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)

Download PDF
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

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?