The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Edward M. Chen United States District Judge
Ronald L. Yin (Bar No. 063266) Alan H. Blankenheimer firstname.lastname@example.org (Bar No. 218713) Michael G. Schwartz (Bar No. 197010) E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Jo Dale Carothers (Bar No. 228703) Erik R. Fuehrer (Bar No. 252578) E-mail: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Christopher J. Longman (Bar No. 234473) DLA Piper LLP (US) E-mail: email@example.com 2000 University Avenue Covington & Burling LLP East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214 9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th Floor Tel: 650.833.2000 San Diego, CA 92122-1225 Fax: 650.833.2001 Tel: 858.678.1800 Fax: 858.678.1600 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff Greenliant Systems, Inc. Silicon Storage Technology, Inc Kimberly P. Zapata (Bar No. 138291) firstname.lastname@example.org Beck, Ross, Bismonte & Finley LLP 50 W. San Fernando Street, Suite 1300 San Jose, CA 95113 Tel: (408) 938-7900 Fax: (408) 938-0790 Attorneys for Defendant Xicor LLC
STIPULATION TO ALLOW SILICON STORAGE
TO INTERVENE POST JUDGMENT
TO PARTICIPATE IN APPEAL
[Civil Local Rule 7-12]
Pursuant to Local Rule 7-12 of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Plaintiff Greenliant Systems, Inc. ("Greenliant"), Defendant Xicor LLC ("Xicor"), and Silicon Storage Technologies ("SST") stipulate that SST may intervene in this action post- judgment in order to allow SST to participate in Xicor's anticipated appeal of a judgment entered in favor of Greenliant.
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2011, Xicor and Greenliant stipulated that Judge Patel's March 21, 2011 Order in Silicon Storage Technology, Inc. v. Xicor LLC, No. CV 10-1515, which held that claims 12 and 13 of U.S. Patent RE38,370 patent were invalid under the rule against recapture (the "March 21 Order"), applies in this case.
WHEREAS, on June 6, 2011, Xicor and Greenliant also stipulated that the Court may proceed to enter final judgment in this case.
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2011, SST filed its Revised Notice of Motion and Motion to Intervene ("Motion to Intervene").
WHEREAS, although not conceding the propriety of intervention by SST as a matter of right, Xicor does not oppose SST permissively intervening in this action post-judgment and participating in any appeal from a judgment in this case, provided that SST's Motion to Intervene does not delay entry of judgment in this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE STIPULATED BY AND AMONG THE PARTIES THROUGH THEIR RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AS FOLLOWS:
The Court should proceed to enter final judgment in this case pursuant to the Stipulation filed on June 6, 2011 (Dkt. No. 22).
Immediately following entry of a judgment, the Court should allow SST to permissively intervene in this case post-judgment for the limited purpose of participating in Xicor's anticipated appeal of the March 21 Order.
The parties respectfully request that this Court not enter final judgment until such time as the Court is prepared immediately thereafter to permit ...