`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`
`«
`
`IL
`
`E
`
`MAY - 6 201G
`
`Richmond Division
`
`CLERK,
`
`ij
`
`I CC:'-T
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONTICS CO., LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14cv757
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`ORDER
`
`The Court having been advised that the parties in this action
`
`have executed a MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING SETTLEMENT
`
`AGREEMENT respecting the disputes herein, and the parties having
`
`filed a STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL (Docket No. 931),
`
`it is hereby
`
`ORDERED that the following motions are denied as moot:
`
`(1)
`
`VELOCITY'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS {Docket No.
`
`665) ;
`
`(2)
`
`SAMSUNG'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO
`
`PRECLUDE NVIDIA FROM
`
`DISCUSSING THE POTENTIAL SCHEDULING IMPLICAITONS OF BIFURCATION
`
`{Docket No. 845);
`
`{3)
`
`NVIDIA'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
`
`SAMSUNG FROM
`
`PRESENTING EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT THAT NVIDIA AND/OR TSMC ARE CUSTOMERS
`
`OF, OR HAVE PURCHASED REVERSE ENGINEERING REPORTS FROM, TECHINSIGHTS
`
`{Docket No. 847);
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 934 Filed 05/06/16 Page 2 of 2 PageID# 45150
`
`(4)
`
`NVIDIA'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE
`
`SAMSUNG FROM
`
`INTRODUCING
`
`EVIDENCE
`
`OR
`
`PRESENTING ARGUMENT
`
`RELATED
`
`TO
`
`ANY
`
`INVALIDITY CONTENTIONS OR PRIOR ART REFERENCES THAT WILL NOT BE
`
`PURSUED AT TRIAL (Docket No. 850);
`
`(5) MOTION TO STRIKE THE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT OF DR.
`
`JEONGDONG CHOE AND PARAGRAPHS 10-13, 18-19, 23-24, 27, 30-31, 36,
`
`42-43, AND 46 OF THE THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF DR. RICHARD
`
`FAIR OR,
`
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`
`ITS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SERVE A REBUTTAL
`
`EXPERT REPORT IN RESPONSE (Docket No. 852); and
`
`(6)
`
`SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR PRESUMPTION OF
`
`INFRINGEMENT AND
`
`BURDEN SHIFTING UNDER 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ 295 (Docket No. 862).
`
`I t i s so ORDERED.
`
`/s/
`
`Robert E. Payne
`Senior United States District Judge
`
`Richmond, Virginia
`Date: May fc? , 2016
`
`
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
