Free Motion to Stay - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 30.3 kB
Pages: 5
Date: February 19, 2008
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 733 Words, 4,848 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/39501/11.pdf

Download Motion to Stay - District Court of Delaware ( 30.3 kB)


Preview Motion to Stay - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 11

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 5

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' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A MANDATORY STAY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Defendants Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Sharp"), move for a stay of plaintiff's claims and defendants' related declaratory judgment counterclaims in this action pending disposition of related proceedings before the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC"), In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-631. Counsel for Sharp has conferred with counsel for Samsung, and Samsung does not oppose this motion to stay. Sharp requests a stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) because the pending ITC investigation involves the same patents and the same issues that are asserted in the complaint and in the declaratory judgment counterclaims in this action. Sharp's grounds for the stay are set forth more fully in its Opening Brief filed herewith. C.A. No. 07-843-SLR

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 11

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 2 of 5

In requesting a stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), Sharp expressly reserves 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. 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
1602114

2

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 11

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 3 of 5

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. ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION Upon consideration of the unopposed motion by Defendants Sharp Corporation, Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing Company of America, Inc. pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), and good cause being shown, it is this ____ day of February, 2008, hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Unopposed Motion for a Mandatory Stay is GRANTED, and it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims and defendants' declaratory judgment counterclaims (Counterclaims One through Four) in the above-captioned action are stayed pending disposition of a related proceedings, In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing the Same, USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-631, before the United States International Trade Commission ("ITC"), and that the parties shall notify this Court when the ITC's determination becomes final, and it is C.A. No. 07-843-SLR

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 11

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 4 of 5

FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants have not waived any of their objections and defenses based on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. So Ordered. ____________________________________ United States District Judge

2

Case 1:07-cv-00843-SLR

Document 11

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 5 of 5

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]