Free Answer to to CrossClaim - District Court of California - California

Case 5:08-cv-00721-JW

Document 31

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 1 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Baker & McKenzie LLP 660 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 650 856 2400

Tod L. Gamlen, State Bar No. 83458 Keith L. Wurster, State Bar No. 198918 Jerry Salcido, State Bar No. 233282 BAKER & McKENZIE LLP 660 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304-1044 Telephone: +1 650 856 2400 Facsimile: +1 650 856 9299 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Petitioner MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC., Petitioner, v. MASTER CHIPS BVBA, Respondent. CIVIL ACTION Case No. 08 00721-JW MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.'S ANSWER TO CROSSPETITION Date: Time: Dept.: June 2, 2008 9:00 a.m. The Hon. James Ware, Courtroom 8, 4th Floor

Petitioner Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. ("Maxim") submits this Answer to the CrossPetition to Confirm Arbitration Award ("Cross-Petition") of Master Chips BVBA ("Master Chips"). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not specifically address whether any responsive pleading to a "cross-petition" is required; and, therefore, out of an abundance of caution Maxim is filing this Answer. In doing so Maxim is not waiving any rights or argument that such a responsive pleading is not required in this matter. Maxim denies that Master Chips is entitled to an order confirming, recognizing or otherwise enforcing the arbitration award issued on November 9, 2007 by the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (Case No. 14123/RHR/JHN) ("November 9 Award") for the reasons set forth in Maxim's Petition to Vacate Arbitration Award filed on January 31, 2008 1
Case No. 08 00721-JW MAXIM'S ANSWER TO CROSS-PETITION PALDMS/367618.1

Case 5:08-cv-00721-JW

Document 31

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Baker & McKenzie LLP 660 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 650 856 2400

("the Maxim Petition"). Responding further, and as defenses to the Cross-Petition, Maxim alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Maxim alleges that Master Chips has waived the right to seek confirmation of the November 9 Award at this time. On March 17, 2008 Master Chips stipulated and agreed that it would take no steps to enforce the November 9 Award until after the Court has ruled on the Maxim Petition, and such stipulation was entered as an order of the Court. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Cross-Petition is barred under the doctrine of estoppel. On March 17, 2008 Master Chips stipulated and agreed that it would take no steps to enforce the November 9 Award until after the Court has ruled on the Maxim Petition, and such stipulation was entered as an order of the Court. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE The Court should refuse recognition, confirmation and enforcement of the November 9 Award on the grounds that Maxim timely filed the Maxim Petition to set aside the November 9 Award. The basis for vacating such award is set forth in the Maxim Petition and the other papers filed by Maxim in support of such petition, and include (but are not limited to) the following--the November 9 Award was procured by undue means; the arbitrator was guilty of misconduct in refusing to postpone the arbitration and in refusing to hear evidence pertinent and material to the controversy; and, the arbitrator engaged in other misbehavior by which Maxim's rights were prejudiced. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Recognition, confirmation and enforcement of the November 9 Award should be refused on the grounds that Maxim was unable to present its case in such arbitration as set forth in the Maxim Petition and other papers filed by Maxim in support of such petition. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Recognition, confirmation and enforcement of the November 9 Award should be refused on the grounds that the arbitration procedures followed by the arbitrator was not in accordance with the agreement of the parties or the laws of the United States, which is where the arbitration took place. 2
Case No. 08 00721-JW MAXIM'S ANSWER TO CROSS-PETITION PALDMS/367618.1

Case 5:08-cv-00721-JW

Document 31

Filed 05/23/2008

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Baker & McKenzie LLP 660 Hansen Way Palo Alto, CA 94304 +1 650 856 2400

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE Recognition, confirmation and enforcement of the November 9 Award should be refused on the grounds that confirmation, recognition or enforcement of it would be contrary to the public policy of the United States for the reasons set forth in the Maxim Petition and the other papers filed by Maxim in support of such petition. WHEREFORE, Maxim prays for judgment as follows: 1. 2. 3. That Master Chips' Cross-Petition to confirm the November 9 award be denied; That the Maxim Petition to vacate the November 9 Award be granted; For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: May 23, 2008

Respectfully submitted, BAKER & McKENZIE LLP TOD L. GAMLEN KEITH L. WURSTER JERRY SALCIDO

By: Tod L. Gamlen /s/ Tod L. Gamlen Attorneys for Petitioner MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.

3
Case No. 08 00721-JW MAXIM'S ANSWER TO CROSS-PETITION PALDMS/367618.1