Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
985
OPPOSITION to ( #922 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion for Clarification Regarding the COurt's May 4, 2012 Order ) filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 5/29/2012) Modified text on 5/30/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
13
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
14
15
16
17
18
19
v.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION REGARDING THE
COURT’S MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
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.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION RE: MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3152080
1
Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
2
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) seek an order amending
3
the Court’s May 4, 2012 Order to allow Samsung to: (1) use at trial for purposes of showing its
4
design-around efforts certain source code for its “blue glow” functionality which it now claims it
5
produced before December 31, 2011; and (2) use at trial non-source code evidence of its alleged
6
design-arounds to the ’381 and ’163 Apple Patents.
7
Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, IT IS
8
ORDERED that Samsung’s Motion for Clarification Regarding the Court’s May 4, 2012 Order is
9
DENIED.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION RE: MAY 4, 2012 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3152080
1
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?