Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 100

Joint Submission Regarding The Briefing and Hearing Schedule Relating to Apple's Motion For Preliminary Injunction re #95 Order, #86 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/8/2011) Modified on 7/11/2011 document posted in error as a motion (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

12
13

vs.

14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
15 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a
New York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
16
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
17 company,
18

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE
BRIEFING AND HEARING SCHEDULE
RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR
A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

Pursuant to the Court’s July 2, 2011 Order, Apple and Samsung jointly submit their

2 proposed schedules for briefing and hearing related to Apple’s motion for a preliminary
3 injunction.

The parties have not been able to agree on a proposed schedule.

Their competing

4 proposals and the reasons supporting their requested schedules are set forth below.
5 Apple’s Proposed Briefing & Hearing Schedule.
6

Apple has sought expedited relief from the outset of this case to prevent irreparable harm

7 caused by Samsung’s unlawful copying of Apple’s revolutionary iPhone and iPad products.
8 Samsung, in contrast, has continually sought to obstruct Apple’s efforts to obtain expedited relief,
9 as evidenced by Samsung’s proposed briefing schedule.

Apple proposes the following schedule,

10 which is consistent with its prior offer to provide Samsung with reasonable discovery:
11

•

August 5, 2011:

Completion of Samsung’s expedited discovery

12

•

August 12, 2011:

Samsung’s Opposition (6 weeks after motion filed on July 1)

13

•

August 26, 2011:

Completion of Apple’s expedited discovery

14

•

August 31, 2011:

Apple’s Reply

15

•

September 8, 2011: Hearing (or earliest available date thereafter)

16

Apple’s proposal provides Samsung with 6 weeks to prepare its opposition, or 4 weeks

17 more than the normal period.

This is a reasonable schedule that provides Samsung with ample

18 time to take expedited discovery and to prepare its opposition.

Apple will file its Reply on

19 August 31, with a hearing as early as September 8, about two months after Apple filed its motion.
20

Samsung, in contrast, has proposed to file its opposition ten weeks after Apple filed its

21 motion and to hold the hearing at least three and a half months after Apple filed its motion — an
22 extraordinary and excessive delay.

Samsung does not need ten weeks to prepare its opposition to

23 Apple’s focused motion, which is limited to three design patents and one utility patent.
24

Samsung does not need discovery to evaluate whether its products look substantially the

25 same as the patented Apple designs to an “ordinary observer,” which is the test for design patent
26 infringement.

Nor does Samsung need discovery to check if its products operate in the manner

27 claimed by the Apple utility patent, or to compare the prior art with the Apple patents.

Indeed,

28 Samsung has already compared the prior art with Apple’s designs in the handout it submitted two
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

-1-

1 months ago at the May 12 hearing.

(See Dkt. No. 87-8).

2 opposition now and revise as discovery proceeds.

Thus, Samsung can prepare its

Apple has proposed to provide all discovery

3 by August 5, and that Samsung will then have one additional week to finalize its opposition,
4 which will be due on August 12.

Given that Samsung will already have had five weeks to

5 prepare its opposition (July 1 to August 5), this is more than sufficient.
6

Regardless, Apple will respond to Samsung’s discovery requests, which Samsung has

7 already served, on an expedited basis within the next few weeks, and will produce its documents
8 by July 29, 2011.

Apple also will make its witnesses available for deposition in July and early

9 August after producing documents relevant to the deponent.

Finally, Apple proposes that

10 Samsung produce its documents within 23 days after service of Apple’s own document requests.
11

Time is of the essence.

Each additional day that Samsung continues to sell infringing

12 products results in additional irreparable harm to Apple.

Apple requests that the Court adopt its

13 proposed schedule and reject Samsung’s attempt to delay the hearing on Apple’s urgent motion
14 for a preliminary injunction until three and a half months after it was filed.
15 Samsung’s Proposed Briefing and Hearing Schedule.
16

Task

Samsung Proposal

17

Samsung’s discovery served on Apple
Apple’s objections to Samsung’s discovery
Apple’s responses to Samsung’s discovery
Last day for Apple to produce documents (production
to start on rolling basis)
Deadline for Samsung’s discovery of Apple regarding
Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Samsung’s opposition due
Deadline for Apple’s discovery of Samsung regarding
Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
Apple’s Reply due
Hearing on Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction

July 6
July 11
July 20

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Apple Proposal

July 25
August 19
September 9

August 5
August 12

September 30
October 7
At Court’s
convenience; as early
as Oct. 14

August 26
August 31
At Court’s
convenience; as early
as Sept. 8

Samsung seeks a modest 10 weeks to have a fair opportunity to respond to Apple’s request
for extraordinary relief that, if granted, could halt the sales of four of Samsung’s innovative
products and cause enormous disruption to its customers.

Apple sought expedited discovery to

support a purported preliminary injunction motion based on trade dress/trademark claims, but then
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

-2-

1 abandoned those claims in its preliminary injunction motion, which focuses on three design
2 patents and one utility patent.

Apple delayed for months from the inception of this case before

3 filing its motion on these patents.

Surely, Apple can wait another few weeks in order to afford

4 Samsung a chance to defend itself from Apple’s shifting preliminary injunction allegations.
Samsung needs reasonable discovery to oppose Apple’s motion.1

5

Apple submitted the

6 declarations of two experts and two lay witnesses in support of its motion. Samsung noticed
7 depositions of all four declarants, at least one inventor of each patent, and a 30(b)(6) deposition.
8 Each deposition is directly relevant to Samsung’s opposition, as are Apple’s responses to the
9 interrogatories and requests for production that Samsung has served.

Samsung’s discovery is

10 directed to, among other things, documents from other litigations involving Apple’s preliminary
11 injunction patents and foreign counterpart patents – information that is highly relevant to claim
12 construction, non-infringement and validity issues.
13

Apple does not propose dates for the service of its objections to Samsung’s interrogatories

14 or for its production of documents.

Such deadlines are needed.

Apple’s documents and

15 interrogatory responses must be provided before any depositions are taken if such depositions are
16 to be meaningful.

Samsung also needs prompt responses to its discovery requests so that any

17 disputes about the scope of discovery can be brought to the Court’s attention in a timely manner.
18

In short, Samsung’s proposed schedule gives the parties a fair and reasonable opportunity

19 to conduct discovery and brief the complex issues raised in Apple’s motion.

Apple’s schedule

20 leaves insufficient time for Samsung to fairly oppose the extraordinary relief that Apple seeks.
21 Apple’s schedule also leaves Samsung with a mere seven days to submit its opposition after
22 discovery closes.

That, on its face, is insufficient to prepare for a motion of this magnitude.

23
24
25
26

1

Samsung also requests that the discovery taken in support of its opposition to Apple’s
27 Preliminary Injunction not count against the limits on discovery otherwise provided by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

-3-

1
2 DATED: July 8, 2011
3

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

4
By /s/Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

DATED: July 8, 2011

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

12
13

By /s/Richard S.J. Hung
Harold J. McElhinny
Michael A. Jacobs
Jennifer Lee Taylor
Alison M. Tucher
Richard S.J. Hung
Jason R. Bartlett
Attorneys for APPLE INC.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used
to file this document.

Pursuant to General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Richard S.J. Hung,

counsel for Apple Inc. has concurred in this filing.

23
24 Dated: July 8, 2011

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

25

By:

26

/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Victoria F. Maroulis

27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT SUBMISSION REGARDING THE BRIEFING AND HEARING
SCHEDULE RELATING TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

-4-