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

Filing 1796

ORDER Regarding Rule 50 Motions; Order Regarding Apple's Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/16/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2012)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5

SAN JOSE DIVISION

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. )
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: PARTIES’ MOTIONS
PURSUANT TO RULE 50; ORDER RE:
APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE

At the close of Samsung’s affirmative and defensive cases, Apple moved for judgment as a

15

matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). Rule 50 provides that the court

16

may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a non-moving party if “the court finds

17

that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on”

18

an issue. After considering all of the evidence presented by Samsung in its affirmative case, the

19

Court made the following rulings on the record with respect to Samsung’s claims against Apple:

20



The Court found that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary

21

basis to find that Apple induced infringement or contributorily infringed upon the ’516

22

Patent, the ’941 Patent, the ’711 Patent, and the ’893 Patent. Samsung conceded that it

23

had not presented any evidence on these claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTED

24

Apple’s motion pursuant to Rule 50 with respect to these claims.

25



The Court found that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary

26

basis to find that Apple infringed the ’516 Patent, the ’941 Patent, the ’711 Patent, and

27

the ’893 Patent under the doctrine of equivalents. Samsung conceded that it had not

28
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ RULE 50 MOTIONS; APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE

1

presented any evidence on these claims. Accordingly, the Court GRANTED Apple’s

2

motion pursuant to Rule 50 with respect to these claims.

3



The Court found that no reasonable jury would have a legally sufficient evidentiary

4

basis to find that Apple contributorily infringed upon the ’460 Patent. Samsung

5

conceded it had not presented any evidence on this claim. Accordingly, the Court

6

GRANTED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to this claim.

7



8
9

Apple induced infringement of the ’460 Patent.


United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims of literal
infringement of the ’460 Patent, the ’516 Patent, the ’941 Patent, and the ’711 Patent.



12
13

The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claim that

The Court also DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to willfulness as to the
’460 Patent, the ’516 Patent, the ’941 Patent, the ’711 Patent, and the ’893 Patent.

Apple also raised a motion for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule of

14

Civil Procedure 50(a) with respect to Samsung’s defensive case against Apple. After considering

15

all of the evidence presented by Samsung in its defensive case, the Court made the following

16

rulings on the record with respect to Samsung’s defensive case:

17



The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims that the

18

Galaxy i9000, the Galaxy S2 AT&T, the Galaxy S2 i9000, the Epic 4G Touch, and the

19

Galaxy S2 Skyrocket do not infringe the D’087 Patent.

20



The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims that the

21

Fascinate, the Galaxy Ace, the Galaxy S2 AT&T, the Galaxy S2 i9000, the Galaxy S2

22

T-Mobile, the Galaxy S2 Skyrocket, the Showcase, and the Mesmerize do not infringe

23

the D’677 Patent.

24



25
26
27

The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims that the
D’087 and the D’677 are invalid based on functionality.



The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims that the
accused devices do not infringe the ’381 Patent and that the ’381 Patent is invalid.

28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ RULE 50 MOTIONS; APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE

1



The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims that the

2

accused devices do not infringe the ’163 Patent. The parties agreed that indefiniteness

3

is not an issue of fact for the jury and will file, by 1:00 p.m. on August 17, 2012, a

4

proposed jury instruction regarding Mr. Gray’s testimony of the indefiniteness of the

5

term “substantially centered” in the ’163 Patent.

6



7
8

trade dresses are functional.


9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

The Court denied Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claim that Apple’s

The Court denied Apple’s Rule 50 motion with respect to Samsung’s claims that the
’915 Patent is not infringed and that the ’915 Patent is obvious.

The Court DENIED Samsung’s renewed Rule 50 motion, including its motion for invalidity
of Apple’s trade dresses and design patents.
Apple also made a motion to strike certain theories based on Samsung’s alleged failure to

13

introduce evidence in support of the theories. The Court made the following rulings on the record

14

with respect to Apple’s motion to strike:

15



The Court DENIED Apple’s motion to strike Samsung’s theory that the Apple design

16

patents (the D’889 Patent, the D’087 Patent, the D’677 Patent, and the D’305 Patent)

17

are invalid based on obviousness.

18
19



The Court DENIED Apple’s motion to strike Samsung’s theory that the Korean patent
D547 and the LG Prada may not serve as prior art references.

20

The Court took the issue of the Fidler tablet under submission.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: August 16, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER REGARDING PARTIES’ RULE 50 MOTIONS; APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE