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

Filing 1146

MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing On Samsung's Motion to Stay June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Victoria F. Maroulis, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/27/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]


Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor

Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
[phone]
 Telephone:
Facsimile:
[phone]



Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION


 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK



MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING



Plaintiff,
vs.

 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.




Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1

NOTICE OF MOTION



TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:



PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung

 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively
 “Samsung”) shall and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, to
 shorten time for briefing and hearing on its accompanying Motion to Stay and Suspend the June
 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal.


This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum ; the

 supporting Declaration of Victoria F. Maroulis, and such other written or oral argument as may be
 presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission by the Court.



RELIEF REQUESTED
Samsung seeks an to shorten time for briefing and hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Stay

 and Suspend the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal.

 June 27, 2012


QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP









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








Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

MEMORANDUM

1
2

On June 26, 2012, the Court issued an Order Granting Preliminary Injunction, enjoining

3

Samsung from making, using, offering to sell, selling in the United States, or importing into the

4

United States the Galaxy Tab 10.1 ("the Order"). Pursuant to Rule 62(c) of the Federal Rules of

5
6
7

Civil Procedure, Samsung has filed a Motion to Stay and Suspend the June 26, 2012 Preliminary
Injunction Pending Appeal Or, Alternatively, Pending Decision By Federal Circuit On Stay

8 Pending Appeal ("Motion to Stay"). In accordance with Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, Samsung
9 moves the Court to shorten time for the briefing and hearing schedule for its concurrently filed
10 Motion to Stay. Specifically, Samsung requests that:
11

1.

Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Stay be filed by 12:00 p.m. on Friday,

12
June 29, 2012;
13
14
15
16
17

2.

Samsung waives its right to file a reply brief; and

3.

The Court decide Samsung's Motion to Stay with any oral argument that the Court
deems appropriate.

A shortened briefing schedule on Samsung's Motion to Stay is necessary because the

18 Order, if permitted to take effect during the course of a normal briefing and hearing schedule, will
19
20

cause immediate and irreparable harm to Samsung’s business relationships with carriers and
customers. Samsung’s customers for its remaining Galaxy Tab 10.1 models are wireless carriers.

21
22

The carriers provide the Tab 10.1 to their customers along with cellular service plans.

23 Importantly, carriers have long-term relationships with their individual and corporate clients.
24 Because of the nature of those relationships, they cannot as a practical matter be temporarily
25 suspended, and breaking them imposes significant burdens. (See, e.g., Dkt. No 264 (preliminary
26
27

injunction would impair T-Mobile’s goodwill with its customers, who are under long-term
contracts with T-Mobile may not be able to obtain replacement devices covered by warranty if the

28
-2-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1 devices are enjoined); Dkt. No. 257 (the harm imposed by an injunction "would fall not just, or
2 even mainly, on Samsung," but on Verizon Wireless and its customers).) Therefore, it is critical to
3
4

Samsung’s business, as well as its business relationships with carriers and consumers, that
Samsung remain a stable source of products to its carrier customers.

5
6
7

Furthermore, Samsung has demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on appeal. The
Court's decision to issue an injunction based on an outdated and incomplete record is inconsistent

8 with the prospective and equitable nature of injunctive relief and the well-established principle
9 that courts, in deciding whether to grant injunctive relief, must "tak[e] into account all of the
10 circumstances that bear on the need for prospective relief" and "never ignore significant changes
11

in the law or circumstances underlying an injunction . . . " Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803,

12
1816 (2010) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit's order remanding for further proceedings did
13
14

not require this Court to ignore current facts and circumstances, and the Court erred in doing so.

15 (See Dkt. No. 1135 at 3, n.1.) On the current record, a preliminary injunction may not properly be
16 granted because significant new evidence raises substantial questions that the D'889 is likely
17 invalid and not infringed, and that Apple will not likely suffer irreparable harm in the absence of
18 preliminary injunctive relief.
19

Counsel for Samsung contacted Apple's counsel in an effort to reach a stipulation to the

20
briefing and hearing schedule outlined above. (Declaration of Victoria F. Maroulis in Support of
21
22

Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time ("Maroulis Decl.") ¶ 2, Ex. 1.) Apple did not agree to

23 Samsung's proposed schedule but proposed that Apple’s opposition be due Monday. (Maroulis
24 Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2). Samsung is unable to wait three additional days for Apple to submit its
25 opposition because absent a stay, the Court’s Order goes into effect immediately upon Apple
26

posting a bond, which it did today. (Dkt. No. 1145.) Moreover, in the event the Court denies

27
28
-3-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1 Samsung's Motion to Stay, the additional delay would prevent Samsung from obtaining relief from
2 the Federal Circuit until after the holiday.
3
4

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant Samsung’s

5
6

Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Stay.

7
8
9

DATED: June 27, 2012

Respectfully submitted,
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME