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

Filing 957

Proposed Order [Corrected] Granting Samsung's Motion for Summary Judgment [930-1] by Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/21/2012) Modified text on 5/22/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
10 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

16
17

vs.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
18 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
19 York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
20 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
21

Defendant.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1

THE COURT, having considered Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the

2 papers submitted by the parties and argument by counsel, HEREBY ORDERS that Samsung is
3 entitled to judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 as to the following:
4

1.

Apple’s First Claim for Relief (Federal False Designation of Origin &

5 Unfair Competition).
6

2.

Apple’s Second Claim for Relief (Federal Trade Dress Infringement).

7

3.

Apple’s Fourth Claim for Relief (Federal Trade Dress Dilution).

8

4.

Apple’s Twelfth Claim for Relief (Infringement of the ’915 Patent).

9

5.

Samsung’s Third Affirmative Defense (Patent Invalidity) as to the ’381

10 Patent, the ’607 Patent, the ’163 Patent, the D’334 Patent, the D’305 Patent, the D’677 Patent, the
11 D’087 Patent, and the D’889 Patent; and as a result, Apple’s Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth,
12 Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Nineteenth, Twentieth, and Twenty-First Claims for Relief (Infringement
13 of the ’381, ’607, ’163, D’334, D’305, D’677, D’087, and D’889 Patents).
14

6.

Apple’s claims for damages under its Twenty-Eighth and Twenty-Ninth

15 Counterclaims (Sherman Act and Unfair Competition Law).
16

Therefore, the Court ORDERS that Samsung’s Motion for Summary Judgment as

17 to all of Apple’s remaining affirmative claims in this action is GRANTED.
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

DATED:
HON. LUCY H. KOH

23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK