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

Filing 660

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Declaration Tierney Decl ISO Motion to Seal, #2 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion to Seal, #3 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, #4 Declaration Hieta Declaration ISO Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, #5 Exhibit Hieta Decl Exhibit 1, #6 Exhibit Hieta Decl Exhibit 2, #7 Exhibit Hieta Decl Exhibit 3, #8 Exhibit Hieta Decl Exhibit 4, #9 Declaration Mueller Declaration ISO Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, #10 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

1
2
3

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

4
Plaintiff,
5
6
7
8
9

vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity, SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation, and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

12
13
14

17

Date: May 10, 2012
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity, SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation, and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

15
16

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants.

10
11

Civil Action No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18

Counterclaim-Defendant.

19
20

The Court, having considered the papers submitted by the parties and argument by

21

counsel, HEREBY ORDERS that Apple Inc. is entitled to judgment under Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 56 as to the following Apple defenses and counterclaims:

23

1.

First Defense (Non-Infringement) as to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,386,001, 7,362,867,

24
7,050,410, 6,928,604, 7,675,941, 7,200,792, and 7,447,516 (collectively, the
25
26

“summary judgment patents”);

27
28

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR

1

2.

2
3

Fourth Defense (Authority to Practice and/or Unenforceability) as to the summary
judgment patents;

3.

Fifth Defense (FRAND License);

4.

Sixth Defense (No Injunctive Relief) as to the summary judgment patents;

5.

First Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’604 Patent);

7

6.

Third Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’410 Patent);

8

7.

Ninth Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’792 Patent);

9

8.

Eleventh Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’867

4
5
6

10

Patent);

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

9.

Thirteenth Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’001
Patent);

10. Fifteenth Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’516
Patent);
11. Twenty-First Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement of the ’941
Patent);

18
19
20
21
22

12. Twenty-Fifth Counterclaim (Breach of Contract - FRAND and Other StandardRelated Misconduct); and
13. Twenty-Seventh Counterclaim (Declaratory Judgment that Apple is Licensed to
Samsung's Declared-Essential Patents).

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED

25
26

DATED: __________________, 2012

___________________________
Hon. Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court Judge

27
28

2

[PROPOSED] ORDER
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

OPPOS
FOR