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

Filing 1421

OPPOSITION to 1398 Brief Regarding References at Trial "Plaintiff" amd "Defendant" by Apple Inc. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 7/27/2012) Modified text on 7/30/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
v.
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,

23

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S BRIEF REGARDING
REFERENCES AT TRIAL TO
“PLAINTIFF” AND “DEFENDANT”

Trial:
Time:
Place:
JUDGE:

July 30, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
HON. LUCY H. KOH

Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28

APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S BRIEF RE: REFERENCES TO PLAINTIFF AND
DEFENDANT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3175805

1

The Court has offered Samsung the opportunity to bifurcate its case—to be a plaintiff

2

asserting patents in a separate case against Apple. Samsung turned the option down. (7/24/2012

3

Hr’g Tr. at 43:3-11.) Now Samsung asks the court to treat it like the plaintiff in front of the jury,

4

referring to the parties as “claimants” and reshuffling counsel tables in the courtroom. Samsung’s

5

proposal contradicts the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and may confuse the jury.

6

Apple is the plaintiff in this case, as the caption on Samsung’s brief indicates. By filing a

7

complaint and summons, Apple became the plaintiff and Samsung the defendant. See Fed. R.

8

Civ. P. 4. By filing its counterclaims in this action, Samsung became a defendant-

9

counterclaimant. (See Dkt. No. 80.) See also Fed. R. of Civ. P. 13. If Samsung wishes to be

10

called something else, it should have tried its affirmative case separately.

11

Samsung’s request to sit near the jury while it bears the burden of proof is unnecessary

12

and inconvenient. Samsung has indicated that it intends to follow Apple’s affirmative case with

13

its own affirmative case, before defending against Apple’s claims. If the trial occurs in this order,

14

Samsung’s request would result in table-swapping every few days. The Court’s management of

15

the trial will mitigate any possible prejudice to Samsung, regardless of where the parties’ lawyers

16

sit.

17

Samsung cites a transcript from one Central District of California case, Mattel v. MGA,

18

Case No. 04-cv-09049 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 2, 2004) (Quinn Emanuel representing Mattel), in

19

which the court apparently allowed the parties to switch tables at the end of the plaintiff’s case.

20

That trial was considerably longer than this one (Dkt. No. 1398 at 8 (120 hours per side)), and we

21

have no indication in the transcript fragment Samsung provides as to why the court decided to

22

allow the parties to switch tables.

23

Samsung’s latest attempt to re-write the Court’s guidelines for this trial should be denied.

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3175805

1

1
Dated: July 27, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

2
3
By:
4
5

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs________
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE INC.’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3175805

2