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

Filing 1965

Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting in part 1956 Motion Regarding Schedule for Briefing of Non-Jury Claims.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/12/2012)

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 GRANTING IN PART APPLE’S
MOTION REGARDING SCHEDULE
FOR BRIEFING OF NON-JURY
CLAIMS
(re: dkt. #1956)

On September 4, 2012, Apple filed a Motion Regarding Schedule for Briefing of Non-Jury

20

Claims, requesting that the Court set a briefing schedule for additional non-jury issues to be

21

decided under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), namely Apple’s claims of waiver, equitable

22

estoppel, unclean hands, and unfair competition. ECF No. 1956. On September 9, 2012, Samsung

23

filed an opposition to Apple’s motion, arguing that: (1) the Court’s August 28, 2012 Scheduling

24

Order requires Apple to raise any equitable claims in its Rule 50 motion and forecloses any

25

additional briefing; (2) Apple’s equitable claims are moot or will be mooted by the Court’s rulings

26

on the parties’ Rule 50 motions; and (3) if Apple is granted additional briefing on its non-jury

27

claims, then Samsung should also be granted additional briefing on its non-jury claims, namely

28

1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR NON-JURY
CLAIMS

1

indefiniteness of the ’163 Patent and Apple’s design patents. ECF No. 1961. Apple filed a reply

2

on September 10, 2012. ECF No. 1962.

3

The Court’s August 28, 2012 Order set forth a briefing schedule on all motions that the

4

parties had thus far identified they intended to bring. It did not foreclose the parties from bringing

5

separate motions on equitable issues and issues of law not presented to the jury at trial.

6

Accordingly, Apple’s motion is GRANTED in part. The Court sets the following briefing schedule

7

on the parties’ respective motions on all outstanding non-jury issues:

8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Filing
Apple’s motion on all non-jury claims,
including waiver, equitable estoppel,
unclean hands, and unfair competition
(max. 12 pages)
Samsung’s opposition (max. 12 pages)
Apple’s reply (max. 7 pages)
Hearing

Deadline
September 21, 2012

Filing
Samsung’s motion on all non-jury
claims, including indefiniteness (max.
12 pages)
Apple’s opposition (max. 12 pages)
Samsung’s reply (max. 7 pages)
Hearing

Deadline
September 21, 2012

October 5, 2012
October 12, 2012
December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

October 5, 2012
October 12, 2012
December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: September 12, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART APPLE’S MOTION REGARDING BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR NON-JURY
CLAIMS