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).

Download PDF
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

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?