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

Filing 1179

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh denying [1157-4] Samsung's Motion for Relief From Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge #1127 , granting #1157 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal, and granting #1165 Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document. (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
)
)
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,
)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. )
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung

22

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) seek relief from Magistrate Judge

23

Grewal’s January 9, 2014 Order Re: Motions to Strike (Dkt. 1127). Samsung contends that Judge

24

Grewal improperly struck an opinion of Samsung’s expert Dr. Schonfeld relating to Plaintiff

25

Apple, Inc.’s (“Apple”) alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,577,757 (the “’757 Patent”). See

26

Dkt. 1157-4 (motion for relief).

27

The Court has invalidated the asserted claims of the ’757 Patent. See Dkt. 1150 at 44

28

(Summary Judgment Order). Samsung acknowledges as much and states that it has filed the
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF

1

present motion merely for preservation purposes “should the Court revise its [invalidity] decision

2

or should the Court’s decision be reversed in the future.” Mot. at 1 n.1. Accordingly, the Court

3

DENIES without prejudice Samsung’s motion for relief.

4

Samsung has also filed an administrative motion to seal (Dkt. 1157), seeking to keep

5

confidential certain information included in its motion for relief related to Apple’s software

6

architecture. Samsung’s administrative motion to seal is GRANTED. See Apple Inc. v. Samsung

7

Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (sealing targeted portions of court filings

8

appropriate where information not “essential to the district court’s rulings”).
Finally, Samsung has filed a motion (Dkt. 1165) to remove a document it mistakenly filed

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

publicly as part of its motion to seal. 1 That motion is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed to remove

11

Docket No. 1157-3 from the public docket.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14

Dated: January 27, 2014

15

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Samsung’s motion asks the Court to remove Docket No. 1173-3. See Dkt. 1165. The Court
assumes that reference is a mistake. Docket No. 1173-3 is part of an unrelated, later-filed motion.
The Court assumes that Samsung meant to seek removal of Docket No. 1157-3, the unredacted
version of Samsung’s motion for relief that Samsung filed publicly.

2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF