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

Filing 49

RESPONSE (re #41 MOTION to Relate Case ) Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Samsung's Civil L.R. 3-12(b) Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should be Related filed byApple Inc.. (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/16/2011)

1
2
3
4

Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180)
([e-mail])
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5
6

Specially Appearing as Attorney for Plaintiff Apple Inc.

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

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,

APPLE INC.'S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG'S CIVIL L.R. 3-12(B)
MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER
CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S
CIVIL L.R. 3-12(B) MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1
2
3

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) opposes Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively, “Samsung”)
motion to relate and “consolidate” this case (“Apple’s case”) with Samsung Electronics Co.,

4
Ltd., et al. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02079 (“Samsung’s case”).
5
There is no subject matter overlap and scant similarity between the two cases. Apple’s

6
7

case addresses Samsung’s copying of Apple’s successful products, asserts easily understandable

8

design and utility patents covering the distinctive look, design, and user interface technology of

9

those iconic Apple products, and seeks an early resolution to prevent yet another generation of

10
11

Samsung copycat products. In contrast, Samsung’s case consists primarily of seven patents
concerning the minutiae of the W-CDMA and UMTS wireless communication standards —

12
13

patents that Samsung has declared to be essential to practicing those standards and has

14

irrevocably committed to license on Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (“FRAND”)

15

terms. The three other patents asserted in Samsung’s case address using a stylus to interact with

16

a touch screen, having a “world clock,” and updating a visual display through the use of

17

“thumbnail-type” images. Even Samsung did not think the patents in its case were sufficiently

18

related to Apple’s case to assert them as counterclaims. Relating Samsung’s case with Apple’s

19
would only delay resolution of Apple’s case. It would not conserve resources. As for
20
21
22

“consolidation,” that issue is not properly presented by Samsung’s motion.1
I.

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE ACTIONS

23

A.

24

Local Rule 3-12 provides that cases may be deemed related when they “concern

25
26
27
28

Different Issues Predominate.

substantially the same parties, property, transaction or event” and it “appears likely that there
1
By its motion, Samsung asks that the two cases be not only related, but consolidated. Local Rule 3-12 is
not the proper vehicle to seek such consolidation.
-1Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

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

1

will be an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases

2

are conducted before different Judges.” Local Rule 3-12 does not address “consolidation” of

3

related cases. Where the two cases involve substantially different facts or law, a motion to relate

4
should be denied. See, e.g., In re Wells Fargo Mortgage-Backed Certificates Litigation, No. 095
6

CV-01376, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124498, at *33 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2010) (denying a motion

7

to relate two cases involving alleged securities violations because there was no common offering

8

at issue); Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Ass’n v. Locke, No. C 10-04790, 2011 U.S.

9

Dist. LEXIS 7989, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2011) (denying motion to reconsider denial of

10
11

motion to relate where defendants and administrative records were same but the claims were of
different natures, and “different parts of the administrative record and amendments are relevant

12
13
14
15

to each case”).
That is the case here. The two cases ask fundamentally different questions. Apple’s case
fundamentally rests on the question of whether this smartphone:

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

unlawfully copies this smartphone:

, in violation

of Apple’s trademarks, trade dress, and patents.

24
25
26
27
-2-

28

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

1

In contrast, Samsung’s case asks for each of the wireless standards patents a question

2
3
4
5
. (U.S.

such as, does Apple employ the following algorithm:
6
7

Patent No. 7,200,792 at 21:20-35.) Because the two cases ask fundamentally different questions

8

about fundamentally different aspects of the products, the two cases will necessarily require

9

different discovery, different witnesses, and distinct legal analyses. Indeed, courts have

10

concluded that a motion to relate should be denied even where, unlike here, there was some

11

overlap in the patents. See Hynix Semiconductor Inc. v. Rambus Inc., No. C-00-20905, 2008

12

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68625, at *14 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2008) (denying a motion to relate in part

13
because the court was familiar with only 6 of the 17 patents asserted in second case).
14
Samsung’s attempt to demonstrate relatedness relies upon a comparison of the titles of

15
16

six of Apple’s ten asserted patents2 to the titles of three of Samsung’s ten asserted patents. But

17

even using that simplistic measure demonstrates that the patents-in-suit in the Samsung and

18

Apple cases are directed at different technologies, and that the trial of the Apple and Samsung

19

cases will bear almost no resemblance. The patents asserted in the Apple case primarily concern

20

Samsung’s imitation of Apple’s successful products — descending into the details of cellular

21
22

radio communication will be quite unnecessary. In contrast, seven of the asserted Samsung

23

patents are alleged to be essential to the W-CDMA and UMTS wireless communication

24

standards — requiring an examination of the particular algorithms necessary to transmit data and

25

other technologically dense issues. Further, Samsung’s obligation to license these seven patents

26

2

27
28

Samsung erroneously claims Apple asserted only 7 patents. (See Dkt. 41, at 2.) Samsung’s contention
appears to be directed only at Apple’s 7 utility patents, and ignores the 3 asserted design patents. (See Dkt. 1, at 67.)
-3Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE INC.’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S
CIVIL L.R. 3-12(B) MOTION TO CONSIDER
WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED

1

on FRAND terms raises legal arguments entirely distinct from the issues in Apple’s case. And,

2

even if Samsung’s position that information gleaned from the titles of patents is sufficient to

3

justify relating cases is credited, its patent titled “Software keyboard system using trace of stylus

4
on a touch screen . . .” has no place in Apple’s case, as this is something no Apple product does.
5
6

In addition, Samsung’s “world clock,” and “thumbnail refresh” patents are also unlikely to

7

consume even a meaningful fraction of the discovery or trial time the wireless communications

8

standards patents will require.

9
10
11

B.

The Cases Do Not Concern the Same Property.

Samsung asserts without explanation that the “same products” are at issue in both cases.
(See Dkt. 41, at 3.) Samsung is wrong. Apple has accused numerous different Samsung

12
13

products of infringing its intellectual property rights, including more than ten different

14

smartphones, and a tablet computer. Samsung does not discuss any of these products specifically

15

in its motion, let alone explain how the analysis of whether those Samsung products violate

16

Apple’s intellectual property rights could be at all relevant to the entirely separate analysis of the

17

Samsung case: whether Apple products infringe Samsung’s patents. The two cases concern

18

different “property” — in one case, Samsung products and Apple intellectual property rights; in

19
the other, Apple products and Samsung patents — and thus will require distinct legal and factual
20
21
22

analyses.
Though Samsung contends that both cases involve the same property because “[t]he

23

accused products in both cases are smartphones and tablet computers” (Dkt. 41, at 1), such

24

superficial analysis concerning the same type of property has previously been rejected for the

25

purpose of relating cases. See Target Therapeutics, Inc. v. Scimed Life Systems, Inc., 1996 U.S.

26

Dist. LEXIS 22994, at *38 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 1996) (denying motion to relate two litigations

27
-4-

28

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

1

involving catheter technology because “the catheters at issue in the first case were ‘significantly

2

different’ from the catheters at issue in the second case” and “there is no evidence that judicial

3

effort would be duplicated or conflicts would be created if the cases are heard by different

4
judges”), vacated on other grounds, Target Therapeutics, Inc. v. Cordis Endovascular Systems,
5
6

Inc., 113 F.3d 1256 (Table), 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 9718 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 1997). While

7

smartphones and tablets will likely make an appearance in both cases, the subject matter

8

technologies that will have to be mastered by the Court will be entirely different, thereby

9

negating any possible efficiency gains that lie at the heart of case relation.

10

C.

11

Ordinarily, a motion to relate seeks to promote judicial efficiency and consistency by

12

Judicial Resources Will Not Be Conserved by Relating the Two Cases.

having one judge become familiar with all the issues. However, where, as here, relating two

13
14

cases would “require an understanding of a different, albeit related, technology,” a motion to

15

relate should be denied. Hynix Semiconductor Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68625, at *14-15.

16

Relating the two cases will not promote judicial efficiency because, as discussed above, the two

17

cases concern substantially different causes of action, share none of the same patents, and there

18

is no indication that the patents are similar enough that there will be substantial overlap in

19

discovery or claim construction. Indeed, given the lack of any overlap in asserted patents,

20
granting Samsung’s motion would effectively double the number of patents that this Court must
21
22

adjudicate from 10 to 20 patents, without any substantial savings in labor or expense. There also

23

is no risk of inconsistent findings; each court will preside over different patents. Thus, relating

24

the cases would serve only to place extra burdens on this Court without realizing substantial

25

benefits to the parties or to the Court.

26
27
-5-

28

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

1

Dated: May 16, 2011

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP

2
3

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn (SBN 244180)
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
5
6
7
8

Counsel for Plaintiff Apple Inc.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-6-

28

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

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2
3
4
5
6

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
document has been served on May 16, 2011, to all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5.4. Any
other counsel of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.

7

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-7-

28

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