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

Filing 1135

ORDER Granting Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 6/26/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

18
On December 2, 2011, this Court issued an order denying Apple’s motion for a preliminary
19
injunction. Apple sought an injunction based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s
20
Design Patent Nos. D618,677 (“the D’677 Patent”), D593,087 (“the D’087 Patent”), D504,889
21
(“the D’889 Patent”), and based on Samsung’s alleged infringement of Apple’s U.S. Patent No.
22
7,469,381 (“the ’381 Patent”). ECF No. 452. The Federal Circuit affirmed, in part, this Court’s
23
Order, but remanded for further proceedings solely with respect to the D’889 Patent. See Apple,
24
Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Specifically, the Federal
25
Circuit ordered this Court to consider the balance of hardships and whether the public interest
26
favored an injunction with respect to the D’889 Patent. Id. at 1333. The Federal Circuit issued the
27
mandate, which was received and docketed by the Clerk of this Court on June 25, 2012. ECF No.
28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

1130. This Court now has jurisdiction over the matter. See 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

2

Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3987; see also United States v.

3

Rodgers, 101 F.3d 247, 251 (2d Cir. 1996).

4

I.

Preliminary Injunction

5

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on

6

the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the

7

balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v.

8

Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). In the December 2, 2011 Order, this Court

9

found that Apple had established that the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 likely infringed upon the

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

D’889 Patent, and that Apple was likely to suffer irreparable harm as a result of Samsung’s

11

infringing conduct. See December 2 Order at 39-50. However, the Court denied the preliminary

12

injunction because the D’889 Patent was likely invalid based on several prior art references. Id. at

13

40-45, 50.

14

The Federal Circuit upheld the Court’s findings of infringement and irreparable harm with

15

respect to the D’889 Patent, but reversed the Court’s invalidity finding as to that patent. See Apple,

16

678 F.3d at 1328-33. The Federal Circuit remanded for a determination only to allow the Court to

17

make findings regarding the third and fourth Winter factors, and to determine as a whole whether

18

the injunction should issue. Id. at 1333. Specifically, the Federal Circuit instructed this Court, on

19

remand, to “conduct [an] assessment of the balance of hardships with respect to the D’889 Patent.

20

To the extent that the court finds that the public interest factor cuts in favor of either side, it should

21

weigh that factor as well in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction against

22

Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer.” Id. Apple has satisfied the first two Winter factors.

23

Thus, the Court’s task on remand is a narrow one.

24

Although the Court previously set this matter for hearing, upon further review of the

25

briefing and further consideration of the record on this matter, the Court concludes that another

26

hearing on these issues is unnecessary. The parties have had several opportunities to brief and

27

argue the motion for a preliminary injunction. Initially, the Court held a hearing on the motion,

28

after full briefing, on October 13, 2011. The Court issued its ruling on December 2, 2011. The
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

parties then briefed and had oral argument on these issues before the Federal Circuit. Finally,

2

Apple filed a motion for an injunction pursuant to Rule 62(c) on May 18, 2012. See ECF No. 951.

3

The Court set a briefing schedule on May 21, 2012, in which the parties were ordered to address

4

the limited issues the Federal Circuit remanded for this Court’s consideration, namely the balance

5

of hardships and whether the public interest favored an injunction on the D’889 Patent. ECF No.

6

962. The Court also requested briefing on an appropriate amount of bond. Id. at 2. The Court

7

determined that no new facts, except with regard to the bond, would be considered on remand in

8

light of the scope of the remand ordered by the Federal Circuit.1 Id. Samsung filed its brief on

9

May 25, 2012 addressing the issues identified above. Apple filed a reply brief on May 31, 2012.

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

1

Based on this record, the Court determines that further briefing and argument from the parties on

11

the issue of the preliminary injunction is unnecessary. Moreover, because this Court has already

12

found that denial of an injunction would cause Apple irreparable harm, any further delay of the

13

injunction is not justified. Therefore, the hearing set for Friday, June 29, 2012 is VACATED. Civ.

14

L. R. 7-1(b). For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Apple’s motion for a

15

preliminary injunction and ENJOINS the sale of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer.

16

A. Balance of the Hardships

17

In light of the Federal Circuit’s ruling that Samsung has not raised a substantial question as

18

to the validity of the D’889 Patent, this Court finds that the balance of hardships tips in Apple’s

19

favor. The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that “[t]he hardship on a preliminarily enjoined

20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Samsung filed a motion seeking leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s ruling
prohibiting new evidence on remand. See ECF Nos. 962; 978. Samsung sought to introduce new
prior art to relitigate the validity of the D’889 Patent and new financial information to relitigate the
irreparable harm issue as to the D’889 Patent. See ECF No. 978. The Court denied Samsung’s
motion in its June 4, 2012 Order at n.1, ECF No. 1032. When Samsung raised the issue again at
the June 21, 2012 hearing on cross motions for summary judgment, the Court again denied
Samsung’s request. On June 26, 2012, Samsung moved yet again for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration. ECF No. 1132. Samsung once again seeks to introduce new prior art to relitigate
the validity of the D’889 Patent and new financial information to relitigate the irreparable harm
issue as to the D’889 Patent. Samsung has not met its burden under the Civil Local Rules in
showing that one of the three requirements of Civil Local Rule 7-9(b) is met and thus warrants
leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Moreover, the Federal Circuit’s remand was explicitly
limited to the issues of balancing of hardships and public interest and did not invite a reopening of
the D’889 infringement, validity, and irreparable harm findings. Accordingly, Samsung’s motion
for leave to file a motion for reconsideration in order to reopen the record and to relitigate issues
beyond the limits of the Federal Circuit’s remand order is DENIED.
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

manufacturer who must withdraw its product from the market before trial can be devastating.” Ill.

2

Tool Works, Inc. v. Grip-Pak, Inc., 906 F.2d 679, 683 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Nonetheless, in many

3

circumstances, the infringer’s hardship from an injunction is insufficient for a balance of hardships

4

to weigh in its favor. This is because “[o]ne who elects to build a business on a product found to

5

infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against a continuing infringement destroys the

6

business so elected.” Telebrands Direct Response Corp. v. Ovation Commc’ns, Inc., 802 F. Supp.

7

1169, 1179 (D.N.J. 1992) (quoting Windsurfing Int’l Inc. v. AMF, Inc., 782 F.2d 995, 1003 n.12

8

(Fed. Cir. 1986).

9

In this case, although Samsung will necessarily be harmed by being forced to withdraw its

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

product from the market before the merits can be determined after a full trial, the harm faced by

11

Apple absent an injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1 is greater. Apple’s interest in enforcing its

12

patent rights is particularly strong because it has presented a strong case on the merits. This Court

13

previously found the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to be substantially similar “in the eyes of the ordinary

14

observer” to the D’889. See December 12 Order at 45. Indeed, the Court noted that the Galaxy

15

Tab 10.1 is “virtually indistinguishable” from Apple’s iPad and iPad 2. See id. at 47. In

16

combination with the Federal Circuit’s determination that the D’889 Patent will likely withstand

17

Samsung’s validity challenge, Apple has established a strong claim on the merits. Additionally,

18

the Federal Circuit did not upset this Court’s finding that Apple has established a likelihood of

19

irreparable harm absent an injunction. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1328. In comparison, Samsung’s

20

concern over the losses suffered as a result of an injunction cannot overcome Apple’s showing. See

21

Celsis In Vitro, Inc. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 664 F.3d 922, 931 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Sanofi–Synthelabo v.

22

Apotex, Inc., 470 F.3d 1368, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This is particularly true in light of the fact that

23

(1) there was some evidence that Samsung altered its design to make its product look more like

24

Apple’s, and (2) Apple will be required to post a bond in the event that this injunction was wrongly

25

issued. See Apple, 678 F.3d at 1338 (O’Malley, J., concurring); Ho Decl. Ex. HH, ECF No. 430.

26

Samsung essentially raises two arguments that the balance of hardships tips in its favor: (1)

27

an injunction on the Galaxy Tablet 10.1 is an overbroad injunction based on “one aspect of the

28

overall product,” and (2) an injunction would harm Samsung’s business relationships with wireless
4
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

carriers that provide the Galaxy Tab 10.1 to their customers. See Opp’n to Mot. for Rule 62(c)

2

Injunction (“Opp’n”) at 6-9. The Court is unpersuaded by Samsung’s arguments. Samsung

3

previously raised, and this Court previously rejected, Samsung’s argument that design is but one

4

aspect of a technologically complex product. This Court previously found that design is an

5

important driver in the demand for tablet sales. December 2 Order at 49. This finding was upheld

6

by the Federal Circuit. See Apple, 678 F.3d at 1328. Even though the Tab 10.1 may be a “complex

7

technological device,” there is no basis to revisit the Court’s finding on this point.

8

Second, Samsung’s argument that its business relationships would be damaged by an
injunction rings hollow. As explained above, “one who elects to build a business on a product

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

found to infringe cannot be heard to complain if an injunction against a continuing infringement

11

destroys the business so elected.” Telebrands Direct Response Corp., 802 F. Supp. at 1179.

12

Samsung cannot be heard to complain about broken business relationships that it has established on

13

infringing products.

14

Apple has established a strong case on the merits. This Court already found that Samsung’s

15

products are “virtually indistinguishable” from Apple’s products, and that the Galaxy Tab 10.1

16

likely infringed on the D’889 Patent. Moreover, this Court previously found that Apple had shown

17

that it was likely to suffer irreparable harm from the sales of Samsung’s infringing tablets because:

18

(1) Apple and Samsung were direct competitors, (2) together the two companies held a relatively

19

large market share, with few other competitors in the relevant market; and (3) design mattered

20

more to customers in making tablet purchases, establishing the requisite nexus. Apple, 678 F.3d at

21

1328; December 2 Order at 48-49. Given the strength of Apple’s case on the merits, and its

22

likelihood of irreparable harm, the balance of hardships tips in Apple’s favor. While Samsung will

23

certainly suffer lost sales from the issuance of an injunction, the hardship to Apple of having to

24

directly compete with Samsung’s infringing products outweighs Samsung’s harm in light of the

25

previous findings by the Court.

26

B. Public Interest

27

The Federal Circuit also instructed this Court to consider whether the public interest favors

28

issuing a preliminary injunction of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Apple, 678 F.3d at 1333. “In exercising
5
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public consequences in

2

employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Winter, 555 U.S. at 24 (citation omitted).

3

Samsung argues that the public interest favors competition and thus weighs against issuing an

4

injunction which would preclude a product from the market. Opp’n at 10-11. On the other hand,

5

Apple argues that the public interest weighs in favor of enforcing patent rights. Mot. at 9.

6

The Court agrees with Apple that the public interest favors the enforcement of patent rights

7

here. See Sanofi–Synthelabo, 470 F.3d at 1383 (“We have long acknowledged the importance of

8

the patent system in encouraging innovation.”). Although Samsung has a right to compete, it does

9

not have a right to compete unfairly, by flooding the market with infringing products. As

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

explained by the Federal Circuit, “[a]lthough the public interest inquiry is not necessarily or always

11

bound to the likelihood of success o[n] the merits, . . . absent any other relevant concerns . . . the

12

public is best served by enforcing patents that are likely valid and infringed.” Abbott Labs. v.

13

Andrx Pharm., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This Court is persuaded by Judge

14

O’Malley’s concurrence that the public interest favors an injunction here “because the record at

15

this stage shows that the D’889 Patent is likely valid and infringed, and there are no other relevant

16

concerns, the public interest is best served by granting a preliminary injunction.” Apple, 678 F.3d

17

at 1338 (O’Malley, J. concurring). As a patent holder, Apple has a valid right to exclude others

18

from practicing Apple’s invention. In order to protect that right, and promote the “encouragement

19

of investment-based risk,” the public interest weighs in favor of Apple. See Sanofi–Synthelabo,

20

470 F.3d at 1383 (citing Patlex Corp. v. Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 599 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).

21

Finally, the Court should “weigh and measure each of the four factors against the other

22

factors and against the magnitude of the relief requested.” Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Auto Body

23

Panels of Ohio, Inc., 908 F.2d 951, 953 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This Court has already found that Apple

24

was likely to succeed on establishing infringement at trial “[i]n light of the substantial similarities

25

between the design of the accused product and the D’889 Patent.” December 2, 2011 Order at 48.

26

The Court also found that Apple had established that it would likely be irreparably harmed by the

27

infringing conduct. Id. at 49. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Court’s findings on these issues,

28

and found that Samsung is not likely to establish that the D’889 is invalid at trial. Moreover, as
6
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

explained above, the remaining two Winter factors weigh in favor of an injunction. In light of the

2

fact that all Winter factors weigh in Apple’s favor, the Court finds that the issuance of a

3

preliminary injunction is proper.

4

C. Bond

5

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c) requires that the Court order Apple to provide
security “in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by

7

any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” The amount of bond is within

8

the court’s discretion. See Save Our Sonoran, Inc. v. Flowers, 408 F.3d 1113, 1126 (9th Cir.

9

2005). The bond requirement is “designed to protect the enjoined party’s interests in the event that

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

6

future proceedings show the injunction issued wrongfully.” Apple, 678 F.3d at 1339 (O’Malley, J.

11

concurring) (citing Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 649 (1982) (Stevens, J., concurring)). The

12

Court has reviewed the briefing. Although the parties disagree on the upper range of a potential

13

bond, the parties agree that a bond in the amount of $2.6 million will be sufficient. See Opp’n to

14

Rule 62(c) Motion at 13; Reply to Rule 62(c) Motion at 7. In light of the agreement by the parties,

15

the Court sets the bond in the amount of $2.6 million.

16

II.

17
18

Order
For the foregoing reasons, the Court issues the following order enjoining the Galaxy Tab

10.1 from sale in the United States:

19

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

20

Telecommunications America, Inc., its officers, directors, partners, agents, servants, employees,

21

attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concert with any of them, are enjoined from making,

22

using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States,

23

Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer, and any product that is no more than colorably

24

different from this specified product and embodies any design contained in U.S. Design Patent No.

25

D504,889. As a condition of the preliminary injunction, Apple is ordered to post a bond in the

26

amount of $2,600,000 to secure payment of any damages sustained by defendant if it is later found

27

to have been wrongfully enjoined. This Order shall become effective upon posting of the bond.

28
7
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: June 26, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

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
8
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION