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

Filing 2096

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh GRANTING SAMSUNGS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ITS SUPERSEDEAS BOND #2080 , AND GRANTING APPLES MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT #2084 [PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION] (lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

8

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
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.
)
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ITS
SUPERSEDEAS BOND, AND
GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR
STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT
[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung

20

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) moves for approval of its

21

supersedeas bond. See ECF No. 2080-3. Samsung proposes a supersedeas bond of

22

based on the following calculations:

23
24
25





26
27
28



Jury award of $119,625,000;
Supplemental damages in the amount of
, which Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) does
not dispute;
Ongoing royalties award of
, which exceeds the jury award in this case.
Moreover, Samsung arrives at this figure by assuming conservatively that “all of
Samsung’s future U.S. smartphone sales would be found by this Court to be eligible for
ongoing royalties on the ’647 patent.” ECF No. 2080-3 at 5 (emphasis added);
Pre-judgment interest on the verdict, supplemental damages, and ongoing royalties
award in the amount of
;
1

Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ITS SUPERSEDEAS BOND, AND
GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

1
2
3
4




Post-judgment interest on the verdict, supplemental damages, and ongoing royalties
award in the amount of
; and
Attorney’s costs and fees in the amount of
, a generous estimate because
Apple and Samsung have agreed not to seek attorney’s fees in this case, and Apple is
currently seeking only $1,138,842.13 in costs.

Apple concurs with the jury award, the amount of supplemental damages, and effectively

5

the amount of interest listed above. See ECF No. 2093-3 at 4. Apple, however, proposes a

6

supersedeas bond for Samsung of only

7

royalties and post-judgment interest thereon.

8
9

, which excludes any award for ongoing

The parties disagree as to two issues: (1) whether ongoing royalties should be determined
now or upon resolution of the parties’ pending appeals of the final judgment; and (2) whether post-

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

judgment interest should be awarded for eighteen months or for three and a half years. As to the

11

first issue, the Court agrees with Samsung that a Rule 62(d) stay of ongoing royalties during the

12

pendency of the parties’ appeals will prevent the “unnecessary expenditures of time and resources

13

should the Federal Circuit reverse any part of the jury’s verdict on liability.” ECF No. 1963 at 19.

14

Moreover, even if the Court proceeded with determining Samsung’s liability for ongoing royalties,

15

Samsung could obtain a stay of execution of any ongoing royalties determination pending appeal,

16

delaying Apple’s ability to collect any award. See ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon

17

Commc’ns, Inc., No. 2011-1538, 2012 WL 10716768 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2012) (per curiam)

18

(reversing district court’s denial of a stay under Rule 62(d) regarding ongoing royalty obligations).

19

Thus, proceeding now with a determination of any ongoing royalties award may not achieve

20

Apple’s objective of receiving expeditious payment.

21

As for the second issue, the Court agrees with Apple. Samsung’s eighteen-month appeal

22

duration estimate does not account for Samsung’s litigation of any ongoing royalties award in this

23

Court, which Apple estimates will take six months, followed by Samsung’s likely appeal of that

24

award to the Federal Circuit. Samsung’s eighteen-month estimate accounts only for the pendency

25

of the parties’ current appeals. Nevertheless, the Court concludes that any adjustment of

26

Samsung’s proposed bond amount is unnecessary because Samsung has already included an extra

27
28

in costs beyond what Apple has requested. The Court notes that in the first case
2
Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ITS SUPERSEDEAS BOND, AND
GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

1

between the parties, Apple initially requested $6,256,435.10 in costs, see No. 11-1846, ECF No.

2

2852, and this Court awarded $1,871,302.78, see No. 11-1846, ECF No. 3193. While this Court’s

3

award of costs in the first case will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit, in the instant case Apple

4

has only requested $1,138,842.13, see ECF No. 2062, and Samsung has credited Apple’s full

5

request nearly eight times over.

6

Consequently, the Court in its inherent discretion GRANTS Samsung’s motion, sets

7

Samsung’s supersedeas bond amount at

, and finds that this amount adequately

8

“protects [Apple] from the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates [Apple] for delay

9

in the entry of the final judgment.” NLRB v. Westphal, 859 F.2d 818, 819 (9th Cir. 1988) (per

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

curiam); see also Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1505 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining

11

that “[d]istrict courts have inherent discretionary authority in setting supersedeas bonds”).

12

Pursuant to Rule 62(d), Samsung is “entitled to a stay of a money judgment as a matter of right if

13

[Samsung] posts a bond in accordance with” the Court’s order. Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Am.

14

Broad.-Paramount Theatres, Inc., 87 S. Ct. 1, 3 (1966) (mem.).

15

The Court also GRANTS Apple’s Motion for Stay of Execution of the Judgment, pending

16

Apple’s posting of a $200,000 supersedeas bond. See ECF No. 2084. Although Samsung suggests

17

that Apple should have to post an $800,000 bond, ECF No. 2080-3 at 3, the Court, in its discretion,

18

concludes that a supersedeas bond of $200,000, more than 125% of the $158,400 judgment against

19

Apple, is sufficient, see Cotton ex rel. McClure v. City of Eureka, 860 F. Supp. 2d 999, 1029 (N.D.

20

Cal. 2012) (ordering “a supersedeas bond equal to 125% of Plaintiffs’ [] award”). Samsung

21

proffers no persuasive reason for the Court to adopt Samsung’s $800,000 supersedeas bond

22

request. The Court finds that a $200,000 supersedeas bond adequately “protects [Samsung] from

23

the risk of a later uncollectible judgment and compensates [Samsung] for delay in the entry of the

24

final judgment.” Westphal, 859 F.2d at 819. Pursuant to Rule 62(d), Apple is “entitled to a stay of

25

a money judgment as a matter of right if [Apple] posts a bond in accordance with” the Court’s

26

order. Am. Mfrs., 87 S. Ct. at 3.

27
28

3
Case No.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ITS SUPERSEDEAS BOND, AND
GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT

1

In light of the Court’s ruling, the motion hearing set for December 18, 2014, at 1:30 p.m. is

2

hereby VACATED. See Civil L. R. 7-1(b).

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated: December 16, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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.: 5:12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF ITS SUPERSEDEAS BOND, AND
GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION OF JUDGMENT