`
`(Related Reorganization Procedure: Heisei 24(Mi) 1st)
`
`
`
`Petitioner:
`
`Parties
`
`Massachusetts Institute of Technology
`
`（77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A）
`
`Vice President and General Counsel R. Gregory Morgan
`
`
`
`Attorneys Representing Petitioner Katsunori Takechi
`
`Attorneys Representing Petitioner Taichi Komuro
`
`Attorneys Representing Petitioner Masahiro Shimizu
`
`Attorneys Representing Petitioner Takahiro Kimura
`
`
`
`Petitioned Parties:
`
`
`
`Trustees of Micron Memory Japan, Inc. in Reorganization Procedure
`
`Yoshitaka Kinoshita （1-18-6,Jougawara-cho, Akishima-shi, Tokyo）
`
`Nobuaki Kobayashi（Kioi-cho Building 14F, Kioi-cho, Chiyoda-ku,Tokyo）
`
`
`
`Attorney Representing Petitioned Parties Hironobu Tsukamoto
`
`Attorney Representing Petitioned Parties Yoshimi Ohara
`
`Attorney Representing Petitioned Parties Kou Matsui
`
`Attorney Representing Petitioned Parties Satoshi Miyamoto
`
`
`
`1. Petitioner’s claims shall be assessed at zero.
`
`Decision
`
`2. Costs for reorganization claim assessment procedure shall be burdened by the
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`Reason
`
`1.
`
`The Petitioner filed in the corporate reorganization procedure of Micron
`
`Memory Japan, Inc. (formerly “Elpida Memory, Inc.”) (i) the claims seeking for recovery
`
`of damages incurred by the asserted infringement of the Petitioner’s patent (hereinafter
`
`referred to as the “Patent”) as well as (ii) the claims seeking for recovery of damages
`
`
`
`arising from deferred payment of the above claims. The Trustees denied the claims
`
`filed by the Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the “Reorganization Claims”) and thus
`
`the Petitioner filed the procedure for assessing the Reorganization Claims in accordance
`
`with Section 151(1) of the Corporate Reorganization Law of Japan.
`
`
`
`2.
`
` As of this date, the court is unable to recognize facts supporting the
`
`Petitioner’s assertion that the Patent was infringed. The Petitioner stated to date that
`
`in light of technical nature of this matter the Petitioner has no objection to court’s
`
`issuing the decision at this stage in order to facilitate the reorganization claim
`
`assessment procedure being promptly finished as well as this matter being transferred
`
`to the objection procedure. The Petitioner also stated that the Petitioner will
`
`thereafter consider whether or not to file the assessment objection procedure. The
`
`Petitioned Party concurred with the Petitioner in stating that in light of technical
`
`nature of this matter the Petitioned Party has no objection to court’s issuing the
`
`decision at this stage to facilitate the reorganization claim assessment procedure being
`
`promptly finished as well as this matter being transferred to the objection procedure.
`
`
`
`Given the technical and complex nature of this matter as well as the restraint
`
`nature of this claim assessment procedure, the court recognizes it appropriate to issue
`
`the decision at this moment without further urging the both parties to submit any court
`
`briefs or evidences regarding the issue of the Patent’s infringement.
`
`
`
`3.
`
`In light of the above, the court determines that the Reorganization Claims
`
`should be denied in the claim assessment procedure at this court.
`
`
`
`October 20, 2014
`
`Tokyo District Court 8th Division
`
`Chief Judge Akihiko Otake
`
` Judge Shinya Onodera
`
`Judge Norihiro Kasai
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
