Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.

N.D. California

Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.

DecidedFebruary 4, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-06686

StatusUnknown

This text of Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. (Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROHM SEMICONDUCTOR USA, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-06686-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. COMPEL ARBITRATION

MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 41 Defendant.

MaxPower’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. MaxPower’s and Rohm Co.’s Technology License Agreement (TLA) binds Rohm Co.’s subsidiaries, including Rohm USA. The TLA incorporates the California Code of Civil Procedure into its arbitration provision. The applicable section provides: “The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement . . . .” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1297.161. That type of language has repeatedly been held to clearly and unmistakably delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. See Oracle America, Inc. v. Myriad Group A.G., 724 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013); Loewen v. McDonnell, 403 F. Supp. 3d 832 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater, 124 Cal. App. 4th 547 (2004); see also Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019). MaxPower’s motion is thus granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice. See Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2014).1

1 MaxPower’s motion to seal, filed in conjunction with its motion to compel, is also granted. See Docket No. 42. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2021 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROHM SEMICONDUCTOR USA, LLC, Case No. 20-cv-06686-VC

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO v. COMPEL ARBITRATION

MAXPOWER SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., Re: Dkt. No. 41 Defendant.

MaxPower’s motion to compel arbitration is granted. MaxPower’s and Rohm Co.’s Technology License Agreement (TLA) binds Rohm Co.’s subsidiaries, including Rohm USA. The TLA incorporates the California Code of Civil Procedure into its arbitration provision. The applicable section provides: “The arbitral tribunal may rule on its own jurisdiction, including ruling on any objections with respect to the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement . . . .” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1297.161. That type of language has repeatedly been held to clearly and unmistakably delegate the question of arbitrability to the arbitrator. See Oracle America, Inc. v. Myriad Group A.G., 724 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2013); Loewen v. McDonnell, 403 F. Supp. 3d 832 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Dream Theater, Inc. v. Dream Theater, 124 Cal. App. 4th 547 (2004); see also Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer and White Sales, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 524 (2019). MaxPower’s motion is thus granted, and the case is dismissed without prejudice. See Johnmohammadi v. Bloomingdale’s, Inc., 755 F.3d 1072, 1073-74 (9th Cir. 2014).1

1 MaxPower’s motion to seal, filed in conjunction with its motion to compel, is also granted. See Docket No. 42. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 4, 2021 = VINCE CHHABRIA United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rohm-semiconductor-usa-llc-v-maxpower-semiconductor-inc-cand-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack