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

Filing 1276

RESPONSE (re #1274 MOTION for Leave to File Apples Administrative Motion For Leave To File Statement Regarding July 18, 2012 Pretrial Conference ) Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Statement Regarding July 18, 2012 Pretrial Conference filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/23/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

19

SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
STATEMENT REGARDING JULY 18,
2012 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

20

Plaintiff,
vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4869592.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S STATEMENT
REGARDING JULY 18, 2012 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1

Samsung disagrees that Samsung’s Conditional Motion for Relief from Nondispositive

2 Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (Dkt No. 952) should be deemed denied. The parties
3 specifically listed that motion as one of five pending motions in the July 6, 2012 Joint Pretrial
4 Order on page 22 (Dkt No. 1189). Because the Court has not yet addressed the merits of
5 Samsung’s appeal, the motion remains unresolved. Samsung’s motion for relief is directed to
6 important issues relating to Samsung’s defenses that should be examined on the merits.
7 Therefore, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court order Apple to file a substantive response.
8
9
10 DATED: July 23, 2012
11

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

12
13
14
15
16
17

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

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4869592.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S STATEMENT
REGARDING JULY 18, 2012 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE