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

Filing 272

MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion for Administrative Relief to Exceed Page Limit filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Proposed Order)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/29/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) atucher@mofo.com RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) rhung@mofo.com JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) jasonbartlett@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 16 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 17 18 19 20 21 v. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT 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, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT CASE NO. 4:11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3051017 1 1 In accordance with Northern District of California Local Rule 7-11, Apple moves the 2 Court for administrative leave to file a 30-page Reply in support of its Motion for a Preliminary 3 Injunction. 4 In seeking a preliminary injunction in this patent case, Apple bears the burden of showing 5 that it will likely succeed on the merits, that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of 6 preliminary relief, and that the balance of equities tips in its favor and the injunction is in the 7 public interest. Titan Tire Corp. v. Case New Holland, Inc., 566 F.3d 1372, 1375-76 (Fed. Cir. 8 2009). Samsung did not oppose Apple’s request to file an opening brief of 30 pages. 9 Approximately 9 pages of Apple’s opening brief consisted of figures and visual comparisons 10 relevant to the key issue of infringement. (D.N. 86.) The written text of that opening brief fit 11 within the 25-page limit prescribed by Civil Local Rule 7-4(b). (Id.) 12 In its opening brief, Apple did not focus on validity issues, in reliance on the statutory 13 presumption of patent validity. “[I]f a patentee moves for a preliminary injunction and the 14 alleged infringer does not challenge validity, the very existence of the patent with its concomitant 15 presumption of validity satisfies the patentee’s burden of showing a likelihood of success on the 16 validity issue.” Titan Tire, 566 F.3d at 1377. 17 Samsung, however, responded to Apple’s motion with a 40-page Opposition that raised 18 invalidity issues as to the asserted utility and design patents. (Opp’n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj.) The 19 Opposition was 10 pages longer than Apple’s opening brief, and 15 pages more than the Local 20 Rules permit. Civ. L.R. 7-4(b). Apple did not oppose Samsung’s request to include the 15 extra 21 pages in its Opposition. Moreover, Samsung devoted fewer of these pages to visual comparisons 22 and figures than Apple did in its opening brief. 23 Apple seeks leave to file a Reply brief of 30 pages. Apple’s request is commensurate 24 with, and justified by, the additional 15 pages of space taken by Samsung for its Opposition. 25 Apple’s Reply will once again contain numerous non-text figures within the 30 page length. In 26 addition, Apple must now respond to Samsung’s arguments as to the invalidity of the asserted 27 patents. Titan Tire, 566 F.3d at 1377. The need to respond to Samsung’s various invalidity 28 theories justifies an extension of the page allotment. Id. MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT CASE NO. 4:11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3051017 2 1 On September 28, 2011, Apple informed counsel for Samsung that it would be moving to 2 exceed the page limit in connection with its Reply and requested agreement on the filing of a 30- 3 page brief. (See Declaration of Jason Bartlett in Support of Apple’s Administrative Motion to 4 Exceed Page Limits, filed herewith, ¶ 2 & Ex. A.) The next day, counsel for Samsung agreed to 5 the filing of a 25-page brief, but refused to agree to Apple’s request to file a 30-page brief. (Id., 6 Ex. B.) Noting Apple’s prior accommodation of Samsung’s request for an extra 15 pages in its 7 Opposition, counsel for Apple repeated its request and asked Samsung to reconsider its refusal. 8 (Id., Ex. C.) Counsel for Samsung responded by agreeing to Apple’s request to file a 30-page 9 Reply brief, contingent upon Apple’s agreement to make available for deposition any declarants 10 used in the Reply brief. (Id., Ex. D.) Apple objected to the linkage of the issues. Ultimately, no 11 agreement was reached. (Id., Exs. E, F & G.) 12 For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests leave to file a 30-page Reply brief 13 in support of its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. 14 Dated: September 29, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 15 16 17 By: /s/ Jason Bartlett Jason Bartlett Attorney for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT CASE NO. 4:11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3051017 3

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?