UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Similar documents
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TEXARKANA DIVISION

Case 5:08-cv JW Document 49 Filed 02/05/2009 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 04/25/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 2:05-cv TJW Document 212 Filed 12/21/2005 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 03/04/16 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 2:15-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 07/08/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 2:08-cv DF-CE Document 1 Filed 03/04/2008 Page 1 of 8

Case 2:09-cv CE Document 1 Filed 12/22/09 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv JRG-RSP Document 123 Filed 03/09/17 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 842

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

Case 1:18-cv LY Document 43 Filed 09/17/18 Page 1 of 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 2:18-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 04/24/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 1

CAUSE NO CV. JAMES FREDRICK MILES, IN THE 87 th DISTRICT COURT DEFENDANT TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD & INFRASTRUCTURE, INC. S

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 12/10/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 4:05-cv Y Document 86 Filed 04/30/07 Page 1 of 7 PageID 789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:12-cv JRG Document 403 Filed 08/15/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 17492

Case3:12-cv VC Document70 Filed06/23/15 Page1 of 3

Case dml11 Doc 6977 Filed 03/13/12 Entered 03/13/12 15:13:05 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 5

Case 2:14-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 09/12/14 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Case 1:16-cv SS Document 85 Filed 07/28/16 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 03/15/13 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1

PlainSite. Legal Document. Texas Northern District Court Case No. 3:11-cv Greene et al v. Toyota Motor Corporation et al.

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 07/01/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 14 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/01/2017

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

shl Doc 36 Filed 05/15/12 Entered 05/15/12 17:26:47 Main Document Pg 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S REPLY TO THE COUNTERCLAIMS OF GOOGLE INC.

Case 2:13-cv Document 429 Filed in TXSD on 07/22/14 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI DIVISON

Case rfn Doc 19 Filed 07/15/16 Entered 07/15/16 14:42:41 Page 1 of 5

Case 6:08-cv Document 1 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 1 of 5 COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-cv-50

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

PlainSite. Legal Document

The parties to this case, through their respective counsel, have conferred by regarding

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Case No. 5:07-CV-231

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Case Document 735 Filed in TXSB on 05/28/18 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN RE JOHN DOES 1 AND 2, RELATORS. From the Ninth Court of Appeals, Beaumont, Texas No.

Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff.

CAUSE NO. D-1-GN NON-PARTY TEXAS LOTTERY COMMISSION S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH SUBPOENA

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, Counterclaim-Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the undersigned

Case 2:14-cv Document 1 Filed 10/10/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 3:05-cv Document 22 Filed 06/09/2006 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION. Case No. 3:13-cv N

NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT

Case bjh Doc 109 Filed 05/02/17 Entered 05/02/17 14:28:07 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:10-cv GMS Document 1-3 Filed 06/21/10 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 71 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 2:14-cv JRG Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. Before the Honorable David P. Shaw Administrative Law Judge ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

, ParkerVision, Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1294 v.

Case 1:15-cv RWS Document 1 Filed 05/30/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

CASE NOS , -1307, -1309, -1310, IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

Case Document 496 Filed in TXSB on 04/04/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION. vs. CAUSE NO. IP T/L

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. versus Civil Action 4:17 cv 02946

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case5:12-cv HRL Document9 Filed08/09/12 Page1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) )

Case 2:13-cv RAJ Document 1 Filed 08/30/10 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 4:15-cr Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 01/05/16 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Courthouse News Service

Case Document 431 Filed in TXSB on 10/06/17 Page 1 of 7

Case 2:12-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN GREEN BAY DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 2:13-cv JRG-RSP Document 12 Filed 07/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 104

Case 6:18-cv ADA Document 26 Filed 01/11/19 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CIVIL CASE NO.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

Case 2:13-cv JRG Document 18 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 105

Case 4:14-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 09/08/14 Page 1 of 6

Order: Stipulated (Between Defendant KONE Inc. and Plaintiff) Motion for a Continuance of Trial (also filed on behalf of Plaintiff)

Case CSS Doc 783 Filed 09/07/18 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Case 3:13-cv M Document 60 Filed 12/19/14 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1778

Case 4:12-cv RC-DDB Document 66 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 741

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (BEAUMONT DIVISION) vs. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:07CV0295

Transcription:

Case 2:08-cv-00247-TJW Document 19 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WI-LAN, INC., v. Plaintiff, RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD., MOTOROLA, INC., AND UTSTARCOM, INC. Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-247-TJW JURY TRIAL REQUESTED UNOPPOSED STIPULATED MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(2) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. ( LGE ), its subsidiary in the United States who is also named in the suit, LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. ( LGEMU ), and Plaintiff Wi-LAN Inc. ( Plaintiff ) stipulate and jointly move to dismiss Plaintiff s complaint against LGE without prejudice to reinstate and with no award of fees or costs, based on the following: 1. LGE has represented to Plaintiff that it does not manufacture or sell in the United States the products identified in Plaintiff s complaint, except, as the case may be, through a wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary which remains a named defendant in this action (LGEMU). To the extent it is determined that LGE has manufactured or sold, or imported, offered for sale, or used, in the United States such products, any such acts will be treated for purposes of this litigation as if they had been conducted by LGEMU. Plaintiff s communications with LGE regarding any of the patents-in-suit will be treated for purposes of this litigation as also with

Case 2:08-cv-00247-TJW Document 19 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 2 of 5 LGEMU, and LGEMU can rely on or take any positions and actions that had been or could have been taken by LGE. 2. For the purposes of discovery in this matter, upon entry of an order of dismissal, information and documents in the possession, custody, or control of LGE will be deemed in the possession, custody, or control of LGEMU, but only to the extent they may be relevant to this litigation, Plaintiff issues a request for them to LGEMU, including by letter, and they are not otherwise available from LGEMU. Plaintiff and LGE agree to meet and confer in good faith to resolve any objections consistent with the above agreement, including without limitation objections to the nature or scope of any requests for information. 3. Plaintiff agrees that any depositions of LGE s officers or employees residing outside the United States, including personal and corporate depositions pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(b)(1) or 30(b)(6), respectively, will occur at LGE s request in the deponent s country of residence if voluntary depositions are permitted under the law of the country in which they reside or in the nearest geographical location if voluntary depositions are not permitted in the country in which those officers or employees reside, but that Plaintiff shall not be restricted to the use of U.S. consular premises or consular officers for certification unless required by law of the country in which the deposition is to take place. If the law of the country where the deposition would take place requires the deposition to be conducted within U.S. consular premises or by a U.S. consular officer, Plaintiff will use reasonable efforts to ensure that such consular premises or consular officer is available during the Court s discovery period. If, despite Plaintiff s reasonable efforts, no such consular premises or consular officer is reasonably available during the Court s discovery period, then LGE shall, to the extent reasonable, make the deponent available in a country of its choosing in which there is no restriction on the location of

Case 2:08-cv-00247-TJW Document 19 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 3 of 5 depositions. The parties to this Stipulation further agree to waive any objection to a stenographer, provided the stenographer is authorized either under the law of the country in which the deposition is taken or is a notary public in one of the states, territories, or District of Columbia, of the United States. The parties agree to negotiate in good faith over the specific location and timing for any such deposition. A proposed Order granting this Stipulated Motion is attached for the Court s convenience. DATED: October 2, 2008 Respectfully submitted, MCKOOL SMITH, P.C. /s/ Sam Baxter Sam Baxter Lead Attorney Texas State Bar No. 01938000 sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com 104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300 P.O. Box O Marshall, Texas 75670 Telephone: (903) 923-9000 Facsimile: (903) 923-9099 Jason Blackstone Texas State Bar No. 24036227 jblackstone@mckoolsmith.com 300 Crescent Court, Suite 1500 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: (214) 978-4000 Facsimile: (214) 978-4044 John B. Campbell Texas State Bar No. 24036314 jcampbell@mckoolsmith.com Seth Hasenour Texas State Bar No. 24059910 shasenour@mckoolsmith.com Gretchen K. Harting Texas State Bar No. 24055979 gharting@mckoolsmith.com

Case 2:08-cv-00247-TJW Document 19 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 4 of 5 300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700 Austin, Texas 78701 Telephone: (512) 692-8700 Facsimile: (512) 692-8744 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF WI- LAN, INC. /s/ Gene W. Lee (with permission) Gene W. Lee Gene.Lee@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 Telephone: (212) 596-9053 Facsimile (646) 728-2562 William J. McCabe william.mccabe@ropesgray.com ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036-8704 Telephone: (212) 596-9018 Facsimile (646) 728-2673 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM U.S.A., INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS, INC.

Case 2:08-cv-00247-TJW Document 19 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion was electronically filed in compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) and served upon all counsel of record on October 2, 2008. /s/ Sam Baxter Sam Baxter CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I met and conferred with counsel for counsel for LGEMU, who are unopposed to the relief sought in this Motion. /s/ Sam Baxter Sam Baxter

Case 2:08-cv-00247-TJW Document 19-2 Filed 10/02/2008 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION WI-LAN, INC., v. Plaintiff, RESEARCH IN MOTION CORPORATION, RESEARCH IN MOTION LTD., MOTOROLA, INC., AND UTSTARCOM, INC. Defendants. Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-247-TJW JURY TRIAL REQUESTED ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 41(a)(2) Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. ( LGE ), its subsidiary in the United States who is also named in the suit, LG Electronics Mobilecomm U.S.A., Inc. ( LGEMU ), and Plaintiff Wi-LAN Inc.. ( Plaintiff ) have jointly moved to dismiss Plaintiff s complaint against LGE without prejudice to reinstate and with no award of fees or costs in accordance with the representations and stipulations set forth in their motion. The Court, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), having considered the parties requests, is of the opinion that the request for dismissal should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff s Second Amended Complaint against LGE is dismissed in accordance with the representations and stipulations set forth in the stipulated motion, without prejudice to reinstate and without an award of fees or costs. Austin 46400v1