 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile 23 philipsprosecutionbar@venable.com 24 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation 25 26 27 28 Judith Jennison (Bar No. 165929) Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice) Christina McCullough (Bar No. 245944) PERKINS COIE LLP 2 Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Bar No. 109506) 131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700 3 Antoine McNamara (Bar No. 261980) Chicago, Illinois, 60603 Theresa H. Nguyen (Bar No. 284581) +1 (312) 324-8400 4 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (312) 324-9400 facsimile 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 5 Seattle, Washington, 98101 Sarah E. Fowler (Bar No. 264838) +1 (206) 359-8000 PERKINS COIE LLP 6 +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile 3150 Porter Drive 7 msft-philipsteam@perkinscoie.com Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 (650) 838-4300 8 Chad Campbell (Bar No. 258723) +1 (650) 838-4350 PERKINS COIE LLP 9 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Patrick McKeever 10 Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (602) 351-8000 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 11 +1 (602) 648-7000 facsimile San Diego, California, 92130-2080 +1 (858) 720-5722 12 +1 (858) 720-5822 facsimile 13 Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants-in-Intervention Microsoft Corp. and 14 Microsoft Mobile, Inc. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed 3 above to execute this document on their behalf. 4 Dated: January 29, 2020 /s/ Chris Holland 5 Chris Holland 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 The Court has now considered Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips 3 | Corporation (collectively, “Philips’”) and Defendants Microsoft Corporation. and Microsoft Mobile 4 || Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft’) Stipulated and Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (“the 5 || Motion’). Having considered the moving papers before it and being fully advised, the Court finds 6 || and orders as follows: 7 The Motion is GRANTED in its entirety. The Stipulation of Dismissal filed with the 8 || Motion is entered as the Order of this Court, and all claims asserted by Philips against Microsoft or 9 | by Microsoft against Philips in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED pursuant to the terms of 10 | that stipulation. 12 DATED: 1/31/2020 7 Maspurred 3 Ld, 13 Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28