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

Filing 273

RESPONSE (re 272 MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion for Administrative Relief to Exceed Page Limit ) Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Exceed Page Limit filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/30/2011)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)  charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com  Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com  555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065  Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)  michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000  Facsimile: (213) 443-3100  Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS  AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION  APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO EXCEED PAGE LIMIT  Plaintiff, 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,  Defendants.      02198.51855/4376074.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR EXTRA PAGES ________ 1 Apple’s motion to double the length of its reply brief is unwarranted and excessive. 2 Indeed, Apple wants more pages for its reply brief than the Local Rules allow for an opening brief. 3 See L.R. 7-2(b) (25-page limit for opening brief). The local rules provide for a 15-page reply 4 brief (L.R. 7-3(c)), yet Apple requests leave to file a 30-page reply, claiming that it needs to 5 address certain unexpected arguments in Samsung’s brief. But Apple cannot possibly be 6 surprised that Samsung would raise an invalidity defense in its opposition papers. It cannot hide 7 behind a presumption it knew Samsung would rebut. 8 Apple next argues that it deserves 15 extra pages because this is what Samsung was 9 allotted for its opposition brief. But as Apple admits (Mot. at 2), Apple had already received a 5- 10 page extension for its opening brief. Thus, Samsung was entitled to extra pages just to respond 11 to the opening brief. And as Apple further admits, Samsung unconditionally agreed to stipulate 12 to a 10-page extension for Apple’s reply brief. This would have put the parties on exactly equal 13 footing: 15 total pages of extensions for both sides. Counsel for Apple nevertheless rejected this 14 offer out of hand, saying that Apple’s request was the “comparable” one despite the obvious bias 15 in Apple’s favor. (Bartlett Decl., Ex. C.) Apple’s motion makes this same fundamental 16 mischaracterization by continually referring to Samsung’s opposition brief page extension without 17 accounting for the additional pages Apple already used in its opening brief. 18 Apple further bases its motion on the fact that its briefs have included various images, 19 which take up extra space. This is irrelevant. Apple was not required to add pictures to its 20 moving papers; it did so voluntarily because it thought this would work to its advantage. 21 as if Samsung does not have to respond to pictures as it does to text. It is not In fact, as Samsung has 22 already shown — as have independent media outlets — the pictures Apple used in its preliminary 23 injunction motion were doctored to make the dimensions of Samsung’s products match those of 24 Apple’s products, even though the products are obviously not the same size when viewed in 25 person. (See, e.g., Dkt No. 258 at 10 n.5.) More disturbingly, Apple has not only shrunk the 26 images of Samsung’s products to match its own, it has even changed the proportions of those 27 products, making them fatter if needed to match the relative width of Apple’s products. See 28 Apple May Have Manipulated Evidence Against Samsung in Patent War, http://newyork.ib 02198.51855/4376074.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -1- SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR EXTRA PAGES ________ 1 times.com/articles/198219/20110815/apple-samsung-patent-war-ipad-2-galaxy-tab-10-1-flaw.htm. 2 At best, this is inappropriate. At worst, it is deceptive. If Apple is planning to fill its reply with 3 similarly manipulated photos, this is just one more reason it should not be allowed to double the 4 length of its reply brief. 5 Importantly, Apple admits that it informed Samsung it was planning to file new 6 declarations in support of its reply brief, even though the Court’s order does not provide for 7 depositions of declarants at this stage in the proceedings. (Mot. at 3; Bartlett Decl., Ex. F.) 8 Apple’s new evidence on reply is unwarranted and inappropriate. New declarations on Apple’s 9 part indicate just one thing: Apple is raising new issues in its reply brief — something Apple does 10 not deny in its motion. Instead, Apple tries to downplay this fact with the fallacious argument 11 that new reply brief declarants and additional reply brief pages are somehow independent of each 12 other. (Mot. at 3.) They are not. Plainly, Apple’s brief is no “reply” at all, but rather a new 13 motion masquerading as a reply.1 14 Samsung made Apple two reasonable offers in hopes of dissuading Apple from wasting the 15 Court’s time with an administrative motion: (1) that Apple accept 10 additional pages of reply 16 space rather than 15, or (2) that Apple receive the 15 pages it desired in exchange for making its 17 new declarants available for deposition next week. Apple refused to agree to either. Apple’s 18 plan to sandbag Samsung on reply with an oversized brief and several new declarations (while 19 simultaneously refusing to agree to even limited and expedited discovery of that new evidence) 20 should receive no support from this Court. For all these reasons, the Court should DENY 21 Apple’s request for 15 additional pages for its reply brief. 22 23 24 25 26 1 Samsung reserves the right to request that the Court strike this untimely evidence and to 27 move the Court for leave to file a sur-reply after it has been given a chance to depose these new, undisclosed, and untimely declarants. 28 02198.51855/4376074.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2- SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR EXTRA PAGES ________ 1 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 DATED: September 30, 2011 4 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Michael T. Zeller Rachel Herrick Kassabian Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4376074.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR EXTRA PAGES ________ -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?