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

Filing 713

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNGS MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLES COUNTERCLAIMS IN REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNGS MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/31/2013. (lhklc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

)
)
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.
)
)
Clerk: Martha Parker Brown
Reporter: Lee-Anne Shortridge

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER;
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR
LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO
APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF
FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff’s Attorneys: Josh Krevitt, Mark Lyon, Mark Reiter,
Bill Lee, Mark Selwyn
Defendants’ Attorneys: Victoria Maroulis, Kevin Johnson,
Alexander Baxter, Marissa Ducca, Maxim Price

A case management conference was held on July 31, 2013. A further case management
conference is set for October 30, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
By August 2, 2013, the parties shall file stipulations of dismissal without prejudice
regarding the patents, claims, and accused products that the parties have dropped from the case.

26
27
28

1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1
2
3
4
5

In regard to the parties’ invalidity “references/systems/combinations,” the Court clarified
that each combination must be identified separately an count towards the numerical limit on
invalidity references/systems/combinations.
The parties agree to meet and confer regarding the counting of accused products after
expert discovery.
For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED Samsung’s Motion to Amend the
Case Management Order and for Leave to Amend Its Answer to Apple’s Counterclaims in Reply.
See ECF No. 535-1.

6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13

For the reasons stated on the record, the Court also DENIED Samsung’s Motion for Relief
from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge. See ECF No. 680-3. Accordingly, the
Court DENIED as MOOT Samsung’s request to set a briefing schedule on this motion.
The Court amended the case schedule as follows:
By September 27, 2013, the parties will be required to dismiss without prejudice one patent
from the case so that neither side will be asserting more than five patents. In addition, the parties
will be required to limit their asserted claims to 10 per side and limit their accused products to 15
per side.
By September 30, 2013, the parties will be required to reduce their invalidity
references/systems/combinations to 25 per side.

14
15
16

By February 6, 2014, the parties will be required to limit their asserted claims to 5 per side
and limit their accused products to 10 per side. In addition, the parties will be required to reduce
their invalidity references/systems/combinations to 15 per side.

18

During expert discovery, each side will be limited to 15 experts and 15 opening expert
reports. Each side shall be limited to filing no more than 5 Daubert motions in this case. At trial,
each side shall be limited to no more than 12 testifying experts.

19

Scheduled Event

Date

20

Initial Expert Disclosures

August 12, 2013

Rebuttal Expert Reports

September 13, 2013

17

21

Close of Expert Discovery

September 27, 2013

22

Last Day to File Dispositive Motions

October 3, 2013

23

Opposition Briefs on Dispositive Motions

October 29, 2013

24

Reply Briefs on Dispositive Motions

November 14, 2013

Hearing on Dispositive Motions

December 12, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.

Hearing on Daubert motions

January 23, 2014, at 1:30 p.m.

26

Final Pretrial Conference

March 5, 2014, at 2:00 p.m.

27

Jury Trial

March 31, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

28

2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

1

Length of Trial

2

12 days

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5

Dated: July 31, 2013

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

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

3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO AMEND THE CASE
MANAGEMENT ORDER AND FOR LEAVE TO AMEND ITS ANSWER TO APPLE’S COUNTERCLAIMS IN
REPLY; ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE