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

Filing 1259

MOTION to Shorten Time re Motion to Clarify Portions of the Court's June 30, 2012 Order Denying Samsung's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Cashman Declaration, #2 Ex. 1, #3 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/17/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. 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 (PSG)



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,

Defendants.




Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1

NOTICE OF MOTION

2

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

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

4 Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively
5 “Samsung”) shall and hereby do move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, to
6 shorten time for briefing and hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Clarify Portions of the Court’s June
7 30, 2012 Order Denying Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

This motion is based on

8 this notice of motion and supporting memorandum; the supporting Declaration of Adam Cashman,
9 and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is
10 taken under submission by the Court.
11
12

RELIEF REQUESTED
Samsung seeks an Order shortening time for briefing and hearing on its Motion to Clarify

13 Portions of the Court’s June 30, 2012 Order Denying Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
14
15 July 17, 2012
16

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

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

24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4860387.1

-1-

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

1
2

MEMORANDUM
On June 30, 2012, the Court issued an Order Denying Samsung’s Motion for Summary

3 Judgment (“Summary Judgment Order”).

Samsung moves the Court to shorten time for the

4 briefing and hearing schedule for its concurrently-filed Motion to Clarify Portions of the Court’s
5 June 30, 2012 Order Denying Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion for
6 Clarification”).
7

1.

8

Specifically, Samsung requests that:

Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion for Clarification be filed on or before
Friday, July 20;

9

2.

Samsung waives its right to file a reply brief; and

10

3.

Samsung’s Motion For Clarification be heard on Tuesday, July 24 at 1:30 pm.

11

In particular, Samsung seeks clarification that the Court’s Summary Judgment Order does

12 not strike certain prior art references for all purposes, thereby broadening Judge Grewal’s June 27,
13 2012 Order Granting-In-Part And Denying-In-Part Motions to Strike Expert Reports (“Expert
14 Exclusion Order”).

Apple’s Motion to Strike was directed only to certain opinions set forth in

15 Samsung’s experts’ reports, and did not seek to exclude prior art in its entirety.

Apple never

16 requested such an extraordinary sanction, and the Expert Exclusion Order did not grant it; rather, it
17 granted only Apple’s request to strike certain expert opinions.
18

A shortened briefing schedule on Samsung's Motion for Clarification is necessary because,

19 if adjudicated pursuant to the briefing and hearing schedule prescribed by the Local Rules,
20 Samsung’s Motion for Clarification would not be heard until the end of trial, mooting the very
21 relief Samsung is seeking.

The evidence that is the subject of Samsung’s motion is central to

22 Samsung’s ability to present its defenses to the jury, and delaying resolution of the motion until
23 the end of trial could result in substantial prejudice to Samsung. Expedited resolution of
24 Samsung’s Motion is also necessary to streamline the parties’ respective trial presentations, and to
25 provide certainty with respect to any limitations on the purposes for which certain evidence may
26 be used at trial.
27

The relief sought by Samsung’s Motion for Clarification is narrow.

Samsung’s Motion

28 does not seek to challenge the Court’s Summary Judgment Order nor the Court’s Expert Exclusion
02198.51855/4860387.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-2MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME

1 Order.

Instead, Samsung seeks only to clarify that the Expert Exclusion Order does not preclude

2 the use of Samsung’s long-disclosed prior art references for all purposes. A shortened briefing
3 and hearing schedule will therefore not result in any prejudice to Apple.
4

Counsel for Samsung contacted counsel for Apple in an effort to reach agreement with

5 respect to the briefing and hearing schedule outlined above. See Declaration of Adam Cashman
6 in Support of Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time ¶ 2, Ex. 1.

Apple did not agree to Samsung's

7 proposed schedule, and indicated that it would oppose Samsung’s Motion to Shorten Time.
8
9

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

10 Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Stay.
11
12 DATED: July 17, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

13

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4860387.1

-3-

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