Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
264
Brief re #263 MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple Inc's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple Inc.'s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed byT-Mobile USA, Inc.. (Related document(s) #263 ) (Bettinger, Michael) (Filed on 9/28/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (SBN 122196)
IRENE YANG (SBN 245464)
K&L GATES LLP
4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 1200
San Francisco, California 94111-5994
Telephone: 415.882.8200
Facsimile: 415.882.8220
mike.bettinger@klgates.com
irene.yang@klgates.com
Of Counsel:
MICHAEL J. ABERNATHY
BRIAN J. ARNOLD
K&L GATES LLP
70 West Madison Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, Illinois 560602
Telephone: (312) 372-1121
Facsimile: (312) 827-8000
mike.abernathy@klgates.com
brian.arnold@klgates.com
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
T-MOBILE USA, INC.
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
18
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE T-MOBILE
USA, INC. REGARDING APPLE’S
MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Date: October 13, 2011
Time: 1:30 pm
Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Defendants.
26
27
28
_________________________________________________________________________________
Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
Amicus curiae T-Mobile USA, Inc. (“T-Mobile”) is a national provider of wireless voice,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
messaging, and data services capable of reaching over 293 million Americans. T-Mobile’s lineup of
handheld devices, particularly its smartphone offerings, includes many Samsung-manufactured
devices. T-Mobile respectfully submits this amicus curiae brief regarding Apple Inc.’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction (“P.I. Motion”) to inform the Court of public interest considerations
implicated by Apple’s attempt to preliminarily enjoin sales of Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G smartphone
and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet in the midst of the critical holiday shopping season.1 The timing of such
an injunction on two popular consumer products that will help anchor its 2011 holiday sales would
unnecessarily harm T-Mobile and thousands of U.S. consumers.2
T-Mobile respects intellectual property rights and believes that owners of intellectual property
10
11
12
13
14
15
deserve their day in court. However, “a preliminary injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy
that is not to be routinely granted.” Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.
Cir. 1993). When considering whether to issue an injunction, courts must “pay particular regard for
the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction.” Weinberger v.
Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982).
A preliminary injunction would unnecessarily harm T-Mobile and its customers. At this late
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
date, T-Mobile could not find comparable replacement products for the 2011 holiday season. TMobile has already prepared its sales and marketing campaigns for the 2011 holiday sales season,
which prominently feature the Galaxy S 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1, and ordered holiday inventory of
those products. These investments cannot be recouped easily. Moreover, the market is expecting TMobile to sell these devices. An injunction could impair T-Mobile’s goodwill with its customers.
Consumers who prefer Android-based smartphone and tablet devices and/or who prefer T-Mobile’s
network coverage or capabilities would be unable to purchase substitute products with the same
24
25
1
As a third-party national wireless carrier, T-Mobile takes no position on Apple’s and Samsung’s
respective arguments regarding their likelihood of success on the merits. In addition, because the
P.I. Motion is limited to the Galaxy S 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1 products, T-Mobile has limited its
arguments to these two products and the public interest considerations surrounding a potential
injunction of these products.
2
T-Mobile publicly announced today, September 28, 2011, that it will sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1
tablet.
26
27
28
Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
2
3
features at the same price points. Moreover, current T-Mobile customers who purchase the devices at
issue and are under contract with T-Mobile may not be able to obtain replacement devices covered by
warranty, for example, if they are enjoined.
Since money damages could be readily calculated and the Court has ordered an expedited
4
5
6
7
8
9
trial, the public interest weighs decidedly against a preliminary injunction. See Weinberger, 456 U.S.
at 312 (“[When] an injunction is asked which will adversely affect a public interest . . . the court may
in the public interest withhold relief until a final determination of the rights of the parties.”) (internal
quotation marks omitted).3
I.
T-Mobile provides wireless voice, messaging, and data services in the U.S. and serves
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
approximately 34 million wireless customers. It offers a range of wireless products and services,
including cell phones and smartphones, tablets, mobile hotspots, netbooks, cell phone and data plans,
and accessories. Specifically for handsets, T-Mobile offers a variety of additional products and
services, such as downloadable games and applications, Internet, e-mail, messaging, music and
sounds, handset protection services, voice mail, and wallpapers.4 T-Mobile has invested enormous
time and resources into building its 4G network, which covers 191 markets and over 200 million
people.5 T-Mobile also has invested heavily in Samsung handheld devices and considers Samsung to
be one of its strategic partners. T-Mobile does not offer products with identical features at the same
price point from the same or different manufacturers.
A.
20
The Galaxy S 4G Smartphone
The Galaxy S 4G, which runs on the Android platform, is one T-Mobile’s top-five selling
21
22
T-Mobile and Its Products at Issue
devices and one of T-Mobile’s fastest 4G network devices. The Galaxy S 4G was T-Mobile’s “first
23
24
3
The asserted patents are Design Patent Nos. D618,677 (“‘D677 patent”), D593,087 (“‘D087
patent”), and D504,889 (“‘D889 patent”) (collectively “Design Patents”) and U.S. Patent No.
7,469,381 (“‘381 patent”). To the extent applicable, T-Mobile incorporates the arguments of
amicus curie Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon. T-Mobile’s public interest arguments, however,
apply to all the asserted patents, including the Design Patents.
27
4
See http://www.t-mobile.com/shop.aspx.
28
5
See http://t-mobile-coverage.t-mobile.com/.
25
26
-2Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
smartphone capable of theoretical download speeds of up to 21Mbps.”6 It has consistently surpassed
2
other 4G phones in its download speed capacity. A test conducted by MSNBC of the Galaxy S 4G
3
against comparable smartphones offered by T-Mobile and other carriers, for example, showed the
4
Galaxy S 4G to be the speediest of the group:7
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
B.
The Galaxy 10.1 Tab
18
T-Mobile plans to launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1 for the 2011 holiday season. The Galaxy Tab
19
10.1, manufactured by Samsung and based on the Android platform as well, will be T-Mobile’s only
20
10.1 inch screen tablet. A 10.1 inch screen tablet is very important to T-Mobile’s holiday sales
21
strategy, as T-Mobile currently offers only older 7 inch and 8.9 inch screen tablets from non-
22
Samsung manufacturers, the Dell Streak and the T-Mobile G-Slate. If it could not sell this device,
23
customers seeking a larger tablet likely will not shop at T-Mobile.
24
25
26
6
Cha, Bonnie, “T-Mobile offers up more Samsung Galaxy S 4G details,” CNET, February 1, 2011,
.
7
Rothman, Wilson, “Putting 4G to the speed test,” MSNBC.com, February 9, 2011,
.
27
28
-3Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
II.
Like most U.S. retailers, holiday sales are key for T-Mobile’s business.8 T-Mobile has been
2
3
4
5
6
7
preparing for the holiday season for months.9
10
11
12
13
and training additional sales personnel. T-Mobile’s holiday season begins in early November, shortly
after the October 13 hearing on Apple’s P.I. Motion, with holiday commercials typically starting the
first week of that month.10
Consumers who prefer the Android operating system and Samsung-specific customizations of
the Android operating system and/or who prefer T-Mobile’s network coverage or capabilities would
be unable to purchase substitute products with the same features at the same price point as offered by
the Galaxy S 4G or Galaxy Tab 10.1. Similarly, current T-Mobile customers who purchase the
Galaxy S 4G or Galaxy Tab 10.1 may not be able to obtain replacement devices that are covered by
warranty or T-Mobile’s Premium Handset Protection, if those devices were enjoined.
A.
14
17
18
T-Mobile Has No Adequate Replacement for the Galaxy S 4G
T-Mobile does not currently offer a phone with the same feature set at the same price point as
15
16
These efforts have included ordering increased
inventory of smartphones and tablets, developing new marketing campaigns for imminent launch,
8
9
An Injunction During the Holiday Season Would Harm T-Mobile and Its Customers
the Galaxy S 4G.
If Samsung were enjoined, T-Mobile would have no comparably priced
replacement for the Galaxy S 4G during the holiday sales period. As the MSNBC test shows
regarding data download speeds, the Galaxy S 4G cannot be readily replaced by just any allegedly
19
20
8
See Virki, Tarmo and Miyoung Kim, “PREVIEW-Smartphones lift Apple, Samsung in Q4 phone
bonanza,” Reuters, Jan. 17, 2011, (“The market for phones tends to jump 10-15 percent in the fourth
quarter from the third quarter, as many consumers buy the latest gadgets for Christmas gifts.”).
9
The parties never informed T-Mobile in advance of Apple’s P.I. Motion that the accused devices
suddenly might be become unavailable as a result of a preliminary injunction. Consequently, TMobile has had no meaningful opportunity to prepare for a potential loss of the accused devices
during the holiday sales season.
10
See Virki, Tarmo and Miyoung Kim, “PREVIEW-Smartphones lift Apple, Samsung in Q4 phone
bonanza,” Reuters, Jan. 17, 2011, (“The market for phones tends to jump 10-15 percent in the fourth
quarter from the third quarter, as many consumers buy the latest gadgets for Christmas gifts.”);
see also Nelson, Robert, “Verizon begins the holiday season commercials with robotic
snowman,” Nov. 3, 2010, .
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
2
comparable smartphone. Moreover, many consumers prefer smartphones running on the Android
platform to other mobile operating systems.11
Indeed, finding an alternative supplier; developing a comparable product at the same price
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
point; testing proposed substitutes for performance, operation, safety, and network compatibility; and
ensuring appropriate supply, among other steps, would take nearly a year. T-Mobile also would lose
its investments in the marketing and advertising campaigns that were developed months ago in
anticipation of the holiday shopping season. Even if it could find a replacement, T-Mobile would be
forced to spend considerable additional money on recalling its marketing campaigns and re-doing its
advertising, marketing, and sales staff training to make customers and staff aware of the new product.
T-Mobile has already substantially invested in branding the Galaxy S 4G. In the last several months
alone, T-Mobile has invested heavily on advertising and promotional materials, including in-store
materials, online content, and print marketing. If it were unable to sell that device, T-Mobile would
be unable to recoup those expenses.
B.
14
T-Mobile likewise would not have time to find an adequate replacement for Galaxy Tab 10.1
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
for the holiday season, harming it and its consumers. It simply has no other replacement tablets ready
for release. Its only other tablets have 7 inch and 8.9 inch screens, which are considerably smaller
than the 10.1 inch screen of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 and likely to be less desirable to certain consumers
as a result. Finding a new supplier, developing a new tablet, and going through the approval process
to replace the Galaxy Tab 10.1 would take many months. T-Mobile, like others in the industry, will
make a significant amount of tablet sales during the holiday season. If T-Mobile were unable to sell
the Galaxy Tab 10.1, it would therefore lose a very large percentage of the projected revenue in the
tablet business.
Like T-Mobile’s investment in the Galaxy S 4G, T-Mobile also has already substantially
24
25
26
27
28
T-Mobile Has No Adequate Replacement for the Galaxy Tab 10.1
invested in the release of the Galaxy Tab 10.1. In the last several months, T-Mobile has purchased
advertising and promotional materials, including in-store materials, online content, and print
11
See, e.g., Albanesius, Chloe, “Consumers Love Their Samsung, Android Phones, comScore
Says,” PCMag.com, July 5, 2011,
(Android had 38.1% of the smartphone market share, while iPhones had 26.6%).
-5Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
marketing, related to the Galaxy Tab 10.1. T-Mobile employees also have spent considerable time
and money evaluating and testing larger tablet product offerings by Samsung and other suppliers in
going through the approval process to launch the Galaxy Tab 10.1. Moreover, T-Mobile has spent
additional time and money preparing education and training materials for store employees on this
product. If unable to sell the Galaxy Tab 10.1, T-Mobile would lose these investments. Since many
T-Mobile product offerings are combined for cost efficiency and customer impact, new advertising
and promotional, education, and training materials would need to be created if the Galaxy Tab 10.1
tablet were enjoined.
III.
Conclusion
An injunction, particularly in the midst of the holiday sales season, would unnecessarily harm
T-Mobile and its customers. In contrast, money damages would remedy any harm suffered by Apple
between now and the July 30, 2012 trial. Accordingly, the public interest heavily weighs against
granting Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
14
Respectfully submitted,
15
K&L GATES LLP
16
17
18
19
Dated: September 28, 2011
By:
/s/ Michael J. Bettinger
MICHAEL J. BETTINGER (SBN 122196)
Attorneys for Amicus Curiae
T-MOBILE USA, INC.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6Brief of Amicus Curiae T-Mobile re Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
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?