United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2021

In re Koninklijke Philips Patent Litigation

United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided March 29, 2021

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OAKLAND DIVISION IN RE KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS PATENT Case No. 4:18-cv-01885-HSG LITIGATION STIPULATED MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL; ORDER

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

Therefore, Philips and ASUS 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/ASUS 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.

BRIEF PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Philips initially filed this patent infringement action in the District of Delaware (1:15-cv- 1126-GMS), asserting, among other things, that certain of ASUS’s computing devices include hardware and/or software containing functionality covered by one more claims of the patents-in-suit.

Related actions were contemporaneously filed by Philips against other parties including, for example, HTC Corp. and HTC America, Inc. (“Related Actions”).

Subsequently, Microsoft filed a Complaint in Intervention in the ASUS action (and other Related Actions) as the supplier of the operating system incorporated into some of ASUS’s accused products. In their collective pleadings, Microsoft asserted against Philips counterclaims of non- infringement under the Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201(a) and 2202, and Philips asserted against Microsoft claims of direct and indirect infringement. Dkt. Nos. 74, 86, 93, 154.

On March 27, 2018, this action and the Related Actions were transferred to this Court from the District of Delaware, and all of these cases were consolidated under the above-captioned case.

As indicated, with the present motion, Philips and ASUS jointly move the Court to dismiss all of the Philips/ASUS Claims under the terms of the parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal in view of their confidential settlement agreement.

DISCUSSION 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)).

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)).

ASUS is the only remaining defendant in this litigation and joins this motion. As a result, no prejudice will be suffered by any defendant.

CONCLUSION 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.

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 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) Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) VENABLE LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York, 10104 +1 (212) 218-2100 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation

/s/Michael J. Newton Bruce Genderson (pro hac vice) Michael J. Newton (Bar No. 156225) Kevin Hardy (pro hac vice) ALSTON & BIRD LLP Aaron Maurer (pro hac vice) 2828 North Harwood Street, Suite 1800 David Krinsky (pro hac vice) Dallas, Texas, 75201 WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP +1 (214) 922-3400 Twelfth Street, N.W. +1 (214) 922-3899 facsimile Washington, District of Columbia, 20005 [email protected] +1 (202) 434-5000 +1 (202) 434-5029 facsimile [email protected] Matthew S. Warren (Bar No. 230565) Erika H. Warren (Bar No. 230565) WARREN LEX LLP 2261 Market Street, No. 606 San Francisco, California, 94110 +1 (415) 895-2940 +1 (415) 895-2964 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants ASUSTeK Computer Inc. and ASUS Computer International

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 Asustek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”), subject to the approval of the Court, that: 1. All claims asserted by Philips against ASUS in this action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

2. All claims asserted by ASUS against Philips in this action are dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

3. Each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: March 26, 2021 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 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) Sean M. McCarthy (admitted pro hac vice) Robert S. Pickens (admitted pro hac vice) Caitlyn N. Bingaman (admitted pro hac vice) VENABLE LLP 1290 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York, 10104 +1 (212) 218-2100 +1 (212) 218-2200 facsimile [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation

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: March 26, 2021 /s/ Chris Holland Chris Holland

ORDER The Court has now considered Plaintiffs Koninklijke Philips N.V. and U.S. Philips Corporation (collectively, “Philips”) and Defendants Asustek Computer, Inc. and ASUS Computer International (collectively, “ASUS”) Stipulated Motion for Voluntary Dismissal (“the Motion’’).

Having considered the moving papers before it and being fully advised, the Court finds and orders as follows: 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 ASUS or by ASUS against Philips in the above-captioned case are DISMISSED pursuant to the terms of that stipulation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

43 | DATED: 3/29/2021 Maser 5 Mbl_|. n. Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. United States District Judge

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.