Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1106
ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal GRANTING #922 Samsung's Motion for Clarification of the court's May 4, 2012 Order (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
APPLE INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 4, 2012
ORDER
(Re: Docket No. 922)
In this patent infringement suit, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung
20
Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively
21
“Samsung”) seek clarification of the court’s May 4, 2012 order (“May 4 Order”) sanctioning
22
Samsung for its non-compliance with the court’s December 22, 2012 order (“December 22
23
Order”). The court will not rehash here all of the details of these earlier orders. Suffice it to say that
24
the court found that Samsung did not meet its obligation to produce all design-around code by this
25
court’s deadline. For this non-compliance, the court barred Samsung from offering any evidence of
26
its design-around efforts for each of the ‘381, ‘891 and ‘163 patents. The court further ordered that
27
Samsung shall not argue that the design-arounds are in any way distinct from those versions of
28
1
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
1
code produced in accordance with the court’s December 22 Order. Samsung was instead to rely
2
solely on the versions of code that were produced on or before December 31, 2011.
3
In its papers and at the hearing held on Samsung’s motion earlier today, Samsung discloses
4
that after the court issued its May 4 Order, it discovered that, contrary to its previous suggestions to
5
the court, Samsung had in fact produced at least some design-around code by December 31 for the
6
following accused products: Galaxy S II, Exhibit 4G, Tab 10.1, and Epic 4G. And so Samsung
7
contends that the dichotomy set forth by the court in the May 4 Order, between code produced by
8
December 31 and design-around code produced after December 31, is not correct. Samsung asks
9
that the court resolve the resulting ambiguity by confirming that Samsung may in fact offer the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
design-around code produced before the December 31 deadline. Samsung further requests
11
clarification that the May 4 Order permits Samsung to offer evidence of its design-arounds other
12
than source code, and further permits Samsung to offer evidence, both source code and non-source
13
code, of its design-arounds for purposes other than liability for infringement, such as damages and
14
injunctive relief.
15
Apple Inc. (“Apple”) responds that Samsung’s request is really a request for
16
reconsideration that falls short of the requirements set forth by Civ. L.R. 7-9. Apple emphasizes
17
Samsung’s failure to establish why it could not produce evidence of its design-around production
18
earlier in response to Apple’s sanctions motion and specific questions posed by the court. However
19
Samsung’s request is properly characterized, Apple also argues that Samsung’s production of
20
design-around code for the Galaxy S II is for a T-Mobile version of the product not accused or
21
otherwise at issue in this case. With respect to the Exhibit 4G and Tab 10.1 design-around code
22
production, Apple notes that Samsung presented no evidence with its moving papers that these
23
products ever implemented the design-around. With respect to the Epic 4G, Apple notes that
24
Samsung’s claim that it produced a version that includes the design-around is impossible to square
25
with Samsung’s previous representations that it either (1) produced the initial release of each
26
accused product, or (2) the current release of each such product at the time this suit was filed in
27
April 2011. As for Samsung’s suggestion that it is permitted under the May 4 Order to offer non-
28
source code evidence of its design-arounds at trial, and any evidence of its design-arounds for
2
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
1
purposes other than non-liability, Apple notes that the language of the May 4 Order needs no
2
clarification and on its face bars such efforts.
3
Without criticizing Samsung’s legitimate interest in knowing what it can and cannot do in
4
the trial to come, the court initially must note that any need for clarification by Samsung is
5
ultimately of Samsung’s own making. The court drew a line between code produced by December
6
31 and design-around code produced after that date based on Samsung’s representations to this
7
court. As Samsung itself acknowledges in its papers, “[t]he Court specifically relied on Samsung’s
8
mistaken statement that it did not produce any blue glow [design-around] source code until January
9
23, 2012.” 1
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
But even if the court were willing to relieve Samsung of the burden of its mistake, the court
11
must conclude that any evidence of Samsung’s design-arounds should remain off limits to
12
Samsung. The fact remains that Samsung failed miserably in meeting its obligation to produce all
13
design-around code for all of the accused products by the December 22 Order’s deadline. Nothing
14
in Samsung’s present request changes the fact that it did not produce source code for its ‘891 and
15
‘163 design-arounds until months after the December 31 deadline and even after the March 8, 2012
16
close of fact discovery. Even as to the ‘381 patent, design-around code was not produced for
17
products at suit, such as versions of the Galaxy S II for carriers other than T-Mobile, and Samsung
18
offers no real explanation of how to reconcile its claim that it produced source code for a version of
19
the Epic 4G that included design-around code with an earlier statement declaring otherwise. And
20
regarding the Exhibit 4G and Tab 10.1, the court is loath to credit evidence of production produced
21
for the first time in reply papers. Against this backdrop of non-compliance, it would hardly be fair
22
to allow Samsung to offer what little design-around code it may have produced for a handful of the
23
accused products, or to allow Samsung to produce all kinds of non-source code evidence, after it
24
withheld substantial source code that would have permitted Apple to challenge such evidence.
25
And so in response to Samsung’s request for clarification, here it is. As a sanction for
26
Samsung’s extended non-compliance with the December 22 Order, for each of the ‘381, ‘891 and
27
‘163 patents, Samsung may not offer any evidence of its design-arounds. This means no source
28
1
Docket No. 898 (Mot. for Extension of Time) at 5.
3
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
1
code evidence, no non-source code evidence, no evidence of any kind, whether for liability
2
purposes or any other purpose. Period. Because Apple only requested this sanction as to the
3
upcoming jury trial, this restriction does not extend beyond trial to any post-trial proceeding such
4
as those relating to the permanent injunction sought by Apple or contempt proceedings. The issue
5
of Samsung’s right to offer design-around evidence in any post-trial proceeding remains for
6
another day.
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated: 6/19/2012
9
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER CLARIFYING MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?