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)
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?