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

Filing 645

Proposed Order Denying Apple's Motion to Compel Discovery Related to Its Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims (relates to Dkt No. 643-3) by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

11 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
12
13

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

Plaintiff,
vs.

14 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
15 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
16 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
17
Defendants.
18

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DISCOVERY RELATING TO ITS
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND
COUNTERCLAIMS

19
20

On January 10, 2012, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moved for an order compelling

21

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

22

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) to produce documents and things

23

responsive to various of Apple’s Requests for Production (Docket No. 600).

24

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

25

action, the Court hereby DENIES Apple’s motion to compel discovery relating to its affirmative

26

defenses and counterclaims in its entirety, as follows:

27
28

02198.51855/4555213.1

1
2

1.

SSO Documents. Apple’s motion to compel is DENIED as overbroad, unduly

3 burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with
4 respect to its requests for all documents related to Samsung’s participation in ETSI and/or 3GPP.
5

2.

License Agreements. Apple’s motion to compel is DENIED as overbroad, unduly

6 burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with
7 respect to its requests for all license agreements and documents reflecting license negotiations
8 (whether resulting in a contract or not) relating to patents that Samsung has declared essential to
9 the ETSI and/or 3GPP standards. Apple's motion to compel is DENIED for failure to meet and
10 confer with respect to its request for all license agreements to relevant technologies that cover only
11 patents that have not been declared essential to a standards body.
12

3.

Inventor Documents. Apple's motion to compel is DENIED as overbroad, unduly

13 burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence with
14 respect to its request to compel Samsung to run additional specified term searches in Samsung's
15 inventor files.
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18 DATED: ___________, 2012
19
20
The Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4555213.1