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

Filing 276

ORDER REGARDING VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting #163 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages; granting #256 Motion for Leave to File; granting in part and denying in part #263 Motion for Leave to File; finding as moot #265 Motion to Shorten Time; granting #272 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages(lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/30/2011) Modified text on 10/3/2011 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
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.
)
)
)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER REGARDING VARIOUS
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

The Court hereby rules on several administrative motions that have been filed in relation to
Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) motion for a preliminary injunction set for hearing on October 13, 2011.
I.

Motions to Exceed Page Limits

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

23

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”)’s unopposed administrative motion

24

for leave to file excess pages for its opposition to Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, filed

25

on August 22, 2011, is hereby GRANTED. ECF No. 163.

26

Apple filed its own administrative motion for leave to file excess pages in its reply in

27

support of Apple’s motion for preliminary injunction on September 29, 2011. Samsung opposed

28

Apple’s motion on September 30, 2011. ECF No. 273. Apple filed a reply to the administrative
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

1

motion on the same day. ECF No. 275. After considering the arguments of the parties, Apple’s

2

request to increase the page limit on the reply brief by 15 pages is hereby GRANTED.

3

To the extent that Samsung wishes to object to Apple’s use of non-rebuttal evidence in

4

Apple’s reply brief, Samsung may file a brief, no more than 3 pages by October 5, objecting to

5

any use of non-rebuttal evidence in Apple’s reply brief. The Court will disregard any substantive

6

sur-reply arguments raised by Samsung. The Court will not accept any further briefing from either

7

party.
II.

9

Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) filed a motion seeking leave to file an

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

amicus curiae brief on September 23, 2011. ECF No. 256. Apple filed an opposition to Verizon’s

11

motion on September 27, 2011. ECF No. 262. Verizon filed a reply on September 29, 2011. ECF

12

No. 270. After considering the arguments of the parties, Verizon’s motion for leave to file an

13

amicus curiae brief is hereby GRANTED. Verizon’s brief, filed at ECF No. 257, is deemed

14

submitted.

15

Motions of Amicus Curiae

On September 28, 2011, T-Mobile filed a motion seeking leave to file an amicus curiae

16

brief, and to appear and argue at the October 13, 2011 preliminary injunction hearing. ECF No.

17

263. Apple filed an opposition to T-Mobile’s motion on September 27, 2011. ECF No. 262. After

18

considering the arguments of the parties, T-Mobile’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief

19

is hereby GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.1 T-Mobile’s motion, to the extent that it seeks

20

leave to file an amicus brief, is GRANTED and deemed submitted. ECF No. 264. To the extent,

21

however, that T-Mobile seeks to appear and argue at the October 13, 2011 hearing, T-Mobile’s

22

request is DENIED. T-Mobile is not a party to this litigation, and the attorneys for Samsung and

23

Apple are fully capable of arguing the issues without the assistance of third party counsel.

24
25

Apple’s request to reply to the amicus curiae briefs is DENIED. The Court considers any
rebuttal argument on these issues to be duplicative and unnecessary at this time.

26
27
28

1

Because T-Mobile’s brief is deemed submitted, and the Court does not grant Apple’s request to
respond, the Court considers T-Mobile’s motion to shorten time on the motion seeking leave to file
an amicus curiae brief to be moot.
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

Dated: September 30, 2011

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE ADMINISTRATIVE MOTIONS