Microsoft Corp. Civil Action No. 98-1233 (CKK) (D.D.C.) Re: Dated: To: Issued by: (the “Confidential Request”) This confirms that, with respect to the undersigned’s response to this Confidential Request, as well as to any communications relating to this Request, the undersigned waives any applicable confidentiality provision in the Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311 et seq., or in any Relevant State Statutes,1 and any other applicable confidentiality provisions to the extent necessary to allow the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice and each and all of the Attorneys General of the Plaintiff States2(2) to share between and among each other, as well as with, any documents, information, or analyses provided. So agreed: Name: Date Title: Company:
Microsoft Corp. Sun-Rype Ltd.
Microsoft Corp common stock, pricing, 64 Microsponge Delivery System (royalty rate), 205 Migraine relief (royalty rate), 205–206 Milestone payments, 210 Model growth patterns, 105–113 Bass Model, 112–113, 112e Xxxxxx-Xxx Model, 109, 110e Gompertz Model, 107, 108e, 109 Xxxxx-Xxxx Model, 109, 111e Moller International, Inc., VSTOL design/development/manufacture, 125–126 Moller, Pal S., 125 Monte Carlo simulation technique, usage, 234 Monte Carlo techniques, 233–236 Xxxxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, 224 Mortgages, legal/contractual life, 82 Motorsports Emporium, Inc., license agreement, 123 Mullins, David, 223 Multiple original-group method, 88 Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxx, 147 Nanomachines, usage, 217–218 National Cancer Institute USA, letter of intent, 203–204 Nautica (trademark royalty rate), 167–168 NeoMetx, 129–130 Net present value (NPV) calculations, 245–246 Neuroeconomics, 248 New Drug Application (NDA), 189, 212, 213 New Leaf Brands beverage (trademark royalty rate), 170–172 New products/processes, identification/evaluation, 100 Nodes, types, 227 Noncontractual customer/supplier relationships, business/outsider contract, 000 Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx X., 131 Nortran Pharmaceuticals, Inc., agreement, 211–212 Novartis, license agreement, 219–220 Novogen Research Pty Ltd., license agreement, 183–184, 188 Nutra Evolution, license agreement, 175 Nutrafuels, Inc., license agreement, 175 NuVasive, Inc. See Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp. 53 Sun-Rype Ltd. x. Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx Midland Company,54 Infineon Technologies AG v. Option consommateurs,55 and Pioneer Corp. x.
Microsoft Corp. Civil Action No. 98-1232 (CKK) (D.D.C.)
Microsoft Corp. 290 F.3d 1043, 1047, 0000-00 (0xx Xxx. 2002. The “benchmark” 18 percentage for attorney’s fees in the Ninth Circuit is 25% of the common fund with 19 costs and expenses awarded in addition to this amount. Id at 1047. “However, in most 20 common fund cases, the award exceeds that [25%] benchmark.” In re Omnivision 21 Techs., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1047 (N.D. Cal. 2007 (citing In re Activision Sec. Litig., 22 723 F. Supp. 1373, 1378 (N.D. Cal. 1998)). Both the Omnivision and Activision Courts 23 concluded that “[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances that suggest reasons to lower or 24 increase the percentage, the rate should be set at 30%.” Omnivision, 559 F. Supp. 2d 25 at 1048.
Microsoft Corp. 15-cv-24326-CMA, ECF No. 79, pp.7-8, ¶g.-¶j., and ¶14 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 27, 2017)(One third); Lab,v Lab 14-cv-61543-RLR, ECF No. 218, p.26, and ECF No. 227, pp.5-7, ¶13 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2016)(One third plus expenses); Xxxx v Spirit, 14-cv-61978- JIC, ECF No. 151, ¶14 and ¶15 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 2, 2016);(one third plus expenses) Xxxxx Xxxx, 15-cv-81487-BB, ECF No. 97, p.7, ¶g. and ¶23 (S.D. Fla. May 9, 2017)(One third plus expenses).1 Finally, Class Counsel are well respected consumer class attorneys with the experience and ability to prosecute this action. As for the “undesirability” of the case, the Court considers that a neutral factor. Finally, prior to this case, Xx. Xxxx had no relationship with class counsel such that this factor support the fee award.
Microsoft Corp v. Motorola Inc. 2 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) 2, 3, 6, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 3 Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc. 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) 2, 5, 21 4 5 Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. 871 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wash. 2012), aff’d, 696 F.3d 872 (9th 6 Cir. 2012) 13, 23 7 In re Nintendo of Am., Inc. 8 756 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) 16
Microsoft Corp agrees to maintain or cause to be maintained in all material respects its obligations as at the Effective Date in relation to the TITUX Xxxt Guarantees in accordance with the terms and conditions of such TITUX Xxxt Guarantees.
Microsoft Corp and Key Tronic Corporation now on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, previously before the United States District Court for the District of Washington at Seattle (“the Lawsuit”).
