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

Filing 294

OBJECTIONS to Apple's Use of Non-Rebuttal Evidence in Apple's Preliminary Injunction Reply Brief by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Supporting Declaration of Alex Binder and Exhibit A to the Binder Declaration, #2 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/4/2011)

1










UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG



[PROPOSED] ORDER STRIKING NEW
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLE IN
SUPPORT OF ITS REPLY IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION



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.











02198.51855/4380791.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[[PROPOSED] ORDER STRIKING NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

On October 4, 2011, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,

2 and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) moved for an order
3 striking certain evidence submitted by Apple in connection with its “Reply in Support of Its
4 Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
5

Having considered the briefs and the arguments of the parties, and the entire file in this

6 action, the Court hereby GRANTS Samsung’s motion as follows:
7

1. The Court STRIKES and will disregard in its entirety the “Reply Declaration of Terry

8
9

L. Musika, CPA in Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
2. The Court STRIKES and will disregard in its entirety the “Reply Declaration of Arthur

10
11

Rangel in Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
3. The Court STRIKES and will disregard in its entirety “Reply Declaration of Sanjay

12
13

Sood in Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
4. The Court STRIKES and will disregard in its entirety “Declaration of Tony Blevins in

14

Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”

15

5. The Court STRIKES and will disregard in its entirety the Reply “Declaration of

16

Christopher Stringer in Support of Apple’s Reply in Support of Its Motion for a

17

Preliminary Injunction.”

18

6.

The Court STRIKES and will disregard paragraphs 74-97 and corresponding exhibits

19

of the “Reply Declaration of Peter W. Bressler in Support of Apple’s Motion for a

20

Preliminary Injunction.”

21

7. The Court STRIKES and will disregard paragraphs 11-12, 18, 22-23, 25-33, 35-37, 40,

22

44-46, 48-51, and 53 and corresponding exhibits of the “Reply Declaration of Ravin

23

Balakrishnan, Ph.D. in Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”

24

8. The Court STRIKES and will disregard paragraphs 12 to 55 and 63 to 65 and the

25

corresponding exhibits of the “Reply Declaration of Cooper C. Woodring in Support of

26

Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”

27
02198.51855/4380791.3

28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER STRIKING NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

1

9. The Court STRIKES and will disregard Apple’s contention on page eleven of “Apple’s

2

Reply in Support of Its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction” that the iPad2 practices

3

the D’889 patent and its commercial success argument relating thereto.

4
5
6

10. The Court STRIKES and will disregard Exhibits A, B, and C of the “Reply Declaration
of Arthur Rangel in Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”
11. The Court STRIKES and will disregard Exhibits D and H of the “Reply Declaration of

7

Sanjay Sood in Support of Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.”

8

12. The Court hereby grants Samsung leave to depose Peter Bressler and any new

9

witnesses enumerated above that the Court does not strike.

Apple shall make these

10

witnesses available for deposition no later than three days prior to the hearing on the

11

Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

12

13. Samsung is hereby granted leave to file a sur-reply with respect to Apple’s Motion for

13

a Preliminary Injunction. Samsung’s sur-reply shall be filed no later than one day

14

prior to the hearing on the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17 DATED: ________________
18
19

Hon. Lucy H. Koh
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
02198.51855/4380791.3

28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2[PROPOSED] ORDER STRIKING NEW EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY APPLE IN SUPPORT OF ITS
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION