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

Filing 659

First MOTION to Shorten Time on 658 Motion for Leave to Supplement Infringement Contentions filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Shorten, # 2 Declaration in Support of Motion to Shorten, # 3 Exhibit A)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/25/2012) Modified text on 1/26/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)  charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129 kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com  Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor  Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 (650) 801-5000  Telephone: Facsimile: (650) 801-5100   Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017  Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100   Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,  INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION   APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  DECLARATION OF TODD BRIGGS IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING  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,  Defendant.   02198.51855/4568382.1  Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ________ 1 I, Todd M. Briggs, declare:  1. I am a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for Samsung  Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications  America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California.  I submit this declaration in support of Samsung’s Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and  Hearing. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as  a witness, I could and would testify to the following facts.  2. On January 24, 2012, Victoria Maroulis, counsel for Samsung, informed Peter  Kolovos and Mark Selwyn, counsel for Apple, that Samsung planned to file its Motion to Amend  Infringement Contentions.  3. Samsung provided Apple a draft stipulation to shorten time and offered Apple the  opportunity to revise it.  4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and accurate copy of correspondence from  counsel for Apple stating they intended to decline, received January 24, 2012.      5. Since November, Samsung has sought an agreement from Apple to supplement its infringement contentions. Apple has been aware of the substance and form of the proposed supplement for more than a month. 6. Apple’s last minute change in tactics have necessitated the filing of this Motion and  the concurrently filed Motion for Leave to Amend Its Infringement Contentions.     7. Without the shorten time for briefing and hearing, Samsung will not able to conduct discovery on the iPhone 4S. 8. Pursuant to L.R. 6-3(a)(5), previous time modifications in the case, whether by  stipulation or Court order, include the following:     A. On April 26, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for briefing and hearing on its motion to expedite discovery. (Dkt No. 26.) Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 1 1 B. On May 9, 2011, Apple and Samsung stipulated and agreed that the time for 2 Samsung to serve responsive pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(a) shall be 75 3 days after April 21, 2011. On May 10, 2011, the Court signed the 4 Stipulation and Order regarding an extension of time for Samsung to serve 5 responsive pleadings. (Dkt No. 40.) 6 C. On June 1, 2011, the Court granted in part Samsung’s request to shorten 7 time for hearing and briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Reciprocal 8 Expedited Discovery. (Dkt No. 59.) 9 D. On July 18, 2011 the Court ordered a briefing schedule related to expedited 10 discovery and Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, setting dates 11 from July 2011 through the October 13, 2011 hearing on Apple’s Motion 12 for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt No. 115.) 13 E. On July 21, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the 14 time for briefing Samsung’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel Bridges & 15 Mavrakakis, LLP. (Dkt No. 125.) 16 F. On September 1, 2011 the Court granted Samsung’s stipulated motion to 17 expedite briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Apple to Produce 18 Documents and Things. (Dkt No. 199) 19 G. On September 6, 2011 the Court granted Apple’s stipulated motion to 20 extend time for Apple to respond to Samsung’s Motion to Exclude the 21 Ordinary Observer Opinions of Apple Expert Cooper Woodring. (Dkt No. 22 210.) 23 H. 24 25 26 On September 20, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s unopposed motion to change the hearing date on its motion to dismiss. (Dkt No. 244.) I. On September 23, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time to expedite briefing on Apple’s motion to compel. (Dkt No. 255.) 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 2 1 J. On October 3, 2011, the Court granted-in-part Samsung’s motion to shorten 2 the briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s motion to compel. (Dkt 3 No. 287.) 4 K. On October 27, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for 5 the briefing and hearing schedule for its motion for a protective order. (Dkt 6 No. 332.) 7 L. On October 31, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten the 8 briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s motion to compel. (Dkt No. 9 350.) 10 M. briefing and hearing on Apple’s motion to compel. (Dkt No. 477.) 11 12 On December 9, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for N. On December 13, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten 13 time for briefing and hearing on Samsung’s motion to compel. (Dkt. No. 14 499). 15 O. for briefing and hearing on Apple’s motion to strike. (Dkt. No. 538). 16 17 On December 22, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time P. On December 30, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten 18 time for briefing and hearing on its motion to extend time for compliance. 19 (Dkt. No. 566). 20 Q. On January 11, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to 21 shorten time for briefing and hearing on their discovery motions. (Dkt. No. 22 610). 23 24 R. On January 17, 2012, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated motion to enlarge time for briefing discovery motions. (Dkt. No. 635). 25 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 3 1 9. The present request to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s 2 Motion for Leave to Supplement Its Infringement Contentions will not affect the schedule of the 3 case. 4 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in 5 Redwood Shores, California on January 24, 2012. 6 /s/ Todd Briggs 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 4 1 2 General Order Attestation I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that Todd M. Briggs has 4 concurred in this filing. 5 /s/ Victoria Maroulis 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK BRIGGS DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 5

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?