In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT In Re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation STAY CERTAIN PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE PRETRIAL DEADLINES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Microsoft Corporation and Microsoft Mobile, Inc. (collectively, “Microsoft”), through counsel, hereby respectfully file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the Court: (1) stay the pending Philips/Microsoft Summary Judgment and Daubert motions; and (2) vacate all existing pretrial deadlines in the Philips/Microsoft case (listed below and set forth in Dkt. No. 573).1 Philips and Microsoft recently have executed a settlement agreement regarding all claims between them in this action. However, there are some post-execution aspects of that settlement agreement that must be performed before the Philips/Microsoft case can be formally dismissed. Philips and Microsoft expect to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims at issue within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of entry of the Court’s order on this Stipulation.

11 It is well-settled that a district court has broad discretion to control its own docket and manage its own calendar. Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also, e.g., Agcaoili v. Gustafson, 844 F.2d 620, 624 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A trial court has the power to control its own calendar.”); CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962) (district courts possess “inherent power to control the disposition of the causes on its docket in a manner which will promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir. 1983) (“The trial court possesses the inherent power to control its own docket and calendar.”).

19 Philips and Microsoft hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 20 WHEREAS, Philips and Microsoft recently have executed a settlement agreement regarding all claims between them in this Action; however, as noted, there are some post-execution aspects of that settlement agreement that must be performed before the case can be formally dismissed; and 23 WHEREAS, Philips and Microsoft believe that staying the below-listed pending Summary Judgment and Daubert motions and vacating existing pretrial deadlines is appropriate given the This Stipulation and [Proposed] Order does not concern the Summary Judgment and Daubert motions between Philips and Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”) (Dkt. Nos. 711, 713, 724, 742, 751, and 766), which remain pending. This Stipulation does concern Microsoft’s and ASUS’s joint Daubert motion to exclude the expert opinions of Michael E. Tate (Dkt. No. 742) but only as between Philips and Microsoft.

2 unnecessary further litigation between them and will additionally conserve judicial resources by avoiding needlessly further burdening the Court’s resources in deciding these motions and addressing pretrial filings in the Philips/Microsoft case.

5 NOW, THEREFORE, Philips and Microsoft, through counsel, hereby stipulate and respectfully request that the Court stay the following Summary Judgment and Daubert motions as indicated and vacate the existing pretrial deadlines (listed in full below): Pending Summary Judgment Motions To Be Stayed In Their Entirety: Docket Number Docket Text 703 Motion to Strike Regarding Philips’ Daubert Motion to Exclude Testimony of 12 Dr. Nisha Mody (Damages) filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips Corporation 706 Motion to Strike Motion to Exclude Untimely Theories in Dr. Mackenzie’s 14 Rebuttal Expert Report Served on Behalf of Microsoft Concerning U.S. Patent No. RE44,913 filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips 15 Corporation 709 Motion To Exclude Certain Opinions in Dr. Rubin’s Opening and Rebuttal 17 Expert Reports Served on Behalf of Microsoft Concerning Patent No. 9,436,809 filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips Corporation 718 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Microsoft Corporation 720 MOTION to Strike Expert Opinions filed by Microsoft Corporation, 20 Microsoft Mobile Inc. 744 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment on Certain Affirmative Defenses 22 raised by the Microsoft Defendants filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V., U.S. Philips Corporation Docket Number Docket Text 4 742 Motion to Exclude Expert Opinions of Michael E. Tate (Damages) by Microsoft and ASUS filed by Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Mobile Inc., 5 ASUSTek Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International Pretrial Deadlines: Event Date Last Day to Meet and Confer re: settlement, 1/7/2020 joint pretrial filings, and narrowing issues for trial Exhibit Sets Exchange (Each party serves every 1/7/2020 other party one set of proposed exhibits, charts, schedules, summaries, diagrams, and other documents to be used in case-in-chief (not including demonstratives) Witness List Exchange (names and brief 1/7/2020 description of subject matter of testimony – casein-chief only) Deposition/Interrogatory/RFA Designation Exchange (case-in-chief only) Motions in Limine 1/14/2020 File Joint Pretrial Statement, Jury Instructions, 1/21/2020 voir dire questions, verdict forms, statement of case, trial briefs, and oppositions to Motion in Limine Final Pretrial Conference 2/11/2020 at 3:00PM Lastly, should the stipulating parties fail to submit a stipulated dismissal of the claims at issue within thirty (30) calendar days from the date of entry of the Court’s order below counsel will meet and confer and approach the Court jointly for guidance at that time, if needed.

2 Chris Holland (SBN 164053) /s/ Michael P. Sandonato Lori L. Holland (SBN 202309) Michael P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) HOLLAND LAW LLP John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) Montgomery Street, Suite 800 Christopher M. Gerson (admitted pro hac vice) San Francisco, CA 94104 Natalie D. Lieber (admitted pro hac vice) Telephone: (415) 200-4980 Jason M. Dorsky (admitted pro hac vice) Fax: (415) 200-4989 Stephen K. Yam (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] Jonathan M. Sharret (admitted pro hac vice) [email protected] Joshua D. Calabro admitted pro hac vice) Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) 7 Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) 8 Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 9 VENABLE LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas 10 New York, New York, 10104 +1 (212) 218-2100 11 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips 13 N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation /s/ Christina McCullough Judith Jennison (Bar No. 165929) Tiffany P. Cunningham (pro hac vice) Christina McCullough (Bar No. 245944) PERKINS COIE LLP Ramsey M. Al-Salam (Bar No. 109506) 131 South Dearborn, Suite 1700 Antoine McNamara (Bar No. 261980) Chicago, Illinois, 60603 Theresa H. Nguyen (Bar No. 284581) +1 (312) 324-8400 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (312) 324-9400 facsimile 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, Washington, 98101 Sarah E. Fowler (Bar No. 264838) +1 (206) 359-8000 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile 3150 Porter Drive [email protected] Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 (650) 838-4300 Chad Campbell (Bar No. 258723) +1 (650) 838-4350 PERKINS COIE LLP 2901 North Central Avenue, Suite 2000 Patrick McKeever Phoenix, Arizona, 85012 PERKINS COIE LLP +1 (602) 351-8000 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 +1 (602) 648-7000 facsimile San Diego, California, 92130-2080 +1 (858) 720-5722 26 +1 (858) 720-5822 facsimile Attorneys for Intervenor-Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendants-in-Intervention Microsoft Corp. and Microsoft Mobile, Inc. CIVIL L.R. 5-1(i) ATTESTATION 3 I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed above to execute and file this document on their behalf.

Dated: January 2, 2020 /s/ Chris Holland Chris Holland 1 ORDER | GOOD CAUSE APPEARING AND PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/3/2020 Aleywrd 5 Sdbl |p. 4 DATED: _1/3/2020 AA).

Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 5 United States District Judge STIPULATION AND ORDER REQUESTING THAT THE COURT STAY CERTAIN PENDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DAUBERT MOTIONS AND VACATE PRETRIAL DEADLINES