In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation ( 2020 )

2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 OAKLAND DIVISION 7 Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG 8 JOINT MOTION OF PHILIPS AND HTC FOR FURTHER STAY 9 In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation PENDING COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 10 TERMS AND STATUS REPORT RESPONSIVE TO JANUARY 22, 11 2020 ORDER (DKT. NO. 956); [PROPOSED] ORDER 12 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) 3 (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly moved the Court to request that the Court take all pending 4 Summary Judgment and Daubert motions solely as between Philips and HTC off calendar for the 5 scheduled December 20, 2019 Hearing, in order to allow for completion of a formal settlement 6 agreement between the Parties. Dkt. No. 941. The Court granted that motion on December 18, 7 2019, thereby effectively staying the claims between Philips and HTC in this action. Dkt. No. 942. 8 Thereafter, on January 21, 2020, the Parties advised the Court that they have executed a final, 9 binding settlement agreement and moved the Court for a further stay of this action until April 24, 10 2020 solely as it pertains to disputes between Philips and HTC, in order for various terms of the 11 confidential settlement to be completed, and so that the Philips/HTC case may be dismissed pursuant 12 to stipulation by the Parties. Dkt. No. 955. The Court granted that motion on January 22, 2020, 13 staying this action between Philips and HTC to April 24, 2020 and directing the parties to file by 14 April 24, 2020 a joint status report of no more than two pages notifying the Court of the status of the 15 parties’ settlement if a stipulation of dismissal as to HTC is not filed by then. Dkt. No. 956.1 16 Given the Court’s January 22, 2020 Order, the Parties’ have met and conferred and believe 17 that it would be beneficial to both Parties to continue to stay the claims between Philips and HTC in 18 this action through July 10, 2020, while the Parties work together to complete the various 19 international performance obligations under the settlement agreement. Among other things, the 20 performance obligations under the Philips/HTC settlement agreement are not simply limited to this 21 matter. Rather, the Parties’ resolution involves issues which touch upon other disputes and 22 intellectual property matters around the globe. Moreover, for the Court’s information, the Parties 23 anticipate that performance will be fully completed by June 30, 2020, and no further stays beyond 24 1 The Court also directed Philips and HTC to show cause by January 24, 2020 why the 25 pending motions for partial summary judgment and the Daubert motions as between Philips and HTC (Dkt. Nos. 707, 716, 717, 723, 729, 731, and 733) “should not be terminated as moot, without 26 prejudice to renewal if the post-execution aspects of the settlement agreement are not completed.” Dkt. No. 956. In response, Philips and HTC filed a stipulated request asking the Court to dismiss 27 those pending motions, without prejudice to renewal, and the Court subsequently terminated those motions accordingly. Dkt. Nos. 957, 958. 28 2 to a week and a half beyond the anticipated completion date to July 10 to account for any potential 3 complications and to allow the Parties the time necessary to file the anticipated stipulated dismissal. 4 As previously stated, it is well-settled that a district court has discretionary power to stay 5 proceedings in its own court. See Lockyer v. Mirant Corp., 398 F.3d 1098, 1109 (9th Cir. 2005) 6 (citing Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)). In this instance, the Parties 7 believe in good faith that a further stay of proceedings is appropriate and in the interests of justice, in 8 order to avoid unnecessary further litigation and to conserve judicial resources by permitting them to 9 complete various terms required by the confidential settlement agreement without further 10 involvement of, or burden upon, the Court. 11 NOW, THEREFORE, Philips and HTC hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the 12 Court issue a further stay of this action solely as it pertains to disputes between Philips and HTC for 13 a period up to and including July 10, 2020, in order for various terms of the confidential settlement 14 to be completed, so that the Philips/HTC case may be dismissed pursuant to stipulation. Should the 15 Parties for any reason fail to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims at issue on or before July 10, 16 counsel will meet and confer and approach the Court jointly for guidance and/or a further Case 17 Management Conference at that time, if needed. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Chris Holland (SBN 164053) /s/ Michael P. Sandonato 3 Lori L. Holland (SBN 202309) Michael P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) HOLLAND LAW LLP John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 4 220 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Christopher M. Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) San Francisco, CA 94104 Natalie D. Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) 5 Telephone: (415) 200-4980 Jason M. Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) Fax: (415) 200-4989 Stephen K. Yam (admitted pro hac vice) 6 cholland@hollandlawllp.com Jonathan M. Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) lholland@hollandlawllp.com Joshua D. Calabro admitted pro hac vice) 7 Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn N. 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 /s/ Ryan McBrayer Ryan McBrayer (pro hac vice) John P. Schnurer (Cal. Bar No. 185725) 17 Jonathan Putman (pro hac vice) Kevin Patariu (Cal. Bar No. 256755) 18 PERKINS COIE LLP James Hurt (Cal. Bar No. 312390) 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 PERKINS COIE LLP 19 Seattle, Washington, 98101 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 +1 (206) 359-8000 San Diego, California, 92130 20 +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile +1 (858) 720-5700 htc-philipsperkinsservice@perkinscoie.com +1 (858) 720-5799 facsimile 21 htc-philipsperkinsservice@perkinscoie.com 22 Elizabeth Banzhoff (pro hac vice) 23 PERKINS COIE LLP 1900 16th Street, Suite 1400 24 Denver, Colorado 80202 25 +1 (303) 291-2397 + 1 (303) 291-2497 facsimile 26 htc-philipsperkinsservice@perkinscoie.com 27 Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. 28 CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 2 3 I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed 4 above to execute and file this document on their behalf. 5 Dated: April 22, 2020 /s/ Chris Holland 6 Chris Holland 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROPOSED] ORDER 2 || GOOD CAUSE APPEARING AND PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. apron Alnspurl 5 Mbt |p. 4 DATED: 4/27/2020 A). Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JOINT MOTION OF PHILIPS AND HTC FOR FURTHER STAY PENDING COMPLETION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT TERMS AND STATUS REPORT RESPONSIVE TO JANUARY 22, 2020 ORDER (DKT. NO. 956); FPPROPOSEBT ORDER