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

Filing 1435

OBJECTIONS to 1433 Apple's Request for Correction of Design Patent Claim Construction Order by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/28/2012) Modified text on 7/30/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

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.



SAMSUNG’S OBJECTION TO APPLE’S
REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF
DESIGN PATENT CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION ORDER



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.


11-cv-01846-LHK




Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTION TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTION
OF DESIGN PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

1

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

2 Telecommunication America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) hereby object to Apple, Inc.’s
3 (“Apple”) Request for Correction of the Court’s Design Patent Claim Construction Order.
4

Samsung does not object to the typographical corrections to the number of figures shown in

5 the D’087 and D’677 patents.

Apple’s suggested revision to the Court’s Order as it relates to the

6 oblique lines shown on the D’889 and D’677 designs, however, is a far cry from a “correction.”

It

7 is an improper motion for reconsideration of a substantive issue and is contrary to the plain
8 language of MPEP 1530.02.

Indeed, Apple urged this very construction in its opening claim

9 construction brief, but the Court declined to adopt it. Dkt. 1089-3, at 3. Apple offers no
10 legitimate grounds for reconsideration at all, so the request should be rejected on that basis alone.
11 Apple is also wrong on the merits.

As the Court properly stated, MPEP section 1530.02 (II)

12 provides that “[o]blique line shading must be used to show transparent, translucent and highly
13 polished or reflective surfaces.” Dkt. 1425, at 9, 10.

Indeed, Apple has repeatedly cited and

14 quoted the very MPEP section that it now attempts to quarrel with.

See, e.g., Dkt. 997-02, at 10

15 (Apple citing and relying on this MPEP provision); Dkt. 1089-3, at 3 (same). Apple’s purported
16 request for this “correction” should be denied.
17
18 DATED: July 28, 2012
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
By /s/ Victoria 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

27
28

02198.51855/4879971.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S OBJECTION TO APPLE’S REQUEST FOR CORRECTION
OF DESIGN PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER