From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Philips v. Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Aug 12, 2015
5:14-CV-2737 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015)

Opinion

          Steven A. Miller, (Pro hac vice) Brian D. Roche, (Pro hac vice) Jennifer Y. DePriest, (Pro hac vice) Lawrence E. James, Jr., (Pro hac vice) William R. Overend, Kirin K. Gill, REED SMITH LLP, Chicago, IL San Fransisco, CA Attorneys for Plaintiffs

          Minyao Wang, Claude M. Stern, Michael D. Powell, Minyao Wang, (admitted pro hac vice ) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP, Redwood shores, California, New York, NY, Atorneys for Defendants.


          STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGEMENT [PROPOSED] ORDER

          BETH LABSON FREEMAN, District Judge.

         Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Philips Lumileds Lighting Company LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs") and Defendants Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd., Elec-Tech International (H.K.) Co., Ltd., Wuhu Elec-Tech Photoelectric Technology Co., Ltd., ETI Yangzhou Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd., Dalian Deheo Photovoltaic Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen Retop LED Display Co., Ltd., ETI Solid State Lighting Inc., ETI LED Solutions Inc., Donglei Wang, Eva Chan and Gangyi Chen (collectively "Defendants" and together with Plaintiffs, the "Parties"), through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate as follows:

         WHEREAS, on March 20, 2015, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claim under the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act with prejudice, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' remaining claims, which were dismissed without prejudice (Dkt. 122);

         WHEREAS, on June 19, 2015, the Clerk of the Court taxed costs in the amount of $43, 495.98 against Plaintiffs (Dkt. 141);

         WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed that judgment should be entered in this case with the proposed judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A;

         WHEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED THAT:

(i) Judgment is hereby entered in this case consistent with the Court's March 20, 2015 Order on Motions to Dismiss (Dkt. 122) and with the proposed judgment attached hereto as Exhibit A;

(ii) The Clerk of the Court shall separately enter judgment in this case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(a), with the form attached hereto as Exhibit A.


Summaries of

Philips v. Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division
Aug 12, 2015
5:14-CV-2737 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Philips v. Elec-Tech International Co., Ltd.

Case Details

Full title:Koninklijke Philips NV and Philips Lumileds Lighting Company LLC…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, N.D. California, San Jose Division

Date published: Aug 12, 2015

Citations

5:14-CV-2737 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2015)