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

Filing 41

MOTION to Relate Case filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Civil L.R. 3-12(b) Motion to Consider Cases Related)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/11/2011)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
19
20

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Plaintiff,
vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25

SAMSUNG’S CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b)
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

26
27
28
02198.51855/4133864.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b) MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1

Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12(b), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics

2 America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (individually and collectively
3 “Samsung”) move this Court to have Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
4 Telecommunications America, LLC v. Apple Inc, Case No. 11-cv-02079-EDL, considered related
5 to and consolidated with this case.
6 I.
7

In support of this motion, Samsung states as follows:

The Title and Case Number of Each Apparently Related Case
1. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and

8

Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (“the Apple

9

Action”).

10

2. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC v. Apple,

11

Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02079-EDL (“the Samsung Action”).

12 II.

Brief Statement of the Relationship of the Actions

13

Apple and Samsung each have sued the other in this district on intellectual property claims.

14 The accused products in both cases are smartphones and tablet computers.

Apple filed the first

15 case over such products. Following its pattern of suing other makers of Android-based
16 smartphones, which compete in the market with Apple’s iPhone, Apple filed a complaint against
17 Samsung on April 15. Apple asserted a multitude of claims, alleging that numerous (15)
18 Samsung products infringe several Apple utility and design patents, trademarks and trade dress.
19 (D.N. 1.)

Apple claims that it filed suit to protect the designs and technology that it claims are

20 embodied in, inter alia, the iPhone and iPad.
21

On April 27, Samsung, the first company to introduce a multi-function smartphone, in

22 1999, that provided both internet access and personal digital assistant features, filed suit against
23 Apple for infringement of 10 Samsung patents. (Case No. 11-cv-02079-EDL, D.N. 1.)

These

24 patents cover fundamental innovations that increase mobile device reliability, efficiency, and
25 quality, and improve user interface in mobile handsets and other products.

Samsung filed this

26 suit in order to stop Apple’s willful infringement of these fundamental patents by Apple’s iPhone
27 and iPad products.
28
02198.51855/4133864.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b) MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1

The Apple Action and the Samsung Action involve substantially the same parties, with the

2 exception that Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is not a party to the Samsung Action.

Both

3 cases involve substantially the same property: Apple’s iPhone and iPad products and Samsung's
4 smartphones and tablet computers.
5

There is also substantial overlap in the patents at issue in both cases. All of the patents

6 asserted by Apple and all of the patents asserted by Samsung relate to mobile computing devices.
7 Furthermore, the subject matter of six of the seven patents asserted by Apple directly overlaps
8 with the subject matter in several patents asserted by Samsung.
9

Three patents asserted by Apple relate to the display of information on a screen: U.S.

10 Patent No. 7,853,891 titled “Method and Apparatus for Displaying a Window for a User
11 Interface,” U.S. Patnet No. 6,493,002 titled “Method and Apparatus for Displaying and
12 Accessing Control and Status Information in a Computer System,” U.S. Patent No. 7,669,134
13 titled “Method and Apparatus for Displaying Information During an Instant Messaging Session.”
14 Similarly, Samsung has asserted two patents covering similar subject matter:

U.S. Patent No.

15 7,069,055 titled “Mobile Telephone Capable of Displaying World Time and Method for
16 Controlling the Same.” U.S. Patent No. 7,009,626 titled “Systems and Methods for Generating
17 Visual Representations of Graphical Data and Digital Document Processing.”1
18

Three other patents asserted by Apple relate to touch screens:

U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381

19 titled “List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling, and Rotation on a Touch-Screen
20 Display,” U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828 titled “Ellipse Fitting for Multi-Touch Surfaces,” U.S.
21 Patent No. 7,844,915 titled “Application Programming Interfaces for Scrolling Operations.”2
22 Likewise, Samsung has asserted a patent relating to touch screens:

U.S. Patent No. 6,292,179

23
24
25

1

Claim 1 of the ‘626 patent recites “A method of redrawing a visual display of graphical
26 data whereby a current display of the graphical data is replaced by an updated display of the
graphical data, comprising . . . .”
2
27
Claim 1 of the ’915 patent is directed to “A machine implemented method for scrolling on
a touch-sensitive display of a device comprising . . . .”
28
02198.51855/4133864.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b) MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1 titled “Software Keyboard System Using Trace of Stylus on a Touch Screen and Method for
2 Recognizing Key Code Using the Same.”
3

Because the actions involve nearly identical parties, the same products, and overlapping

4 patents, conducting the Apple and Samsung Actions before different judges in the same district
5 will result in an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense and a waste of judicial
6 resources. Discovery in each action is likely to overlap, particularly given the overlap in
7 products. Further, it would be inefficient to require more than one judge to become intimately
8 familiar with the same highly complex wireless devices. Moreover, conducting both Actions in
9 front of one judge also would preclude inconsistent findings and assist the Court in making
10 equitable determinations because the Court would be more knowledgeable of the parties’ larger
11 relationship and claims against each other concerning the same products.
12

Accordingly, Samsung requests that the Court order that the Apple Action and the

13 Samsung Action are considered related and consolidated.
14
15 DATED: May 11, 2011
16

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22

By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4133864.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S CIVIL L.R. 3-12(b) MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED