Free Proposed Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00016-JJF Document 237 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT .
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE p
NOKIA CORPORATION and ) I
NOKIA, INC., ) Q
Plaintiffs, I
v. I C.A. No. 05-16-JJF
INTERDIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS I
CORPORATION and IN TERDIGITAL )
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, )
Defendants. I c
ORDER DENYING NOKIA’S MOTION FOR MANDATORY STAY
ANI) GRANTING CONDITIONAL DISCRETIONARY STAY
This Court, having considered Plaintiffs Nokia Corporation and Nokia Incfs Motion for
Mandatory Stay Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 165 9(a), any responses and replies thereto, any exhibits
and appendices filed in connection with said pleadings, and any arguments of counsel, orders
that Piaintiffs’ Motion for Mandatory Stay Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § i659(a) is HEREBY
DENIED.
It is further ORDERED that the request for a discretionary stay ofthe above—captioned
action is hereby GRANTED, snhj ect to the foilowing provisions:
1. This actionis stayed in its entirety pending a full and final resolution ofthe
_ International Trade Commission investigation, captioned In re Certain 3G
Mobile Handsets and Components T/rereojf Inv. No. 337·—TA—613, including any
initial and final determinations ofthe Administrative Law Judge, the
International Trade Commission, and any appeals therefrom (the "Stay Period”).

Case 1 :05-cv-00016-JJF Document 237 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
2. During the Stay Period, the parties shall not initiate any new actions asserting the
same claims or Similar Claims to the claims asserted in the present action. Z
a. For purposes of this order, “Similar Claims" includes:
i. any claims involving the same causes of action (e. g., Lanham Act I -
claims) as are alleged inthe present suit, but based on similar but _
not identical factual allegations (e.g., alleged false or misleading
statements ofthe same nature as those currently at issue in this
l action); and
ii. any claims based on the same factual allegations (e.g., the parties’ E
allegedly actionable ETSI declarations), but brought under g
different legal theories (e. g., unfair competition laws from states g
other than those included in the parties’ claims and counterclaims).
3. During the Stay Period, should either party institute a new action in any forum
involving the same or Simi-lar Claims, the other party may (i) seek to stay the
new action pursuant to this Court’s Order, and/or (ii) seek the automatic
dissolution ofthe stay in this action.
4. During the Stay Period, the parties also agree to stay the prosecution of the
International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration
(Arbitration N0.: I4 685/EBS).
5. Following the expiration of the Stay Period, the parties shall confer with the
Special Master and the Court for purposes of entry of a revised Schedaling _
Order and Case Management Order setting forth new dates for all deadlines
remaining at the time the stay was entered. With the exception ofthe dates, the
following shall be given the same effect that they had prior to the entry of the
stay: (a) all Orders by the Court or the Special Master issued prior to the stay,
2

Case 1 :05-cv-00016-JJF Document 237 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
including any discovery or case management orders (eg., the First Amended f
Case Management Order and the order appointing Special Master Seitz); and (b) ·
the parties’ statements and selections made pursuant to any discovery or case
management order, including the selections of Representative Patents and
Selected License Targets pursuant to the First Amended Case Management
Order.
SO ORDERED, this day of , 2007. -
` United States District Judge
828651 J 28840
3