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)

Download PDF
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

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?