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

Filing 841

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION to ( #815 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Joby Martin In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/30/2012) Modified text on 4/2/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK-PSG

12
Plaintiff,
13

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

vs.
14
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
15 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
16 York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
17 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
18

Defendants.

19
20

On March 15, 2012, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) filed a Motion to Compel (Docket No.

21
815). Samsung filed its Opposition to this motion on March 29, 2012.
22
Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, the Court hereby
23
DENIES Apple's Motion to Compel as moot with respect to Apple's requests for documents from
24
other Samsung litigations in which Samsung took any position regarding the determination of a
25
FRAND royalty or the propriety of injunctive relief for the infringement of IPR claimed to be
26
essential to the UMTS standard.
27

The Court further DENIES as moot Apple's request for

documents concerning Samsung’s plans and strategies for developing, marketing or licensing of

28
02198.51855/4682452.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

-1-

1 IPR that is claimed to be essential to the UMTS standard.

Finally, the Court finds that Apple has

2 failed to show good cause to support its request for documents from other Samsung litigations in
3 which Samsung took any position regarding the licensing of patents and other IPR claimed to be
4 essential to the UMTS standard, and therefore DENIES Apple's Motion to Compel as to those
5 documents.
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10 DATED:

______________________

11
12
13

HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4682452.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

-2-