Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS, CO. LTD., Plaintiff, v. SHARP CORPORATION, SHARP ELECTRONICS CORPORATION, and SHARP ELECTRONICS MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Defendants. DEFENDANTS' OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A MANDATORY STAY OF COUNSEL: Alan Cope Johnston G. Brian Busey MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20006-1888 (202) 887-8756 Barry E. Bretschneider Michael E. Anderson MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 400 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 760-7743 Updeep S. Gill Joseph A. Rhoa NIXON & VANDERHYE 901 North Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 816-4000 February 19, 2008 MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America C.A. No. 07-843-SLR

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 2 of 8

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 1 I. SHARP IS ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY STAY UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)..... 1

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 3

i

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 3 of 8

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES In re: Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................2

ii

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 4 of 8

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Defendants Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Sharp") respectfully request that the Court stay plaintiff's claims and Sharp's related declaratory judgment counterclaims in this action pending disposition of related proceedings, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-631, concurrently initiated before the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC" or "Commission") under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930.1 That parallel proceeding involves the same parties, the same patents and the same issues, and counsel for plaintiff has indicated that plaintiff does not oppose this motion for a stay. ARGUMENT I. SHARP IS ENTITLED TO A MANDATORY STAY UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) Federal law provides for a mandatory stay of related civil actions that involve the same parties and the same issues pending final disposition of related proceedings before the ITC: In a civil action involving parties that are also parties to a proceeding before the United States International Trade Commission under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, at the request of a party to the civil action that is also a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, the district court shall stay,
1

_______________________ On January 30, 2008, Sharp Corporation filed a separate complaint with the ITC entitled In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-___ (docket no. 2594) ("Sharp ITC Action) alleging that Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. are infringing Sharp's U.S. Patent Nos. 6,879,364, 6,952,192, 7,304,703 and 7,304,626. The Sharp ITC Action involves the same four Sharp patents that are asserted in Sharp's First through Fourth Infringement Counterclaims in this action. The ITC has not yet voted on institution of the Sharp ITC Action, and Sharp's First through Fourth Infringement Counterclaims are not subject to this motion for mandatory stay.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 5 of 8

until the determination of the Commission becomes final, proceedings in the civil action with respect to any claim that involves the same issues involved in the proceeding before the Commission, but only if such request is made within-(1) 30 days after the party is named as a respondent in the proceeding before the Commission, or (2) 30 days after the district court action is filed, whichever is later. 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). Thus, this section requires a stay of district court proceedings until the ITC proceedings involving the same issues are no longer subject to judicial review. See In re: Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Sharp's request for a stay satisfies 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). The complaint and Sharp's declaratory judgment counterclaims in this action involve the same parties and the same patents as the proceeding before the ITC. The plaintiff in this Court, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ("Samsung") is also the complainant before the ITC; and the defendants in this Court, the three Sharp entities, are also the respondents in the proceeding before the ITC. See

Commission's Notice of Investigation, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-631, published in the Federal Register on January 25, 2008 (attached as Ex. 1). The pending ITC investigation involves allegations that Sharp has infringed certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,193,666 (the "`666 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 6,771,344 (the "`344 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 7,295,196 (the "`196 patent"), and U.S. Patent No. 6,937,311 (the "`311 patent"). Claims of the `666 patent, the `344 patent, the `196 patent, and the `311 patent are also asserted to be infringed by Sharp in the complaint in this parallel action. Sharp's request for a stay is timely. Based on the complaint filed by Samsung on December 21, 2007, the ITC instituted an investigation and formally named Sharp as a respondent by publishing its Notice of Investigation in the Federal Register on January 25, 2008.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 6 of 8

See 19 C.F.R. § 210.3 (defining respondent as any "person named in a notice of investigation"). Thus, the thirty day period under § 1659(a)(1) began to run on January 25, 2008, and ends on February 25, 2008. Sharp filed this request for a stay in a timely fashion under § 1659(a)(1). This Court should immediately stay plaintiff's claims and four of Sharp's declaratory judgment counterclaims (Counterclaims One through Four in Sharp's Amended Answer and Counterclaims filed February 8, 2008, D.I. 10) in this action as they involve the same issues involved in the proceeding before the ITC, namely the infringement, validity, and enforceability of claims of the `666, `344, `196, and `311 patents, as well as any defenses that might be raised to such claims. See Ex. 1. When the determination of the ITC in the parallel proceeding becomes final, the parties can request that the Court lift the stay in this action. In requesting a stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Sharp expressly reserves any and all of its objections and defenses, including, but not limited to, any defenses based on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Sharp's motion for a stay should be granted and plaintiff's claims and Sharp's declaratory judgment counterclaims in this action should be stayed.

3

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 7 of 8

MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
_________________________________________ Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America OF COUNSEL: Alan Cope Johnston G. Brian Busey MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 5500 Washington, DC 20006-1888 (202) 887-8756 Barry E. Bretschneider Michael E. Anderson MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 1650 Tysons Boulevard, Suite 400 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 760-7743 Updeep S. Gill Joseph A. Rhoa NIXON & VANDERHYE 901 North Glebe Road Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 816-4000 February 19, 2008
1602170

4

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rodger D. Smith II, hereby certify that on February 19, 2008, I caused the foregoing to be electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send notification of such filing to: William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire FISH & RICHARDSON PC I also certify that copies were caused to be served on February 19, 2008, upon the following in the manner indicated: BY HAND & E-MAIL William J. Marsden, Jr., Esquire Raymond N. Scott, Jr., Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 919 N. Market Street, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 1114 Wilmington, DE 19899-1114 BY E-MAIL Ruffin B. Cordell, Esquire Joseph Colaianni, Esquire Fish & Richardson P.C. 1425 K Street, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

/s/ Rodger D. Smith II
Rodger D. Smith II (#3778) [email protected]

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 2 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 3 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 4 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 5 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 6 of 7

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 12-2

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 7 of 7