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

Filing 1900

ORDER Re: Changes to Final Jury Instructions. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/21/12. (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

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: CHANGES TO FINAL
JURY INSTRUCTIONS

16

The Court intends to make the following typographical changes to the Final Jury

17
18
19
20

Instructions filed last night at ECF No. 1893:
•

Instruction No. 55 – Delete “[DISPUTED]”

•

Instruction No. 58 – Replace SEC, SEA, and STA with entity names, and delete last
paragraph

21
22
23
24

•

Instruction No. 60 – Insert “is” at line 6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 21, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28

1
5:11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: CHANGES TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 55
DESIGN PATENT DAMAGES—LOST PROFITS
Apple may alternatively recover compensatory damages in the form of lost profits. As previously
explained, Apple may not recover both Samsung’s profits and compensatory damages on each sale
of an infringing product. In assessing Apple’s right to recover lost profits for Samsung Electronics
Company’s, Samsung Electronics America’s, and Samsung Telecommunications America’s
infringement of its design patents, you should apply the same rules I already explained in the
context of lost profits for infringement of Apple’s utility patents. Those Instructions are set out in
Jury Instruction Nos. 36, 37, 38, and 39.
Wherever in those Instructions I referred to Apple’s utility patents, you should now focus on
Apple’s design patents. Wherever in those Instructions I referred to the patented invention, you
should now focus on the patented design. Wherever in those Instructions I referred to patented
products or products covered by a patent claim, you should now focus on products or articles that
use or embody the patented design.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
5:11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: CHANGES TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 58
UTILITY AND DESIGN PATENTS—INDUCING PATENT INFRINGEMENT
Apple claims that Samsung Electronics Company actively induced its subsidiaries in the United
States, Samsung Telecommunications America and Samsung Electronics America, to infringe
Apple’s utility and design patents. Samsung claims that Apple actively induced third parties to
infringe Samsung’s ’460 patent.
In order for there to be inducement of infringement by either Samsung Electronics Company or
Apple, someone else must directly infringe the asserted patent; if there is no direct infringement by
anyone, there can be no induced infringement. In order to be liable for inducement of
infringement, the alleged infringer must:
1. have intentionally taken action that actually induced direct infringement by another;
2. have been aware of the asserted patent; and
3. have known that the acts it was causing would be infringing.
The “knowledge” and “awareness” requirements for inducement can be satisfied by showing that a
party was willfully blind. If Samsung Electronics Company or Apple did not know of the
existence of the patent in question or that the acts it was inducing were infringing, it can be liable
for inducement only if it actually believed that it was highly probable its actions would encourage
infringement of a patent and it took intentional acts to avoid learning the truth. It is not enough that
Samsung Electronics Company or Apple was merely indifferent to the possibility that it might
encourage infringement of a patent. Nor is it enough that Samsung Electronics Company or Apple
took a risk that was substantial and unjustified.
If you find that Samsung Electronics Company or Apple was aware of an asserted patent, but
believed that the acts it encouraged did not infringe that patent, or that the patent was invalid,
Samsung Electronics Company or Apple cannot be liable for inducement.

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

3
5:11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: CHANGES TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

FINAL JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 60
TRADE DRESS DILUTION AND INFRINGEMENT––INTRODUCTION
Apple seeks damages against Samsung for diluting Apple’s Registered Trade Dress No. 3,470,983,
unregistered iPhone 3G trade dress, unregistered combination iPhone trade dress, and unregistered
iPad/iPad 2 trade dress. Samsung denies that it diluted Apple’s asserted trade dresses and contends
the trade dresses are unprotectable and thus invalid.
Apple also seeks damages against Samsung for infringement of Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2
trade dress. Samsung denies that it infringed Apple’s asserted iPad-related trade dress and, as
already stated, contends it is unprotectable.
Here are the instructions you must follow in deciding Apple’s trade dress dilution and infringement
claims.

8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4
5:11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: CHANGES TO JURY INSTRUCTIONS