Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
*** ATTACHMENTS 2 and 3 FILED IN ERROR WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. DOCUMENT LOCKED. *** Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 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 Proposed Order Granting Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, #2 Declaration of Hankil Kang in Support of Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, #3 Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Rule 62(C) Motion, #4 Declaration of Paul Chapple in Support of Samsung's Opposition, #5 Declaration of Travis Merrill in Support of Samsung's Opposition, #6 Declaration of Carl Anderson in Support of Samsung's Opposition, #7 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Carl Anderson, #8 Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Carl Anderson, #9 Exhibit 3 to the Declaration of Carl Anderson, #10 Exhibit 4 to the Declaration of Carl Anderson, #11 Proposed Order Denying Apple's Rule 62(C) Motion)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/25/2012) Modified on 5/29/2012 Attachment #2 Sealed pursuant to General Order No. 62 (dhm, COURT STAFF). Modified on 6/5/2012 (fff, COURT STAFF).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
14 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
15 York corporation; SAMSUNG
16 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
APPLE’S MOTION PURSUANT TO
RULE 62(C) FOR ENTRY OF
WITHOUT FURTHER HEARING
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
The Court has before it Plaintiff Apple Inc.’s (“Apple’s”) Motion Pursuant to Rule 62(c)
2 For Entry of Preliminary Injunction Without Further Hearing (the “Motion”), as well as all
3 documents and evidence submitted both in support of and opposition to the Motion, including
4 Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
5 Telecommunications America, LLC’s, (“Samsung’s”) Opposition to the Motion.
6 the Motion took place on June 7, 2012.
[ALTERNATIVE 1 - the Court finds that it does not have jurisdiction]
The Court finds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(c) does not authorize the Court to
11 grant the relief Apple seeks by its Motion.
Apple’s Motion is therefore DENIED.
[ALTERNATIVE 2 - If the Court finds it has jurisdiction]
The Court finds that:
the balance of harm tips in Samsung’s favor in that the hardship to Apple if the
17 Motion is not granted does not outweigh the hardship to Samsung if the Motion is granted; and
the public interest would not be served by granting the Motion.
The Motion is therefore DENIED.
Hon. Lucy H .Koh
United States District Court Judge
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING APPLE’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
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?