From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

CopyTele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2013
Case No. 13-cv-00380-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)

Opinion

Case No. 13-cv-00380-MMC

03-13-2013

COPYTELE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION, a Taiwanese corporation; AU OPTRONICS CORPORATION AMERICA, a California corporation; E INK HOLDINGS, INC., a Taiwanese corporation; and E INK CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendants.

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260) David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457) Attorneys for Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. LATHAM & WATKINS LLP Matthew Rawlinson Lawrence J. Gotts Matthew Rawlinson Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and AU Optronics Corporation America


LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
Lawrence J. Gotts (pro hac vice admission pending)
Lawrence.Gotts@lw.com
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
Telephone: +1.202.637.2200
Facsimile: +1.202.637.2201
Matthew Rawlinson (CA State Bar No. 231890)
Matt.Rawlinson@lw.com
140 Scott Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: +1. 650.328.4600
Facsimile: +1. 650.463.2600
Casey R. O'Connor (CA State Bar No. 261755)
Casey.OConnor@lw.com
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, California 94111-6538
Telephone: +1.415.391.0600
Facsimile: +1.415.395.8095
Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics
Corporation America and AU Optronics Corporation

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF

DEFENDANT AU OPTRONICS

CORPORATION AMERICA AND

WAIVER OF SERVICE OF

SUMMONS BY AU OPTRONICS

CORPORATION

Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc. ("CopyTele") and Defendants AU Optronics Corporation ("AUO") and AU Optronics Corporation America ("AUO America") hereby stipulate to dismiss the Complaint as filed by CopyTele against Defendant AUO America in the above-captioned action. The action will continue against AUO. It is further stipulated that this dismissal is without prejudice and is contingent upon the following stipulations:

1. AUO America stipulates that, to the extent that it has documents, witnesses, and information in its custody and control that are related to the claims for relief asserted in the Complaint against AUO, AUO America agrees, subject to all objections and privileges otherwise available under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Federal Law, to provide CopyTele with such documents, witnesses, and information in response to discovery requests, including deposition notices, propounded to AUO by CopyTele to the same extent AUO America would be required to do so if it were a party to this action, and AUO's counsel agrees to accept service of such requests on AUO America's behalf;
2. AUO America agrees that, in the event CopyTele learns of facts that CopyTele, in its sole discretion, believes requires the addition or joining of AUO America as a defendant in the above-captioned action, it shall promptly seek to do so upon learning such facts, AUO America shall not oppose any such addition or joining of AUO America as a defendant on any grounds related to the instant stipulation and AUO America agrees to be bound by all prior orders, and further agrees that the statute of limitations as to all claims against AUO America shall be tolled as of the filing of the Complaint;
3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 41(a), CopyTele, AUO, and AUO America agree to dismiss all claims against AUO America in the above-captioned action, without prejudice, each of the parties to bear its own costs, expenses and fees.
4. AUO waives service of summons pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, and shall have 90 days from the date of the filing of the Complaint to file its response to the Complaint. AUO agrees and stipulates that its waiver of service
will operate as if AUO had been served by the clerk of the court in Taiwan in accordance with Article 123 of the R.O.C. Code of Civil Procedure.

Respectfully Submitted:

LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP

_____________

Eric B. Fastiff

Eric B. Fastiff (State Bar No. 182260)

David T. Rudolph (State Bar No. 233457)

Attorneys for Plaintiff CopyTele, Inc.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

___________________

Matthew Rawlinson

Lawrence J. Gotts

Matthew Rawlinson

Attorneys for Defendants AU Optronics Corporation and

AU Optronics Corporation America

ATTESTATION

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 5-1(i)(3) regarding signatures, I attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from the other signatory.

___________________

Matthew Rawlinson

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation above, IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________________

Senior District Judge Edward M. Chen


Summaries of

CopyTele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 13, 2013
Case No. 13-cv-00380-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)
Case details for

CopyTele, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corp.

Case Details

Full title:COPYTELE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. AU OPTRONICS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 13, 2013

Citations

Case No. 13-cv-00380-MMC (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2013)