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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?