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

Filing 1945

ORDER RE: POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 1937 Motion to Shorten Time; granting 1942 Motion to Shorten Time (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

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

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: POST-TRIAL
PROCEEDINGS

On August 26, 2012, Samsung filed a Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary

20

Injunction (ECF No. 1936), along with a Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing (ECF

21

No. 1937), the latter of which Apple opposed (ECF No. 1938), to which Samsung replied (ECF

22

No. 1943). On August 27, 2012, Samsung filed a Motion for Stay of the August 24, 2012

23

Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(b) Pending Resolution of Post-Trial Motions (ECF No. 1941),

24

also accompanied by a Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing (ECF No. 1942). In

25

accordance with the briefing schedule set forth below, both of Samsung’s motions to shorten time

26

are GRANTED.

27
28

In response to the Court’s August 24, 2012 Order, Apple filed a statement on August 27,
2012, indicating that it intends to seek a preliminary injunction against eight Samsung phones,
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

1

which were collectively found by the jury to infringe two design patents and three utility patents,

2

and to dilute one registered trade dress and one unregistered trade dress. See ECF No. 1940.

3

Having considered the scope of Apple’s preliminary injunction request, the additional post-

4

trial motions that the parties have already filed and will file, and the substantial overlap between

5

the analysis required for Apple’s preliminary injunction motion and the parties’ various other post-

6

trial motions, the Court believes consolidation of the briefing and hearing on the post-trial motions

7

is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court hereby sets forth the following modified briefing deadlines,

8

hearing schedule, and page limits regarding the parties’ various post-trial motions:

9
Filing
Samsung’s Motion for Stay of August
24, 2012 Judgment
Apple’s opposition (max. 7 pages)
Samsung’s reply (max. 3 pages)
Hearing

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

13
14
15
16
17

Deadline
September 21, 2012

Filing
Apple’s motion for permanent
injunction and willfulness
enhancements 2 (max. 30 pages)

12

Deadline
Filed August 26, 2012

Filing
Rule 50 motions 1 (1 per side, max. 30
pages)
Oppositions (max. 30 pages)
Replies (max. 20 pages)
Hearing

11

Deadline
Filed August 27, 2012

Filing
Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve June
26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction
Apple’s opposition (max. 7 pages)
Samsung’s reply (max. 3 pages)
Hearing (if necessary)

10

Deadline
September 21, 2012

August 31, 2012
September 4, 2012
None

September 7, 2012
September 13, 2012
September 20, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

October 19, 2012
November 9, 2012
December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

The Court will entertain only one post-judgment motion for relief per side, not including Apple’s
motion for permanent injunction and willfulness enhancement. Accordingly, any party who wishes
to move for relief pursuant to Rules 52(b), 59, or 60, shall incorporate such motion(s) into its Rule
50 motion.
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

Samsung’s opposition (max. 35 pages) October 19, 2012
Apple’s reply (max. 15 pages)
November 9, 2012
Hearing
December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

1
2
3

In briefing Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction, the

4
5

parties shall address whether the Court has jurisdiction to grant Samsung’s motion, as well as

6

Samsung’s request in the alternative for an indicative ruling pursuant to Rule 62.1.
The page limits set forth herein will be strictly enforced. Any argument that is not

7
8

explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits will be disregarded. Any supporting

9

documentation shall be for corroboration purposes solely and shall not be used as a vehicle for

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

circumventing the Court’s page limits. Any citations to the record must include the relevant

11

testimony or exhibit language. Any single-spaced bullets in an attempt to circumvent the briefing

12

page limits will be disregarded.

13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: August 28, 2012

16

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

2

If the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law entitles
Samsung to move for a permanent injunction, the Court will set a separate briefing schedule at that
time.
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: POST-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS