CONCLUSION Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court deny Defendants’ far-reaching motions to stay the proceeding in its entirety. Rather, Plaintiffs propose that the Court enter a stay of this action for the period provided under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 with respect to all parties and patents at issue in this action, subject to an explicit exemption for motions that would resolve the action with respect to (1) any defendants that are in default (subject to an extension of time to move for their own stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659 after vaccature of a default judgment); (2) any defendants that submit to a consent order; and (3) any defendants that consent to a dispositive motion. Dated: June 18, 2007 Respectfully submitted, /s/ James E. Peckert, Esquire James E. Peckert, Esquire KEHART, PECKERT & BOOTH 132 South Water Street, Suite 200 Post Office Box 860 Decatur, Illinois 62525-0860 Tel. (217) 428-4689 Fax (217) 422-7950 Attorney for Plaintiffs Of Counsel: Christopher P. Foley Thomas L. Jarvis Eric J. Fues James R. Barney FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. 901 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001-4413 (202) 408-4000 2:07-cv-02050-MPM-DGB # 47 Page 13 of 14 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 18, 2007, he electronically filed the Foregoing Plaintiff’s Opposition In Part To Motions To Stay Brought By

Furthermore, the ‘928 patent expires on September 16, 2007, and therefore the only remedy available to Tate & Lyle with respect to this patent is damages for past infringement. Accordingly, Tate & Lyle will not suffer any prejudice if the litigation as to this patent is stayed. On the other hand, U.S. Niutang and Changzhou Niutang may again be placed at a disadvantage if other parties conduct discovery and create a record with respect to the technology at issue that they do not have an opportunity to participate in solely because they exercised their statutory right to stay the direct allegations against them. Therefore, the Court should stay the proceedings with respect to the ‘928 patent as well. IV. CONCLUSION Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) and its inherent authority, U.S. Niutang and Changzhou Niutang respectfully request that this Court stay the present action in its entirety until the date that the determination of the proceeding presently pending before the ITC is no longer subject to judicial review.

See, e.g., RF Micro Devices, Inc., v. Peregrine Semiconductor Corp., 1:12-cv-377 (M.D.N.C.) (RF Micro Devices, Inc. brought a declaratory judgment action after being named as a respondent in an ITC action brought by Peregrine; the court granted a stay under 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)). See Exhibit C. Accordingly, Remy respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order staying this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a). See Exhibit D. [979362-1] 3 Case 1:13-cv-02558-UA Document 4 Filed 04/22/13 Page 3 of 4 Dated: April 19, 2013 [979362-1] Respectfully submitted, REMY COINTREAU USA, INC.

Hunsaker Decl, Exhibit E. Thus, the thirty-day period under 28 U.S.C. §1659(a)(1) for Arista to request a stay does not expire until February 26, 2015, making this request for a stay timely. Because Arista has filed this Motion in a timely manner in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §1659, the Court should immediately stay this action pending a final determination by the ITC in the 944 and 945 Investigations. Case 4:14-cv-05343-JSW Document 32 Filed 01/29/15 Page 4 of 5 Arista Notice of Motion and Motion for Mandatory Stay of Proceedings – Case No. 5:14-cv-5343-JSW 5 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 IV.

espectfully requests that the Court grant Kodak’s motion to further stay this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659. OF COUNSEL: William F. Lee Michael J. Summersgill WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 (617) 526-6000 Nora Q.E. Passamaneck WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 399 Park Avenue New York, NY 10022 (212) 230-8800 DATED: April 6, 2007 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP /s/ Kevin F. Brady Collins J. Seitz, Jr. (#2237) Kevin F. Brady (#2248) 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 658-9141 cseitz@cblh.com Attorneys for Defendant Eastman Kodak Company Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 127 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 9 of 10 - 7 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on April 6, 2007, a true copy of DEFENDANT EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY’S REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY THE CASE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1659 was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to counsel of record. /s/ Kevin F. Brady Kevin F. Brady (#2248) Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 127 Filed 04/06/2007 Page 10 of 10

This motion is filed December 30, within the 30 days allowed by statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a)(1). For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Stay be issued.

03-253-GMS, at *7 (July 11, 2003). As noted above, 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a) entitles the Sukerui Group, as party to both this case and the ITC Investigation, to a mandatory stay of Tate & Lyle’s patent infringement claims that are common to both proceedings “until the [ITC] proceedings are no longer subject to judicial review.” Princo, 487 F.3d at 1355.

On September 10, 2014, the Court approved AEO’s request for an extension of time to move or plead until October 11, 2014. In requesting this stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659(a), AEO expressly reserves any and all of its objections and defenses, including, but not limited to, any defenses based on lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficiency of process and insufficiency of service of process. II.

Because it deliberately chose to pick this fight, Apple can hardly argue that such an outcome is unfair. V. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, defendant S3G respectfully asks this Court to deny plaintiff Apple’s motion to stay the present case under 28 U.S.C. § 1659, permitting Apple in the alternative to dismiss its declaratory judgment suit as provided in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A) or to litigate this case now. Dated: April 14, 2011 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW GARRETT & DUNNER, L.L.P. By: ____________________________________ Scott R. Mosko Attorneys for Defendants S3 GRAPHICS CO., LTD., and S3 GRAPHICS, INC.

Therefore, Heartland Packaging respectfully submits that it too is entitled to a stay in this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant Heartland Packaging Corporation, by counsel and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1659, respectfully moves the Court for leave to join and to adopt as its own the motions to stay which have been filed by its co-Defendants (i.e., d/e’s 20 & 24), for a stay of these proceedings until the date that the determination of the proceedings presently pending 2:07-cv-02050-MPM-DGB # 40 Page 2 of 4 3 1025118_1 before the International Trade Commission are no longer subject to judicial review and for all other just and proper relief..