In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 OAKLAND DIVISION

9 IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG-EDL LITIGATION 10 STIPULATED AND UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY 11 DISMISSAL; [PROPOSED] ORDER

2 Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) have entered into a confidential settlement agreement resolving all claims between them in this action (“the Philips/HTC Claims”).

6 Therefore, Philips and HTC jointly file this motion under Civil L.R. 7-12 asking the Court to enter the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith, which dismisses the Philips/HTC Claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) (“Rule 41(a)(2)”) under the terms set forth in that Stipulation of Dismissal.

10 Of note, counsel for Philips has met and conferred with counsel for the remaining parties to this action, namely, ASUS Computer International and ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (collectively, “ASUS”), regarding this motion. ASUS has indicated it will not oppose this motion.

13 BRIEF PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 14 Philips initially filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware (1:15-cv- 1126-GMS), asserting, among other things, that certain of HTC’s smartphones and tablet computers include hardware and/or software containing functionality covered by one more claims of the patents-in-suit. On March 27, 2018, this action and related actions involving various other defendants (Defendants Acer Inc. and Acer America Corporation, ASUS, Visual Land Inc., YiFang USA Inc. d/b/a/ E-Fun, Inc., and Intervenor/Counterclaim-Defendant Microsoft Corporation and Counterclaim-Defendant Microsoft Mobile Inc.) were transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware, and all of these cases were consolidated under the above-captioned case. HTC and ASUS are the only remaining Defendants in this action, as Philips and the other defendants have since dismissed their claims.

24 As indicated, with the present motion, Philips and HTC jointly move the Court to dismiss all of the Philips/HTC Claims under the terms of the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal in view of their confidential settlement agreement. However, this motion does not seek any relief with respect to the pending claims between Philips and ASUS.

2 Under Rule 41(a)(2), after an opposing party has served an answer or motion for summary judgment, “an action may be dismissed at the plaintiff’s request only by court order, on terms that the court considers proper.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2). Moreover, a “plaintiff may invoke Rule 41(a) to dismiss fewer than all of the parties to an action.” Schaeffer v. Gregory Vill. Partners, L.P., 2016 6 WL 9185388, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2016) (citing Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pac. Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 726 (9th Cir. 1991)).

8 The decision to grant or deny a request to dismiss pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) is within this Court’s sound discretion. Id. (citing Sams v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 625 F.2d 273, 277 (9th Cir. 1980)). However, “[a] district court should grant a motion for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2) unless a defendant can show that it will suffer some plain legal prejudice as a result.” Id. (quoting Smith v. Lenches, 263 F.3d 972, 975 (9th Cir. 2001)). Legal prejudice means “prejudice to some legal interest, some legal claim, [or] some legal argument.” Id. (quoting Westlands Water Dist. v. United States, 100 F.3d 94, 97 (9th Cir. 1996)).

15 Here, ASUS has indicated that it does not oppose this motion. Moreover, via this Stipulated and Unopposed Motion, Philips and HTC do not ask the Court to take any action with respect to any of the claims pending between Philips and ASUS. As a result, ASUS will suffer no legal prejudice as a result of the dismissal of the Philips/HTC Claims.

19 CONCLUSION 20 For these reasons, the parties respectively request that the Court grant this motion and enter the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal filed herewith as the order of this Court.

Dated: July 10, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 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) 8 Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) 9 Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) 10 VENABLE LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas 11 New York, New York, 10104 +1 (212) 218-2100 12 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips 14 N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation /s/ Ryan McBrayer Ryan McBrayer (pro hac vice) John P. Schnurer (Cal. Bar No. 185725) Jonathan Putman (pro hac vice) Kevin Patariu (Cal. Bar No. 256755) PERKINS COIE LLP James Hurt (Cal. Bar No. 312390) 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 PERKINS COIE LLP Seattle, Washington, 98101 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 +1 (206) 359-8000 San Diego, California, 92130 +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile +1 (858) 720-5700 [email protected] +1 (858) 720-5799 facsimile 22 [email protected] 23 Elizabeth Banzhoff (pro hac vice) PERKINS COIE LLP 1900 16th Street, Suite 1400 25 Denver, Colorado 80202 +1 (303) 291-2397 26 + 1 (303) 291-2497 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties, Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”), subject to the approval of the Court, that: 1. All claims asserted by Philips against HTC in this action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2); 2. All claims asserted by HTC against Philips in this action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2); and 3. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: July 10, 2020 12 Respectfully submitted, Chris Holland (SBN 164053) /s/ Michael P. Sandonato Lori Holland (SBN 202309) Michael P. Sandonato (admitted pro hac vice) HOLLAND LAW LLP John D. Carlin (admitted pro hac vice) 220 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) 18 Daniel A. Apgar (admitted pro hac vice) Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) 19 Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) VENABLE LLP 21 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York, 10104 22 +1 (212) 218-2100 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile 23 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips 25 N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation /s/ Ryan McBrayer Ryan McBrayer (pro hac vice) John P. Schnurer (Cal. Bar No. 185725) Jonathan Putman (pro hac vice) Kevin Patariu (Cal. Bar No. 256755) PERKINS COIE LLP James Hurt (Cal. Bar No. 312390) 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 PERKINS COIE LLP Seattle, Washington, 98101 11452 El Camino Real, Suite 300 +1 (206) 359-8000 San Diego, California, 92130 +1 (206) 359-9000 facsimile +1 (858) 720-5700 [email protected] +1 (858) 720-5799 facsimile [email protected] 8 Elizabeth Banzhoff (pro hac vice) PERKINS COIE LLP 9 1900 16th Street, Suite 1400 Denver, Colorado 80202 +1 (303) 291-2397 11 + 1 (303) 291-2497 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. 2 I, Chris Holland, hereby attest that I have been authorized by counsel for the parties listed above to execute this document on their behalf.

Dated: July 10, 2020 /s/ Chris Holland Chris Holland 1 {PROPOSED} ORDER 2 The Court has now considered Plaintiffs Koninklike Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips | Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc.’s | (collectively, “HTC”) Stipulated and Unopposed Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (“the Motion”).

5 | Having considered the moving papers before it and being fully advised, the Court finds and orders | as follows: 7 The Motion is GRANTED in its entirety. The Stipulation of Dismissal filed with the | Motion is entered as the Order of this Court, and all claims asserted by Philips against HTC or by | HTC against Philips in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED pursuant to the terms of that || stipulation.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 DATED: _ 7/14/2020 7 Hapurred 4. Md, _} □ Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. 414 United States District Judge