Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1958
Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying 1950 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)
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 DENYING MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO
RECONSIDER POST-TRIAL BRIEFING
SCHEDULE
(re: dkt. #1950)
On August 30, 2012, Apple filed a Motion for Leave to File Motion to Reconsider
20
Asymmetrical Schedule for Injunctive Relief. ECF No. 1950. Samsung filed an opposition on
21
August 31, 2012. ECF No. 1952.
22
Apple argues that its request for injunctive relief is more urgent than Samsung’s request to
23
dissolve an existing injunction, and that Samsung’s motion should therefore also be heard on
24
December 6, 2012, alongside Apple’s motion. Apple contends that reconsideration is warranted
25
because when the parties addressed the post-trial schedule on August 1, Samsung did not suggest it
26
would seek to dissolve the June 26 injunction based on the jury verdict. However, in opposing
27
Samsung’s motion to shorten time for briefing and hearing on Samsung’s motion to dissolve the
28
June 26, 2012 preliminary injunction, Apple both knew of Samsung’s motion to dissolve and had
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER SCHEDULE
the opportunity to be heard regarding an appropriate briefing schedule. See ECF No. 1936
2
(Samsung’s motion to dissolve); ECF No. 1937 (Samsung’s motion to shorten time); ECF No.
3
1938 (Apple’s opposition to motion to shorten time). Apple argued in its opposition that
4
“Samsung’s motion to dissolve the injunction should be decided on the same schedule as Apple’s
5
motion for a preliminary injunction.” ECF No. 1938 at 2. The Court disagreed, and no change in
6
facts or the law has changed the Court’s opinion. Whereas Samsung’s motion to dissolve the June
7
26, 2012 preliminary injunction involves review of an injunction against a single product (the
8
Galaxy Tab 10.1) based on alleged infringement of a single Apple patent (the D’889 Patent), see
9
ECF No. 1135, Apple’s proposed motion for a post-trial, pre-JMOL preliminary injunction would
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
1
seek to enjoin eight different Samsung products based on the jury’s finding of infringement across
11
seven different intellectual property rights. Moreover, Apple has indicated that its motion for a
12
permanent injunction may be even broader in scope. See ECF No. 1940 (identifying eight products
13
as the subject of a preliminary injunction, but “reserve[ing] all rights regarding a permanent
14
injunction”). Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for setting different briefing and hearing
15
schedules for the parties’ respective injunction-related motions. Apple’s motion for
16
reconsideration does not meet the requirements for reconsideration under Civil Local Rule 7-9(b),
17
and it is therefore DENIED.
18
In briefing Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction, the
19
parties shall address, in particular, the following issues: (1) whether the June 26, 2012 Preliminary
20
Injunction order (“PI Order”) automatically dissolves upon entry of final judgment, see U.S.
21
Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2010); (2) whether the fact that
22
the PI Order is on appeal impacts or stays any such dissolution; and (3) whether this Court has
23
jurisdiction to rule on Samsung’s dissolution motion while the PI Order is on appeal, see Griggs v.
24
Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 59 (1982) (per curiam); McClatchy Newspapers v.
25
Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 734-35 (9th Cir. 1982).
26
27
The briefing schedule on Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve set forth in the Court’s August 28,
2012 Order Regarding Post-Trial Proceedings is modified as follows: (a) Apple’s opposition,
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER SCHEDULE
1
previously due September 7, 2012, is now due September 10, 2012; and (b) Samsung’s reply,
2
previously due September 13, 2012, is now due September 14, 2012.
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5
Dated: September 6, 2012
_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge
6
7
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
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER SCHEDULE
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?