Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1176
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`Case No.: 2:22-cv-00134--JRG-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., ET
`AL.,
`
`
`
`
`
`TCL INDUSTRIES HOLDINGS CO., LTD.;
`ET AL.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
`CORP.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE STAY (DKT. NO. 70)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 1177
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`Page(s)
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................5
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS .......................................................................................................7
`
`ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ..................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`Realtek’s Motion for Relief from the Stay (Dkt. No. 70) Should Be Denied ..........8
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 1178
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 11-3136 SC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134080 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) ..........................4
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2019) ...............................................................................................................2, 8
`
`RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al v. Altria Client Services LLC et al,
`1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF, Dkt. No. 54 (E.D. Va. 2020) .....................................................2, 9
`
`T-Netix, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc.,
`Case No. 01-cv-00189, Dkt. No. 200 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2003) ..........................................2, 10
`
`Tesfamichael v. Gonzales,
`411 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2005) .................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Thompson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,
`270 F.R.D. 277 (W.D. Ky. 2010).......................................................................................2, 8, 9
`
`Trontech Licensing v. Thomson, Inc.,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117676 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2007) ........................................................4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 1179
`
`Plaintiffs Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies ULC (collectively,
`
`“AMD” or “Plaintiffs”) submit this Opposition to Defendant Realtek’s Motion for Relief from the
`
`Stay (Dkt. No. 70).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Realtek’s motion should be denied in its entirety. Realtek does not need relief from the
`
`stay because there is no obligation for Realtek to file a responsive pleading at all to AMD’s Second
`
`Amended Complaint until the stay in this case is lifted, which will occur upon “final resolution of
`
`[the ITC] Investigation 337-TA-1318.” See Dkt. No. 65 at 3 (Sept. 12, 2022). Further, no relief
`
`from the stay is warranted because Realtek’s concurrent motion (Dkt. No. 71) can, and likely will,
`
`be raised by Realtek and adjudicated at the appropriate time upon final resolution of the 337-TA-
`
`1318 ITC Investigation (“ITC Action”).
`
`By contrast, during the pendency of the stay, the TCL co-defendants1—who are also co-
`
`respondents with Realtek in the co-pending ITC Action—appear to have fully understood that no
`
`response to AMD’s Second Amended Complaint was required within the 14-day time period that
`
`Realtek alleges might apply here (see Dkt. No. 70 at 4), because none of them sought to file a
`
`responsive pleading (nor to seek to sanction AMD for filing it). Realtek simply misunderstands
`
`what is meant for this action to be “stayed.” For example, Realtek’s concurrent motion (Dkt. No.
`
`71) relies on a misunderstanding of “stay” from Tesfamichael, which involves “a stay of removal
`
`[of immigrant petitioners] pending [the District Court’s] consideration, on the merits, of their
`
`
`1 TCL Industries Holdings Co. Ltd., TCL Industries Holdings (H.K.) Limited, TCL Electronics
`Holdings Limited, TCL Technology Group Corporation, TTE Corporation, TCL Holdings (BVI)
`Limited, TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., Shenzhen TCL New Technologies
`Co., Ltd., TCL MOKA International Limited, and TCL Smart Device (Vietnam) Co., Ltd,
`Manufacturas Avanzadas SA de CV, TCL Electronics Mexico, S de RL de CV, and TCL Overseas
`Marketing Ltd. (together, “TCL”).
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 1180
`
`petition for review of the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (‘BIA’).” Tesfamichael
`
`v. Gonzales, 411 F.3d 169, 170 (5th Cir. 2005); see also id. at 172 (quoting Weng v. United States
`
`AG, 287 F.3d 1335, 1338 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 529 (6th ed. 1990))).
`
`That case, in turn, was later cited by the Supreme Court in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2019).
`
`In Nken, the Court stated “[a] stay ‘simply suspend[s] judicial alteration of the status quo’” and
`
`“[b]y contrast, instead of directing the conduct of a particular actor [such as an injunction], a stay
`
`operates upon the judicial proceeding itself.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 428, 129 S. Ct. 1749,
`
`1758 (2009) Id.
`
`Thus even if the articulation in Tesfamichael applies (notwithstanding the fact that it was
`
`an immigration case), that articulation of “stay” does not mean that parties are foreclosed from
`
`amending pleadings in this action, particularly in accordance the Court’s Docket Control Order.
`
`To the contrary, AMD’s Second Amended Complaint was filed in accordance with the Docket
`
`Control Order’s directive that “[i]t is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend pleadings
`
`prior to this deadline [March 28, 2023] unless the amendment seeks to assert additional patents”
`
`(Dkt. No. 52 at 4 (Aug. 24, 2022) (emphasis added)). Unlike other cases relied upon by Realtek,
`
`the stay order in this case (Dkt. No. 65) contained no prohibition on filing amended pleadings.
`
`Indeed, as discussed further herein, several parties in other cases (including in E.D. Tex.) have
`
`amended complaints without seeking to lift a stay. See, e.g., Thompson v. Hartford Life & Accident
`
`Ins. Co., 270 F.R.D. 277, 278-79 (W.D. Ky. 2010); RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al v. Altria
`
`Client Services LLC et al, 1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF, Dkt. No. 54 (E.D. Va. 2020); T-Netix, Inc.
`
`v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., Case No. 01-cv-00189, Dkt. No. 200 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2003).
`
`Realtek’s motion for relief (Dkt. No. 70) also faults AMD for “creat[ing]” a “dilemma”
`
`(Dkt. No. 70 at 4), and while responses to those comments are not required in order to oppose
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 1181
`
`Realtek’s motion for relief, AMD addresses them herein because Realtek misleadingly omits
`
`several material facts. First, for example, Realtek states that it “sent a letter to AMD on March 7,
`
`2023,” notifying AMD of Realtek’s “intention to bring an action in the Northern District of
`
`California against AMD for breaching a license[.]” Dkt. No. 70 at 2. But Realtek leaves out the
`
`fact that its ‘letter’ was really a threat to AMD, directly threatening AMD with a new lawsuit in
`
`N.D. Cal. on issues subject of a stay in this case, unless AMD withdrew all its claims against
`
`Realtek for the asserted ’628 Patent in this action. See Dkt. No. 69-3 (Ex. C to Dkt. No. 69), Letter
`
`from Realtek to AMD (Mar. 7, 2023).
`
`Second, Realtek also omits that, despite being aware of AMD’s outside counsel in this case
`
`and in the ITC Action, Realtek directed its outside counsel at K&L Gates (a law firm representing
`
`Realtek in the ITC Action) to send that threatening letter directly to AMD officers, including
`
`AMD’s CEO and one of its ITC trial witnesses, around the backs of AMD’s outside counsel.
`
`Contacting AMD personnel directly in this way contravened the rules of professional conduct.2
`
`And third, Realtek leaves out the fact that AMD’s second amended complaint merely adds
`
`allegations for declaratory judgment regarding the Khronos-based defenses that Realtek put at
`
`issue in this case, and Realtek’s threatened breach of contract claim is a compulsory counterclaim
`
`in this action. Indeed, Realtek’s September 2022 initial disclosures have already asserted that
`
`AMD’s claims in this case are barred by AMD’s “commitments to the Khronos Group[.]” Ex. 1,
`
`
`2 As Realtek’s outside counsel is well aware, its communications to AMD violate the professional
`rules of conduct governing lawyers, including in the state of California in which the K&L Gates
`attorneys who wrote the letter are admitted to the bar:
`
`In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate directly or
`indirectly about the subject of the representation with a person* the
`lawyer knows* to be represented by another lawyer in the matter,
`unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer.
`Cal. R. Prof’l Conduct 4.2.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 1182
`
`Realtek Initial Disclosures, 2:22-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex.) at 4 (Sept. 2, 2022).3 Therefore, Realtek’s
`
`incorrect assertion that, because there is a license to the ’628 Patent through the Khronos IP Policy
`
`(and there is not), AMD’s alleged “breach” of that contract (to which Realtek is not a party), if
`
`anything, amounts to a compulsory counterclaim in this action and thus subject of the stay in this
`
`case. See, e.g., Trontech Licensing v. Thomson, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 117676 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Nov. 7, 2007) (finding breach of contract action in a patent case as a compulsory counterclaim to
`
`the patent infringement action, finding that the “breach of contract claims logically relate to the
`
`patent infringement claims, as the alleged breach results from Trontech’s filing suit. The
`
`counterclaims, if Defendants have sufficiently pleaded them, are compulsory[.]”).
`
`For at least all these reasons, it is Realtek, and not AMD, who “created” the “dilemma”
`
`(Dkt. No. 70 at 4), and is the party attempting to circumvent the stay in this case by threatening to
`
`file elsewhere on issues relating to the ’628 Patent subject to the stay here.4 Realtek’s improper
`
`attempt to do so by threatening to file in a separate district on those issues, and at the same time
`
`trying to strike AMD’s Second Amended Complaint, should be rejected.
`
`Therefore, Realtek’s motion for relief from the stay (Dkt. No. 70) in order to file a separate
`
`motion to strike and for a show cause order (Dkt. No. 71) should be denied. As a result, Dkt. No.
`
`71 should be rejected out of hand, but even if Dkt. No. 70 is granted, and Dkt. No. 71 be considered
`
`(which it should not), AMD has concurrently filed a separate opposition to Dkt. No. 71.
`
`
`3 These initial disclosures were served over two months after Realtek and TCL alleged their
`Khronos-based licensing defenses in their answers in the co-pending ITC Action.
`4 While Realtek alleges that the Khronos IP Policy requires Realtek’s breach of contract claim to
`be litigated in California, Realtek’s motion omits the fact that the alleged forum selection clause
`does not even apply, given that, inter alia, Realtek is not a party to the contract serving as the basis
`for Realtek’s defense. See, e.g., Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 11-3136 SC, 2011
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134080, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 1183
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`On May 5, 2022, AMD filed a Complaint against Defendants Realtek and TCL in this
`
`District, with respect to AMD’s U.S. Patent Nos. 7,742,053 (“the ’053 patent”), 8,760,454 (“the
`
`’454 patent”), 11,184,628 (“the ’628 patent”), 8,468,547 (“the ’547 patent”), and 8,854,381 (“the
`
`’381 patent”) (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`On the same day, May 5, 2022, AMD filed a Complaint against the same defendants in the
`
`International Trade Commission (“ITC”), styled Certain Graphic Systems, Components Thereof,
`
`and Digital Televisions Containing the Same, 337-TA-1318 (“ITC Action”), asserting the same
`
`patents.
`
`On June 27, 2022, Realtek filed a response to the ITC Action, alleging a defense of license
`
`and covenant not to sue based on “AMD’s commitments to the Khronos Group[.]” Ex. 2, ITC
`
`Action, Realtek Response to ITC Complaint at 37 (June 27, 2022).
`
`On July 7, 2022, TCL filed a response to the ITC Action, also alleging a defense of license
`
`and covenant not to sue based on “AMD’s commitments to the Khronos Group[.]” Ex. 3, ITC
`
`Action, TCL Response to ITC Complaint at 42 (July 7, 2022).
`
`On July 22, 2022, TCL filed an unopposed motion to stay the proceedings as against TCL,
`
`under the mandatory stay provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1659. Dkt. No. 36 (July 22, 2022). In that
`
`motion, TCL argued that the “ITC investigation and this case both encompass issues relating to
`
`the patents, such as infringement, validity, and enforceability; and the defenses that TCL might
`
`raise are also the same in the two proceedings [i.e., the ITC Action and this E.D. Tex. action].”
`
`Defendant TCL's Unopposed Mot. to Stay, Dkt. No. 36 at 4 (July 22, 2022) (emphasis added).
`
`TCL’s unopposed motion to stay was granted on August 11, 2022. Dkt No. 44 (Aug. 11, 2022).
`
`Having determined not to seek a similar stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, AMD sought
`
`Realtek’s position on a motion for discretionary stay of this case, given the concurrent stay against
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 1184
`
`TCL. Realtek stated it would oppose a stay of the proceedings in this case, and filed its opposition
`
`on August 5, 2022. Dkt. No. 43 (Aug. 5, 2022).
`
`On August 5, 2022, in that opposition, similar to TCL, Realtek argued that “Every claim
`
`and defense raised in the ITC proceeding can (and likely will) be relitigated in this action, should
`
`it be stayed.” Defendant Realtek’s Opposition to Mot. to Stay, Dkt. No. 43 at 4 (Aug. 5, 2022)
`
`(emphasis added). Also after filing its answer in the ITC, in which Realtek alleged a licensing
`
`defense based upon the Khronos IP Policy for the ’628 Patent, Realtek even went so far as to
`
`request that AMD agree to be bound in this case by whatever final determinations the Commission
`
`makes in the ITC Action (i.e., the 1318 Investigation), stating by email: “In connection with its
`
`motion for a stay of the district court case, we are asking AMD if it will stipulate to be bound by
`
`any final determination by the Commission in the 1318 investigation that Realtek products do not
`
`infringe the ‘053, ‘547, ‘381 or ‘628 patents, any final determination by the Commission that any
`
`claims of those patents are invalid, and any other determination adverse to AMD related to the
`
`merits of the claims and defenses asserted in the 1318 investigation.” Dkt. No. 43-7 (Aug. 5,
`
`2022) (emphases added).
`
`On September 2, 2022, Realtek served its initial disclosures (over two months after Realtek
`
`and TCL previously alleged Khronos-based licensing defenses in the co-pending ITC Action) in
`
`which Realtek asserted defenses based on AMD’s alleged licensing obligations with respect to
`
`Khronos, and alleged that AMD’s claims in this case are barred by AMD’s “commitments to the
`
`Khronos Group[.]” Ex. 1, Realtek Initial Disclosures, 2:22-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex.) at 4 (Sept. 2,
`
`2022).
`
`On September 12, 2022, the Court granted AMD’s motion for discretionary stay, and
`
`stayed this case pending resolution of the ITC Action. Dkt. No. 65 at 3 (Sept. 12, 2022).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 1185
`
`Despite the fact that this action was stayed, on March 7, 2023, days before the ITC trial
`
`was scheduled to occur, outside counsel for Realtek from K&L Gates, a law firm representing
`
`Realtek in the ITC Action, sent a letter directly to AMD, its CEO Dr. Lisa Su, General Counsel
`
`Harry Wolin, and one of the ITC trial witnesses scheduled to testify in the ITC mere days later,
`
`Vice President of IP Kevin O’Neil (the “Letter”). Realtek’s outside counsel at K&L Gates directly
`
`sent this letter to AMD in-house representatives without contacting or notifying AMD’s outside
`
`counsel in this action or in the ITC action at all.
`
`In the Letter, Realtek threatened to sue AMD for alleged breach of the Khronos IP Rights
`
`Policy in the Northern District of California—despite that allegation being subject of the stay in
`
`this case, if AMD did not withdraw this action as to the asserted ’628 Patent. Ex. 4 at 1-2, 4.
`
`Two days later, AMD filed its Second Amended Complaint in this action seeking
`
`declaratory judgment of no breach of contract and no license based upon AMD’s complaint in this
`
`action as to the ’628 Patent against Realtek. Dkt. No. 69 (March 9, 2023).
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`On August 24, 2022, this Court issued the Docket Control Order in this case with the
`
`directive that on or before March 28, 2023, “[i]t is not necessary to seek leave of Court to amend
`
`pleadings prior to this deadline [March 28, 2023] unless the amendment seeks to assert additional
`
`patents.” Dkt. No. 52 at 4 (Aug. 24, 2022).
`
`On September 12, 2022, the Court ordered that this action “be stayed in its entirety until
`
`final resolution of Investigation No. 337-TA-1318.” Dkt. No. 65 at 3 (Sept. 12, 2022). In that
`
`Order, the Court did not make any statements prohibiting filings or amended pleadings during the
`
`stay. Id.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 1186
`
`IV. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
`A.
`
`Realtek’s Motion for Relief from the Stay (Dkt. No. 70) Should Be Denied
`
`Realtek’s request for relief from the stay, so that it can file a motion to strike and for a
`
`show cause order, should be rejected. Realtek does not need relief from the stay because there is
`
`no obligation for Realtek to file a responsive pleading at all to AMD’s Second Amended Complaint
`
`until the stay in this case is lifted, which will occur upon “final resolution of [the ITC] Investigation
`
`337-TA-1318.” See Dkt. No. 65 at 3 (Sept. 12, 2022). Further, no relief from the stay is warranted
`
`because Realtek’s concurrent motion (Dkt. No. 71) can, and likely will, be raised by Realtek and
`
`adjudicated at the appropriate time upon final resolution of the ITC Action.
`
`As mentioned above, by contrast, TCL appears to have fully understood this fact, and has
`
`not sought to file a responsive pleading, nor sanctions against AMD for its filing. Realtek simply
`
`misunderstands what it meant for this action to be “stayed.” On September 12, 2022, the Court
`
`ordered that this action “be stayed in its entirety until final resolution of Investigation No. 337-
`
`TA-1318.” Dkt. No. 65 at 3 (Sept. 12, 2022).
`
`Such a stay ‘simply suspend[s] judicial alteration of the status quo’” (see, e.g., Nken v.
`
`Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 428-29 (2019)) and does not mean, as Realtek suggests, that AMD is
`
`prohibited from amending its complaint during the stay. Id. Realtek’s motion omits that several
`
`parties in other cases (including in E.D. Tex.) have amended complaints without seeking to lift a
`
`stay. For example, in Thompson v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., 270 F.R.D. 277, 278-79
`
`(W.D. Ky. 2010), the plaintiff filed an amended complaint without seeking leave to lift the stay.
`
`In particular, on February 18, 2010, the Court ordered that “so as to permit the parties an
`
`opportunity to explore the possibility of settlement, this matter is hereby stayed commencing with
`
`the parties filing of this Agreed Order[.]” Id. Dkt. No. 11 at 1 (Feb. 18, 2010). The Court noted
`
`that “[w]hile the stay was still in effect, [plaintiff] Thompson filed his First Amended Complaint,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 1187
`
`in which paragraphs 110-111 and 113-119 were removed.” Id., 270 F.R.D. at 278 (citing Dkt. No.
`
`15 (July 6, 2010)). While the Court separately noted that “[plaintiff] Thompson should have
`
`petitioned this Court for leave before filing his First Amended Complaint,” the reason for the
`
`Court’s comment was that the requisite 21 days had passed according to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), not
`
`that the first amended complaint was filed during the stay. Id., 270 F.R.D. at 278, n.2. Ultimately,
`
`notwithstanding the Court’s comment about needing leave because of Rule 15(a), the Court
`
`ultimately did grant leave, ruling that “[t]he Court also grants [plaintiff] Thompson leave to file
`
`his First Amended Complaint” and ordered that “[defendant] Hartford shall have fourteen days
`
`from the date of this order to file its Answer.” Id., 270 F.R.D. at 280. Upon granting this leave
`
`by the Court, the plaintiff’s first amended complaint (Dkt. No. 15 (July 6, 2010)) remained on the
`
`docket, without any re-filings on a later date.
`
`Also for example, in RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. et al v. Altria Client Services LLC et al,
`
`1:20-cv-00393-LMB-WEF, Dkt. No. 54 (E.D. Va. 2020), the patent owner plaintiff amended
`
`pleadings with respect to patents subject to a Section 1659 stay while ITC proceedings were co-
`
`pending. In particular, the Court stayed proceedings related to Patent Nos. ’238, ’123, and ’915
`
`(the “stayed counts”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). Dkt. No. 27 at 1 (June 18, 2020). While that stay
`
`was ongoing, the defendants filed partial answers and counterclaims (Dkt. Nos. 39, 40). In the
`
`defendants’ partial answers and counterclaims (and concurrent motion to dismiss), the defendants
`
`acknowledged the stayed counts and noted that they would provide a response once the stay was
`
`lifted. Dkt. No. 39 at 5-6 (June 29, 2020), Dkt. No. 40 at 5-6 (June 29, 2020). The plaintiffs
`
`subsequently amended the complaint and added allegations including added allegations as to the
`
`stayed counts. Dkt. No. 52 at 18-36 (July 13, 2020). Shortly thereafter, the Court denied the
`
`defendants’ motion to dismiss as moot in light of plaintiffs’ “now-operative Amended Complaint.”
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 1188
`
`Dkt. No. 54 at 1 (July 21, 2020). Later, when defendants provided partial answers to the amended
`
`complaint, the defendants chose not to respond to the paragraphs of the stayed counts, and instead
`
`provided a short response stating that “[t]he Amended Complaint improperly adds allegations to
`
`Counts that this Court expressly stayed under 19 U.S.C. § 1659(a)[.]” Dkt. No. 65 at 13 (July 27,
`
`2020); Dkt. No. 66 at 14 (July 27, 2020). Nevertheless, in the Court’s Rule 16(b) Scheduling
`
`Order, the Court again acknowledged that the plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on July 13,
`
`2020 (a date on which, at the time, the amended counts were stayed). Dkt. 99 at 1 (Sept. 8, 2020).
`
`As yet another example, in this District, in T-Netix, Inc. v. MCI Worldcom, Inc., Case No. 01-cv-
`
`00189, Dkt. No. 200 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2003), the plaintiff T-Netix amended its complaint (“First
`
`Amended Complaint”) against defendants MCI and Global during an automatic bankruptcy stay
`
`as to MCI. MCI noticed the automatic stay on July 25, 2002 and T-Netix amended its complaint
`
`on November 15, 2002. The Court denied defendant Global’s motion to strike plaintiff T-Netix’s
`
`First Amended Complaint, noting that Global (who was not a debtor) could not assert the automatic
`
`bankruptcy stay merely as a co-defendant. The Court also commented that as to leave to amend,
`
`stating that “[t]he Court’s Docket Control Order mandated that the deadline to amend pleadings
`
`was November 15, 2002. Plaintiff filed its First Amended Complaint on that date. By setting a
`
`date to complete the amendment of pleadings, the Court implicitly granted leave to any
`
`amendment, without requiring prior specific leave, up to and including that date.” Id. at 3
`
`(emphasis added). In fact, the Court even ruled that by filing the amended complaint, there was
`
`no violation of the “automatic stay” triggered by MCI’s bankruptcy filing. See id. (“Accordingly,
`
`the Court does not find that Plaintiff violated the automatic stay against MCI WorldCom imposed
`
`by 11 U.S.C. § 362 by filing its First Amended Complaint.”).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For at least the foregoing reasons, in addition to all the reasons listed in AMD’s opposition
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 1189
`
`to Realtek’s motion to strike (Dkt. No. 71), Realtek’s motion for relief from the stay (Dkt. No. 70)
`
`in order to file a separate motion to strike and for a show cause order (Dkt. No. 71) should be
`
`denied, and Dkt. No. 71 should be rejected.
`
`Dated: April 5, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Eric H. Findlay______
`Eric H. Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`Brian Craft
`State Bar No. 04972020
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`7270 Crosswater Avenue, Suite B
`Tyler, Texas 75703
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`Email: efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`Email: bcraft@findlaycraft.com
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Michael T. Renaud
`James M. Wodarski
`Michael J. McNamara
`Adam S. Rizk
`William Meunier
`Marguerite McConihe
`Matthew A. Karambelas
`Catherine Xu
`Tianyi Tan
`MINTZ LEVIN COHN FERRIS
` GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC
`One Financial Center
`Boston, MA 02111
`617-542-6000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs ATI Technologies
`ULC and Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 72 Filed 04/05/23 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 1190
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document
`
`has been served on April 5, 2023 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
`
`electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric H. Findlay
`Eric H. Findlay
`
`12
`
`