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

Filing 2217

ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG'S EX PARTE REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1782 by Judge Paul S. Grewal in case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK; denying (1) Ex Parte Application in case 5:12-mc-80275-LHK (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/23/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

13
14
15
16
17

In re Ex Parte Application of
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a
Korean corporation,
Applicant,
For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782

Case No.: 12-80275 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
REQUEST FOR SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
(Re: Docket No. 1)

18
19

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“Samsung”) moves the court for an order for targeted

20

discovery from Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Apple opposes the motion. In

21

an effort to prevent entanglement in the foreign dispute between the parties and out of respect for

22

the Japanese tribunal before which a parallel request is currently pending, the court DENIES

23

Samsung's request for the discovery WITHOUT PREJUDICE to a renewed request after the Tokyo

24
25

district court has had an opportunity to decide the exact same request before it.
I. BACKGROUND

26
27

It is no great revelation that Samsung and Apple have been engaged in extensive patent

28

litigation in this district and around the world. The bases and extent of their disputes are well1

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

1

publicized, and so the court provides here only a brief relevant summary. Samsung and Apple

2

essentially claim that the smart phones each produces infringe on one or more patents that the other

3

owns. These claims have been the source of not one but two super-sized cases in this district in

4

which Apple has brought myriad claims of patent and trademark violations against Samsung and in

5

which Samsung has raised numerous counterclaims. 1

6

What may be a revelation, at least to some, is that the case now before the court is not the

7
8
9

one pending down the hall before Judge Koh but one pending over 5,000 miles away in Japan.
Samsung seeks discovery from Apple in this parallel patent litigation before the Tokyo district

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

court on four requests:

11

(1)

All documents that evidence, reflect or refer to the sale, transfer, lease, or offer for sale of
any iPhone to any person or entity prior to June 29, 2007;

(2)

Physical exemplars of any iPhone that was made available for sale, transfer, lease, or offer
for sale to any person or entity prior to June 29, 2007;

(3)

A physical exemplar of the iPhone that was used in the presentation by Steve Jobs at
MacWorld 2007 on January 9, 2007; and

(4)

A physical exemplar of the iPhone that was used in the video “iPhone guided tour” posted
to Apple’s website on June 22, 2007.

12
13
14
15
16
17

Apple opposes the motion and argues for the court in its discretion to deny Samsung’s request.

18

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

19
20

A United States district court may grant an application pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 where
(1) the person from whom the discovery is sought resides or is found in the district of the district

21
22
23

court to which the application is made, (2) the discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign
tribunal, and (3) the application is made by a foreign or internal tribunal or any interested person. 2

24
25

1

26

See Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (describing issues in
second case between these parties); Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 11-cv-1846,
2012 WL 2571719 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2012) (describing issues in first case between these parties).

27

2

28

See 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); In re Republic of Ecuador, Case No. 10-80225 MISC CRB (EMC),
2010 WL 3702427, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 15, 2010).
2

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

Though the court has the authority under Section 1782 to permit discovery, it is not

1
2

mandated to do so. 3 In Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., the Supreme Court identified

3

several factors that a court should take into consideration in its exercise of discretion on a Section

4

1782 request:

5

(1) whether the material sought is within the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach and thus
accessible absent Section 1782 aid; (2) the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of
the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the
court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court jurisdictional assistance; (3) whether the
Section 1782 request conceals an attempt to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions
or other policies of a foreign country or the United States; and (4) whether the subpoena
contains unduly intrusive or burdensome requests. 4

6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

It is common for the process of presenting the request to a court to obtain the order
authorizing discovery to be conducted ex parte. 5 Such ex parte applications are typically justified

11
12

by the fact that the parties will be given adequate notice of any discovery taken pursuant to the

13

request and will then have the opportunity to move to quash the discovery or to participate in it. 6

14

Here, however, Apple has objected to Samsung’s subpoena request and thus has its interests

15

represented in this dispute.

16
17

III. DISCUSSION
A.

Authority to Issue Subpoena

18
As noted above, for the court to have authority to grant Samsung’s request, three factors
19
20

must be met: (1) the party from whom discovery is sought must be within the court’s district; (2)

21

the discovery must for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal; and (3) the application is made

22

by a foreign or internal tribunal or any interested person. 7

23
3

See Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 264 (2004).

4

In re Republic of Ecuador, 2010 WL 3702427 at *2 (citing Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65).

5

See id. at *2.

6

Id.

7

See id.; 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a).

24
25
26
27
28

3

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

Each of the three threshold factors has been met here. Apple, the party from whom

1
2

discovery is sought, is located in Cupertino, California, which is located within the court’s district.

3

Samsung is party to a patent dispute in Japan, which satisfies the second criterion. 8 Because it is

4

one of the parties in the foreign proceeding, Samsung is an interested party that satisfies the third

5

criterion. 9 Apple does not dispute that Samsung has shown the threshold factors are met. 10

6

B.

Discretionary Factors

7
Having concluded that it has the authority to issue the subpoena, the court now turns to the

8
9

question of whether the Intel factors weigh in favor of issuance of the subpoena.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

1.

Jurisdictional Reach

11

Because a “foreign tribunal has jurisdiction over those appearing before it, and can itself

12

order them to produce evidence,” “the need for § 1782(a) aid generally is not as apparent as . . .

13

when evidence is sought for a nonparticipant in the matter arising abroad.” 11 Thus, discovery

14
required from a non-party weighs in favor of granting the subpoena.
15
Here, Apple is a party to the dispute in Japan. Samsung responds that because Japan’s civil

16
17

procedure rules do not allow discovery of evidence in a foreign setting, Apple’s status as a party in

18

the Japanese case should not weigh against Samsung in its request. 12 Apple contends that Samsung

19

has failed to use the discovery procedures in the Japanese litigation and cannot now circumvent

20

that process through recourse to Section 1782. 13 Samsung replies that Apple added the patent

21
22

8

23

9

Docket No. 8.

24

See Intel, 542 U.S. at 256 (noting that an interested person “plainly reaches beyond the universe
of persons designated ‘litigant,’” although there is “[n]o doubt that [that] litigants are included
among, and may be the most common example).

25

10

See Docket No. 8.

26

11

Id. at 264.

27

12

See Docket No. 1.

28

13

See Docket No. 8.
4

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

1
2

claims driving this discovery request late in the litigation and so Samsung’s request is diligent in
relation to Apple’s request. 14
Because Apple is a party to the dispute in Japan, this Intel factor weighs against Samsung’s

3
4

request, Samsung’s explanations notwithstanding. As the Supreme Court observed, “[a] foreign

5

tribunal has jurisdiction over those appearing before it, and can itself order them to produce

6

evidence.” 15 Apple, as a party to the dispute in Japan, is subject to the Japanese court’s

7
8
9

jurisdiction. The court therefore finds this factor should and does weigh against Samsung’s
request.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

2.

Nature and Receptivity of Foreign Tribunals

11

The “nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and

12

the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court

13

assistance” are relevant to the second criterion. 16 Here, Samsung claims that Japanese courts

14

would be receptive to discovery taken in the United States. 17 Samsung also asserts that the

15
16

discovery it seeks is relevant to its novelty and obviousness defenses in the Japanese proceeding. 18

17

Apple responds that Samsung has not shown that its discovery could be used in the Japanese

18

proceeding to support its defenses and that Samsung in fact has not shown that the Japanese court

19

would be receptive to the discovery.

20
21

Although case law supports that Japanese courts generally are receptive to discovery taken
in the United States pursuant to Section 1782, 19 Samsung has not provided much in the way of

22
23
14

See Docket No. 9.

15

Intel, 542 U.S. at 264.

16

Id.

17

See Docket No. 1.

18

See id.

24
25
26
27
28

5

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

1

evidence that the Japanese court would be receptive to the evidence requested for this case.

2

Samsung points to its desire to show invalidity and obviousness from Apple’s release of a version

3

of the iPhone in 2007 and cites to Article 29, Sections 1 and 2 of Japanese Patent Law. 20 But

4

Samsung has provided little else to support that the Japanese courts would be receptive to foreign

5

discovery. At the same time, Apple has not provided evidence that the Japanese court would not

6

be receptive to the discovery. The court therefore considers this factor as neutral.

7
3.

8

Attempt to Circumvent Foreign Proof-Gathering Restrictions and Policies

Apple claims that Samsung’s request for discovery nearly a year and a half after the

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

litigation in Japan reveals that Samsung’s request is an attempt to circumvent or shortcut the

11

Japanese courts’ system of discovery. 21 Apple also points to Samsung’s failure to make these

12

requests in the Japanese court. 22 Samsung responds that it sought this information as soon as it

13
14

became possible to take discovery on Apple’s claims on the patents and at the hearing stated that
out of an abundance of caution it had filed a request with the Tokyo court. 23

15
Exhaustion of discovery procedures in the foreign tribunal may not be required before a

16
17

party may assert a Section 1782 claim, 24 but the court notes that Samsung’s failure to seek

18

discovery earlier in the foreign tribunal suggests that Samsung may be trying to circumvent or

19

shortcut the requirements of the Japanese court. 25

20
21
22
23

19

See, e.g., In re Letters Rogatory from Tokyo Dist. Prosecutor’s Office, 16 F.3d 1016, 1019 (9th
Cir. 1994); Marubeni Am. Corp. v. LBA Y.K., 335 Fed. App’x 95, 98 (2d Cir. 2009).

20

See Docket No. 2 ¶ 8.

21

See Docket No. 8.

22

See id.

23

See Docket No. 9.

24

See Euromepa S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095, 1098 (2d Cir. 1995).

24
25
26
27
28

6

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

Although Samsung purportedly filed a request in Japan prior to the hearing on this motion,

1
2

the court is now left in the awkward position of potentially undermining the Tokyo court’s

3

management of its case. Intel advises that a foreign tribunal’s decision not to permit discovery

4

does not preclude a United States district court from allowing the same, but as Intel also makes

5

clear, the reasons for the foreign tribunal’s determination are relevant to a United States district

6

court’s determination. 26 Here, the court has no information regarding whether the Japanese court

7
8

will permit discovery, and if it does not, on what grounds it finds denial appropriate.
The court finds the absence of this information particularly problematic given that it cannot

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

at this point ascertain to what degree, if any, Samsung seeks to circumvent the Japanese court’s

11

authority and case management. The court thus finds that the third Intel factor weighs against

12

discovery.

13

4.

Undue Intrusion or Burden

14
Samsung asserts that its requests are narrowly tailored to limited discovery in furtherance of
15
16

its novelty and obviousness defenses. 27 Apple responds that the requests are burdensome in part

17

because Apple would have to go through old records to provide the information Samsung seeks. 28

18

Apple also points to the close of discovery in the case in this district before Judge Koh as further

19

evidence that having to undertake further discovery would be burdensome. 29

20
21

The court agrees with Samsung that its requests are narrowly tailored. It seeks only
physical samples of the version of the iPhone featured in two specific demonstrations and

22
25

23
24

See, e.g., In re Application of Digitechnic, Case No. C07-414-Jcc, 2007 WL 1367697, at * 4
(W.D. Wash. May 8, 2007) (finding that failure by party seeking discovery under § 1782 to attempt
discovery in French proceeding supported denying discovery under Intel framework).

26

25

See 542 U.S. at 260 (noting various reasons why permitting discovery in the United States would
not undermine a foreign court’s determination).

26

27

See Docket No. 1.

27

28

See Docket No. 8.

28

29

See id.
7

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

1

information regarding the sale, lease, or offer for sale of that version of the phone. 30 Given the

2

substantial discovery taken by both parties in the cases before Judge Koh in this district, the court

3

notes Samsung’s limited request here, although perhaps still overbroad in asking for “all

4

documents” in Request 1, is refreshingly concise. And the court does not find the close of

5

discovery in the cases before Judge Koh to be particularly relevant to Apple’s burden to produce

6

documents in the international proceeding.

7
The court finds that the fourth Intel factor weighs in favor of permitting discovery. But the

8
9

narrowness of Samsung’s request does not overcome the two Intel factors the court determined

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

above did not support providing discovery. The fourth factor in fact is the only factor supporting

11

discovery, and the fact that this same request currently is pending before the Japanese court further

12

counsels against granting discovery at this time. Once the Japanese court has issued its decision,

13

Samsung may move for new consideration of its discovery requests. The court therefore DENIES

14
WITHOUT PREJUDICE Samsung’s request under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2013

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

30

See Docket No. 1.
8

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER