Syntek Semiconductor Co. v. Microchip Technology Inc.

Good Law
307 F.3d 775·2002 WL 31175669·64 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1149·2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 20746
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 8, 2002Nos. 00-17352, 00-17353 and 01-15641California2,721 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thomas, J.

ORDER

The opinion filed April 8, 2002 appearing at 285 F.3d 857 (9th Cir.2002) is amended as follows:

With the opinion thus amended, the panel denies Syntek’s petition for rehearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ORDER

The mandate issued on September 9, 2002 is hereby recalled.

The opinion filed April 8, 2002 appearing at 285 F.3d 857 (9th Cir.2002) is further amended as follows:

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

OPINION

In this appeal, we consider whether a party may obtain a judgment declaring that a copyright registration owned by another is invalid. We conclude that, under the circumstances presented by this case, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction requires us to stay this action in order that the parties may pursue administrative remedies.

I

Both Syntek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. (“Syntek”), a Taiwanese corporation, and Microchip Technology Inc. (“Microchip”), a Delaware corporation, design, manufacture, and sell microcontrollers. Microcon-trollers, occasionally referred to as microcomputers, are highly integrated circuits used to control a particular system or process in an electronic product. The operation of microcontrollers is dictated by low level…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.