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

Filing 1813

ORDER Regarding Samsung's Rule 50 Motion and Apple's Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/17/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2012)

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

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: SAMSUNG’S MOTION
PURSUANT TO RULE 50; ORDER RE:
APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE

14
15

On August 16, 2012, at the close of Samsung’s affirmative and defensive cases, Apple

16

moved to strike certain theories based on Samsung’s alleged failure to introduce evidence in

17

support of the theories. The Court made the following rulings on the record with respect to

18

Apple’s motion to strike:

19

•

The Court DENIED Apple’s motion to strike the Fidler tablet.

20

•

The Court DENIED Apple’s motion to strike Itay Sherman’s testimony.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

that issue.”

26
27

After considering all of the evidence presented by Apple, the Court made the following
rulings on the record with respect to the parties’ claims:

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

1

•

2
3

The Court DENIED Samsung’s renewed Rule 50 motion raising all of the same
arguments Samsung made in its prior Rule 50 motions.

•

The Court GRANTED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion as to anticipation of the ’460,

4

’711, and ’516 Patents. Apple conceded that it had introduced no evidence of

5

anticipation of these three Samsung patents.

6

•

7
8

’941 Patents.
•

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion as to anticipation as to the ’893 and

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion as to obviousness of the ’460, ’893,
’711, ’516, and ’941 Patents.

•

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion as to Apple’s claims of patent

11

exhaustion, antitrust violation, waiver, unclean hands, breach of contract, and

12

equitable estoppel.

13

•

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion as to rebuttal damages.

15
16

Dated: August 17, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER REGARDING SAMSUNG’S RULE 50 MOTION AND APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE