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

Filing 677

MOTION for Leave to File Statement of Recent Decisions in Support of Its Claim Construction Positions filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - [Proposed] Statement of Recent Decisions, #2 Declaration of Mia Mazza ISO Request for Leave, #3 Proposed Order Granting Request for Leave)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/27/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20

Plaintiff,
v.

23

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

24

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE
TO FILE STATEMENT OF
RECENT DECISIONS IN
SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM
CONSTRUCTION POSITIONS

Defendants.

21
22

25
26
27
28
APPLE’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3098966

1

The Court held its Markman hearing on Friday, January 20, 2012. Pursuant to Civil Local

2

Rule 7-3(d), Apple requests leave to submit a Statement of Recent Decisions (“Statement”)

3

(attached as Exhibit A). The Statement identifies and attaches two cases that issued the day of

4

the hearing and thereafter that support Apple’s claim construction positions. The two cases are:

5

•

Falana v. Kent State Univ., Case No. 2011-1198, slip op. at 9 (Fed.
Cir. Jan. 23, 2012) (holding that district court properly construed
the claim to not require an additional limitation because “the
claims, not the written description . . . define the scope of the
patent right”) (Attachment 1 to Exhibit A); and

•

Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, Case No. 2009-1566, -1588, slip. op. at
12 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 20, 2012) (holding that district court erred by
excluding non-enumerated examples from its claim construction)
(Attachment 2 to Exhibit A).

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Dated: January 27, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:

/s/ Michael Jacobs
Michael Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE STATEMENT OF RECENT DECISIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3098966