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

Filing 852

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Conference Statement filed by Apple Inc.. (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 4/5/2012)

1

[COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES]

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.
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,
Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3229959

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

April 12, 2012
1:30 pm
Courtroom 4, 5th Floor
Hon. Lucy H. Koh

1

Under Civil Local Rule 16-10(d), the parties jointly submit this Joint Case Management

2

Statement to update the prior statement and to offer their thoughts for the remainder of the case,

3

including the need for additional ADR.

4

1.

5

The fact discovery deadline was March 8. The Court has adjudicated 15 motions,

6

including motions and cross motions to compel and motions to amend invalidity and infringement

7

contentions. The Court issued its Markman ruling on April 4. Opening expert reports have been

8

served, and the parties currently are preparing rebuttal reports. The parties are discussing a few

9

remaining depositions of party or third party fact witnesses (e.g., as a result of stipulations or the

10

Progress or Changes Since Last Statement:

recent order by Judge Grewal).

11

2.

12

Apple’s Views:

13

Apple is contemplating possible summary judgment motions to bring before the Court,

14
15
16

The Parties’ Views on the Remainder of Case:

and it expects that Samsung is as well.
Additionally, Apple would like to raise two options for the remainder of the case with the
Court for its consideration and discussion at the case management conference:

17

Option 1: Severance

18

Option 1 would sever Apple’s claims relating to its intellectual property (e.g., its design

19

patent, utility patent, and trademark and trade dress rights) from Samsung’s claims relating to its

20

intellectual property (e.g., its utility patent claims). There are few if any overlapping issues and

21

few if any overlapping witnesses between these claims. For example, Samsung’s claims relating

22

to its intellectual property raise FRAND and antitrust issues, neither of which has any relevance

23

to Apple’s intellectual property claims. To aid juror comprehension and avoid prejudice or delay

24

to either party, the two sides of the case would be tried back-to-back in separate cases. Apple’s

25

intellectual property claims would be tried first, with Samsung’s intellectual property claims (and

26

Apple’s related counter/cross-claims) tried immediately thereafter.

27
28

As Apple explained in the parties’ prior Joint Case Management Statement, it is well
within the Court’s discretion as to whether to sever cases for trial (or not). (D.N. 159 at 18-20.)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3129959

1

1

The Court did not predetermine this issue by administratively relating the cases in May 2011, as

2

Samsung suggests. In fact, as recently as the January 17, 2012 Markman tutorial, the Court

3

inquired as the parties’ views on “how . . . the trial would proceed” and further explained that it

4

was unnecessary to “decide [the severance issue] right now.” (Hrg. Tr. at 7, 11.)

5

Clarity as to the Court’s thoughts on severance would benefit both parties, as the July 30th

6

trial date is looming. If the cases were severed, the parties could plan and focus their trial

7

preparations accordingly.

8

Neither Samsung’s pending motion to dismiss nor the parties’ expected summary

9

judgment motions negate the benefits of severance, as the parties’ respective intellectual property

10

claims do not meaningfully intersect in terms of witnesses or technologies. In particular, Apple’s

11

asserted intellectual property rights (e.g., its design patents, utility patents, trademark, and trade

12

dress rights) do not overlap with Samsung’s asserted utility patents, the majority of which relate

13

to wireless technologies.

14

Option 2: Combined Presentation

15

If the Court is disinclined to sever the two cases, Apple proposes a second option. Option

16

2 would keep parties’ claims and counterclaims together in one trial with one set of jury

17

instructions and one verdict form. The trial would begin with Apple’s affirmative claims,

18

followed by Samsung’s defensive case and counter/cross-claims, and finally concluding with

19

Apple’s rebuttal case.

20

Samsung’s proposal to try everything together except for Apple’s antitrust, unfair

21

competition, and contractual counterclaims and licenses defenses makes no sense and would be

22

one-sided. These counterclaims and defenses, which concern issues such as Samsung’s conduct

23

during the standard-setting process, its compliance with its FRAND obligation, and licensing, are

24

inextricably intertwined with Samsung’s utility patent claims.

25

Samsung’s Views:

26

Apple’s proposals are transparent attempts to prioritize its own affirmative claims over

27

Samsung’s affirmative claims. For the reasons set forth in the parties’ previous Joint Case

28

Management Statement (D.N. 159 at 20-22) and in arguments during prior hearings, Apple’s
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3129959

2

1

request for severance or bifurcation of the parties’ claims should be denied, not least of which

2

because Apple’s requested relief would essentially undo the Court’s previous order to relate these

3

cases. Apple’s new proposal for a “structured presentation” is just another attempt at prioritizing

4

its claims first, though this proposal seeks to prioritize those claims before the same jury.

5

Discussion of bifurcation is premature at this stage. Pending before the Court is

6

Samsung’s Motion to Dismiss Apple’s antitrust and FRAND-related counterclaims. Should the

7

Court grant Samsung’s currently pending Motion to Dismiss Apple’s Antitrust and FRAND-

8

related counterclaims, Apple’s concerns for complexity stated above would be mooted. Further,

9

the parties will be filing motions for summary judgment which may dispose of some of the issues

10
11

now pending before the Court and will further change the nature of the case.
If, notwithstanding the above, the Court is inclined to consider structuring the trial before

12

the Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment motion practice, the Court should bifurcate

13

Apple’s antitrust, unfair competition, and contractual counterclaims as well as its defenses

14

relating to license. The parties' pending patent, design, and trade dress claims concern

15

overlapping subject matter. In trying these claims, the parties will introduce evidence regarding

16

the features, functionality, and design of the products at issue. By contrast, Apple’s antitrust,

17

unfair competition, and contractual counterclaims and related defenses involve issues relating to

18

the requirements of standard-setting organizations, including whether Samsung’s offer for a

19

license to certain asserted patents was consistent with any such obligations. Further, these

20

counterclaims and defenses involve complex questions of law that may not need to be decided if

21

the case is bifurcated as suggested by Samsung. For example, these counterclaims and defenses

22

would not need to be addressed if the jury were to find that Apple does not infringe the relevant

23

Samsung patents or that the patents are not essential to the UMTS standard, Moreover, it is

24

standard practice for courts to bifurcate such claims in order to prevent jury confusion and to

25

avoid prejudice to Samsung.

26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3129959

3

1

3.

Settlement and ADR:

2

The parties have previously participated in an in-person settlement discussion with a

3

mediator. Representatives of both parties, along with outside counsel, participated in the

4

mediation. The parties do not believe that additional mediation would be helpful at this time.

5

Dated: April 5, 2012

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

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

14
15
16
17
18

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]

19
20
21
22
23
24

By:

25

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3129959

4

1

Dated: April 5, 2012

2
3
4
5

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

6
7
8
9
10

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

11
12
13
14

By:

15
16

/s/ Victoria Maroulis
Victoria Maroulis
Attorneys for Defendants and
Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3129959

5