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

Filing 2104

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying 2092 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; denying 2099 Motion for Leave to File (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
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.
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT

On August 28, 2012, after extended discussion with the parties, this Court issued a carefully

19

considered Order setting a briefing schedule and page limits for all of the post-trial briefing in this

20

case (“Scheduling Order”). ECF No. 1945. In the Scheduling Order, the Court limited the briefing

21

for Apple’s motion for permanent injunction and willfulness enhancements to 30 pages for the

22

opening brief, 35 pages for Samsung’s opposition, and 15 pages for Apple’s reply. On October 26,

23

2012, after Samsung filed its opposition, Apple filed a motion to enlarge the page limit for its reply

24

in support of motion for permanent injunction and enhanced damages. ECF No. 2092. Samsung

25

filed an opposition to that motion to enlarge the page limit. ECF No. 2098. Apple then filed a

26

motion for leave to file a reply, ECF No. 2099, to which Samsung filed a separate opposition. ECF

27

Nos. 2101. The Court DENIES Apple’s motion to enlarge pages, and accordingly DENIES as

28

moot Apple’s motion to file a reply.
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT

1

Apple’s stated grounds for asking this Court to change its well considered allotment of

2

pages after two of the three briefs have already been submitted are: (1) that in its opposition,

3

Samsung submitted substantial additional evidence and arguments not presented at trial; and (2)

4

that in its opposition, Samsung refers to analysis in the Federal Circuit’s October 11, 2012 opinion

5

in Case No. 12-CV-00630. Neither argument would justify altering the established page limits at

6

this late stage.

7

As Samsung points out, the parties were aware before the briefing even began that
additional evidence would be necessary for the preliminary injunction. See 8/24/2012 Tr. at

9

4323:15-18 (counsel for Apple noting that “we’re going to be assembling the record that’s already

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

been adduced at trial and adding to it additional evidence on irreparable harm. . .”). The fact that

11

both Apple and Samsung discussed additional evidence in their briefs does not now justify giving

12

Apple additional pages.

13

Further, the arguments addressed in the Federal Circuit opinion were well known to the

14

parties far in advance of the present briefing deadlines in this case. Apple had the opportunity to

15

address the issues it knew were under consideration in its brief, and Apple now has the opportunity

16

to respond to Samsung’s discussion of the opinion within the existing boundaries of its reply brief.

17

It would not be fair to change the allotments now, after Samsung has already filed its opposition.

18

Accordingly, Apple’s motion to enlarge the page limit is DENIED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: October 29, 2012

21

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ENLARGE PAGE LIMIT