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

Filing 1846

AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW RE 1803, 1804. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/27/14. (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/27/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
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
AMENDED ORDER GRANTING IN
PART AND DENYING IN PART
MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A
MATTER OF LAW

Apple and Samsung have moved for judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Federal Rule

22

of Civil Procedure 50(a). ECF Nos. 1804, 1806-1. Both parties have opposed each other’s

23

motions. ECF Nos. 1817, 1818. Rule 50 provides that the court may grant a motion for judgment

24

as a matter of law against a non-moving party if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not

25

have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on” an issue.

26
27

After considering the evidence presented, the Court hereby DENIES Samsung’s motion.
As to Samsung’s specific issues, the Court rules as follows:

28
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

•

2
3

infringement.
•

4
5

•

•

•

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

•

•

•

•

22
23

•

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment on damages for
infringement of Samsung’s patents.

After considering all of the evidence presented, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART and
DENIES IN PART Apple’s motion. As to Apple’s specific issues, the Court rules as follows:
•

24
25

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment that the asserted
claims of the ’449 and ’239 patents are infringed.

20
21

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of lack of notice of the
’647 patent.

18
19

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment on pre-August 25,
2012 damages for the Galaxy S II Products.

16
17

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment on reasonable
royalties for infringement of the ’647, ’959, ’414, ’721, and ’172 patents.

14
15

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment on lost profits for
infringement of the ’647, ’959, ’414, ’721, and ’172 patents.

12
13

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment that the asserted
claims of the ’647, ’959, ’414, ’721, and ’172 patents are invalid.

10
11

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of no indirect
infringement of the asserted claims of the ’647, ’959, ’414, and ’721 patents.

8
9

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of non-infringement of
the asserted claims of the ’647, ’959, ’414, and ’721 patents.

6
7

The Court DENIES Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of no willful

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment that the asserted claims of
the ’647, ’959, ’414, ’721, and ’172 patents are not invalid.

•

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment that Samsung failed to

26

show available, acceptable non-infringing alternatives for the ’647, ’414, and ’959

27

patents.

28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

•

1
2

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of infringement of the
asserted claims of the ’647, ’959, ’414, and ’721 patents.

•

3
4

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of infringement against
all Samsung entities.

5

•

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of willful infringement.

6

•

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of induced and

7

contributory infringement of the ’647, ’959, ’414, and ’721 patents.
•

8
9

infringement of the ’647, ’959, ’414, ’721, and ’172 patents.
•

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment on lost profits for

11

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment that the asserted claims of
the ’449 and ’239 patents are not infringed.

•

12

The Court GRANTS Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of no willful

13

infringement of the ’449 and ’239 patents prior to April 18, 2012 only. Samsung

14

does not oppose this motion for this time period. ECF No. 1817 at 8.
•

15
16

The Court DENIES Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of no willful infringement
of the ’449 and ’239 patents after April 18, 2012.

17

The parties’ motions regarding the below claims and defenses not presented at trial require

18

further briefing. These issues will not be decided by the jury and thus shall be briefed and heard

19

according to the post-trial briefing schedule set at the March 5, 2014 pre-trial conference (ECF No.

20

1398).

21

•

22
23

’239 patents are not invalid.
•

24
25

Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment that the asserted claims of the ’449 and

Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of non-infringement of the ’239 patent by
iPad products.

•

Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment regarding Samsung’s affirmative defenses

26

listed in Samsung’s pleadings or pre-trial statement, for which Samsung did not

27

offer sufficient evidence at trial.

28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

2

Dated: April 27, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW