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
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?