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

Filing 910

MOTION for Leave to File Apple's Motion for Leave to File Response To Samsungs Statement Identifying Claims It Will Assert At Trial filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apples Response To Samsungs Statement Identifying Claims It Will Assert At Trial, #2 Declaration Richard S.J. Hung Decl. ISO Apple's Motion for Leave to File Response to Samsung's Statement Identifying Claims It Will Assert, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion for Leave to File Response to Samsung's Statement Identifying Claims It Will Assert)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 5/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 [COUNSEL LISTED ON SIGNATURE PAGES] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN JOSE DIVISION 12 13 14 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 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, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S STATEMENT IDENTIFYING CLAIMS IT WILL ASSERT AT TRIAL Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S STATEMENT IDENTIFYING CLAIMS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3143830 On May 2, 2012, this Court issued a Minute Order directing each party to “file a statement 1 identifying with specificity the claims they will assert at trial, e.g., specific patent claims.” Apple 2 filed its statement at 6:00 p.m. on May 7th. 3 Over five hours later, and just twenty minutes before midnight, Samsung filed an eleven page 4 statement. Rather than comply with the Court’s order, Samsung devoted eight of its eleven pages to a 5 brief challenging the sufficiency of Apple’s trial plan. This brief was neither authorized nor permitted 6 by this Court’s Order. 7 8 Apple therefore moves for leave to file the attached Reply Statement, in order to respond to several important misstatements in Samsung’s brief. 9 Apple sought but was unable to obtain Samsung's consent to file the attached Reply 10 Statement. (Decl. of Richard S.J. Hung in Support of Apple’s Motion for Leave to File Response to 11 Samsung’s Statement Identifying Claims It Will Assert at Trial (“Hung Decl.” ¶ 1.) Samsung stated 12 that it would oppose Apple’s motion for leave, and proposed as an alternative that the parties file 13 a “joint submission.” The purpose of Apple’s proposed submission is to respond to the facts in 14 Samsung’s original, improperly filed “Statement.” It makes no sense to condition Apple's filing 15 of a response on allowing Samsung to file yet another brief. (Hung Decl. Ex. 1.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S STATEMENT IDENTIFYING CLAIMS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3143830 1 Dated: May 9, 2012 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) atucher@mofo.com RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) rhung@mofo.com JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) jasonbartlett@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 19 20 21 22 23 By: /s/ Harold J. McElhinny MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff and CounterclaimDefendant APPLE INC. 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S STATEMENT IDENTIFYING CLAIMS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3143830 2

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?