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

Filing 51

Proposed Order re #41 Samsung's Civil L.R.3-12(b) Motion To Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related by Apple Inc.. (Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 5/17/2011) Modified on 5/20/2011 linking entry to document #41(dhm, COURT STAFF).

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,

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
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

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Pursuant to Local Rule 3-12, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LCC (collectively "Samsung")

4
moved to have this action, Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al., Case No. 11-cv-01846,
5
6
7

considered related to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al v. Apple Inc., Case No. 11-cv-02079
(N.D. Cal.).

8

The Court, having considered the briefs and arguments of the parties, finds that good

9

cause does not exist to designate the two cases as related. The Court therefore DENIES the

10

Motion.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED

14
15

DATED: ____________, 2011
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
-1-

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 17, 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
-2-

28
US1DOCS 7942549v1

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