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)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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