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

Filing 1853

ORDER DENYING APPLES AND SAMSUNGS MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW REGARDING THE 647 PATENT AT THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/28/2014. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2014)

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
)
)
)
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. )
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING APPLE’S AND
SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR
JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
REGARDING THE ’647 PATENT AT
THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE

At the close of evidence, Apple and Samsung moved for judgment as a matter of law

22

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a). Both parties opposed each other’s motions.

23

Rule 50 provides that the court may grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law against a non-

24

moving party if “the court finds that a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient

25

evidentiary basis to find for the party on” an issue. After considering the evidence presented and

26

arguments by both parties at the hearing on April 28, 2014, and for the reasons stated on the record,

27

the Court denied both parties’ motions. Specifically, the Court ruled as follows:

28

1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
REGARDING THE ’647 PATENT AT THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE

1



2
3

of the asserted claim of the ’647 patent.


4
5





United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

12

The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of infringement of the
asserted claim of the ’647 patent.



10
11

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of invalidity of the
asserted claim of the ’647 patent.

8
9

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of no willful
infringement of the asserted claim of the ’647 patent.

6
7

The Court DENIED Samsung’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of non-infringement

The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of no invalidity of the
asserted claim of the ’647 patent.



The Court DENIED Apple’s Rule 50 motion for judgment of willful infringement of
the asserted claim of the ’647 patent.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15

Dated: April 28, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER DENYING APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW
REGARDING THE ’647 PATENT AT THE CLOSE OF EVIDENCE