Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 4, 2021

Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.

Judge
Vince Chhabria
Docket
3:20-cv-06686
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
ArbitrationCivil ProcedureContract
In one sentence

In Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc., Judge Chhabria compelled arbitration, dismissed the case without prejudice, and granted MaxPower’s sealing motion.

Who this affects

Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC must pursue the dispute in arbitration rather than in the district court; MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc.’s motions were granted.

What happened

Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. involved MaxPower’s motion to compel arbitration under a technology license agreement between MaxPower and Rohm Co. The court held that the agreement also bound Rohm USA, a Rohm Co. subsidiary.

The agreement incorporated California arbitration law, which allows an arbitrator to decide its own authority, including objections to whether an arbitration agreement exists or is valid. The court said this clearly assigned questions about whether the dispute must be arbitrated to the arbitrator.

Judge Chhabria granted MaxPower’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. He also granted MaxPower’s related motion to seal.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC v. MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. · No. 3:20-cv-06686
Judge
Vince Chhabria
Date
Feb. 4, 2021

Background

MaxPower Semiconductor, Inc. moved to compel Rohm Semiconductor USA, LLC to arbitrate. The court considered a Technology License Agreement between MaxPower and Rohm Co. The court concluded that the agreement bound Rohm Co.’s subsidiaries, including Rohm USA.

Reasoning

The agreement incorporated the California Code of Civil Procedure into its arbitration provision. The incorporated provision states that an arbitral tribunal may decide its own jurisdiction, including objections concerning the existence or validity of the arbitration agreement. The court held that this language clearly and unmistakably delegated questions of arbitrability—whether a dispute is subject to arbitration—to the arbitrator.

Ruling

The court granted MaxPower’s motion to compel arbitration and dismissed the case without prejudice. The court also granted MaxPower’s motion to seal, which had been filed with the motion to compel. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order on February 4, 2021.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.