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).

Download PDF
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

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?