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

Filing 714

REPLY BRIEF in Support of ( #658 First MOTION for Leave to Supplement Its Infringement Contentions ) filed by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Caracappa Declaration, #2 Briggs Declaration, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/7/2012) Modified text on 2/8/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT A

Case 3:11-mc-01268-IEG Document 5

Filed 10/13/11 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

In re Ex Parte Application of
APPLE INC.; APPLE GMBH; APPLE
RETAIL GERMANY GMBH; APPLE,
JAPAN INC.; APPLE SALES
INTERNATIONAL; APPLE HOLDING
B.V.; APPLE BENELUX B.V.; APPLE
NETHERLANDS B.V.; APPLE RETAIL
NETHERLANDS B.V.; APPLE KOREA
LTD.; APPLE FRANCE; APPLE RETAIL
FRANCE; APPLE ITALIA S.R.L.; APPLE
RETAIL UK LIMITED; and APPLE PTY
LIMITED.

Case No. 11mc1268
ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1782
GRANTING LEAVE TO OBTAIN
DISCOVERY FOR USE IN FOREIGN
PROCEEDINGS

Applicants,

20
21
22
23

This matter comes before the Court on the Ex Parte Application of Apple Inc.; Apple
GmbH; Apple Retail Germany GmbH; Apple, Japan, Inc.; Apple Sales International; Apple
Holding B.V.; Apple Benelux B.V.; Apple Netherlands B.V.; Apple Retail Netherlands B.V.;

24
Apple Korea Ltd.; Apple France; Apple Retail France; Apple Italia s.r.l.; Apple Retail UK
25
26
27

Limited; and Apple Pty Limited (“Apple”) for an Order to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign
Proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) (the “Application”). The Application seeks

28

OPPOS
FOR

1

Case 3:11-mc-01268-IEG Document 5

Filed 10/13/11 Page 2 of 3

1

documents from Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”) in connection with patent litigation pending

2

between Apple and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and its affiliates in Germany, Japan, the

3

Netherlands, South Korea, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Samsung has filed

4
an opposition, and Apple has filed a reply.
5
6

The Court has fully considered the papers on file. Apple’s application satisfies the three

7

statutory requirements under §1782. The application is filed in the “district in which [the] person

8

resides,” it seeks discovery “for use in a proceeding in a foreign … tribunal,” and Apple is an

9

“interested person[] the foreign proceeding. Furthermore, Apple has satisfied the four factors

10

identified by the Supreme Court to guide courts’ discretion in analyzing applications under

11
12

§1782. Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004). Qualcomm is

13

not a participant in the foreign proceedings, and §1782 provides an effective and streamlined

14

mechanism for obtaining the discovery for use across the various foreign cases. Case law

15

demonstrates the foreign jurisdictions at issue are receptive to the type of discovery sought by

16

Apple, and there is nothing to indicate the request is made to circumvent limitations on discovery

17

imposed by those foreign courts. Finally, the subpoena appears narrowly tailored such that the

18
19
20
21
22
23

documents sought would be relevant to the claims against Apple in the foreign courts and
compliance would not be unduly intrusive or burdensome.
Samsung objects to the application, arguing the subpoena is unnecessary because Apple
can obtain the documents directly from Samsung in discovery in the foreign proceedings.
However, the Court has no assurance the evidence would be available in each of the foreign

24
venues in which Samsung is pursuing litigation. In addition, Apple’s application sufficiently
25
26

outlines the relevance of the evidence sought. There is nothing at this point that leads the Court

27
28

OPPOS
FOR

2

Case 3:11-mc-01268-IEG Document 5

Filed 10/13/11 Page 3 of 3

1

to believe Apple’s request is a “fishing expedition” or intended to be a vehicle for harassment.

2

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Apple’s application.

3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Apple is granted leave to issue a subpoena for

4
documents in substantially the form as attached to the Application, directing Qualcomm to
5
6

produce the documents requested in the subpoena at the offices of Merrill Corporation, 8899

7

University Center Lane, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92122, or another location mutually agreeable

8

to Apple and Qualcomm.

9
10

It is further ORDERED that copies of the Application and Memorandum in Support
thereof and this Order shall be served upon Qualcomm Inc., 5775 Morehouse Drive, San Diego,

11
12
13

CA 92121.
This order is made without prejudice to any motion to quash by Qualcomm, or any

14

further motion for protective order by Samsung. Any motion seeking such relief shall be filed

15

under this case number.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 13, 2011

_______________
Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge
United States District Court

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

OPPOS
FOR

3