Apple Inc.
Filing
1
COMPLAINT Ex Parte Application for An Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782 Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery for Use in Foreign Proceedings and Supporting Memorandum against Apple Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number 0540-3410912.), filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Declarataion of Christine Saunders Haskett in Support, # 4 Haskett Ex. 1, # 5 Haskett Ex. 2, # 6 Haskett Ex. 3)(Haslam, Robert)
1
2
3
4
5
ROBERT T. HASLAM
Email: rhaslam@cov.com
CHRISTINE S. HASKETT (Cal. Bar No. 188053)
Email: haskettcs@cov.com
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 632-4700
Facsimile: (650) 632-4800
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
10
11
12
In re Ex Parte Application of
13
APPLE INC.; APPLE RETAIL GERMANY
GMBH; and APPLE SALES
INTERNATIONAL,
14
15
Applicants,
16
For an Order Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782
Granting Leave to Obtain Discovery from
Ericsson Inc. for Use in Foreign Proceedings.
17
18
19
Case No.:
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN
ORDER PURSUANT TO 28
U.S.C. § 1782 GRANTING LEAVE TO
OBTAIN DISCOVERY FOR USE IN
FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS AND
SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM
Apple1 applies to the Court ex parte2 for an order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782
granting Apple leave to obtain targeted discovery from Ericsson Inc. for use in foreign
20
21
1
22
23
24
25
26
Except as otherwise indicated, as used herein, “Apple” means Apple Inc.; Apple Retail
Germany GmbH; and Apple Sales International.
2
Courts within this Circuit have authorized the ex parte filing of applications for discovery
under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. E.g., In re Ecuador, No. C-10-80225 MISC CRB (EMC), 2010 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 102158, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (“[I]t is common for the process of
presenting the request to a court and to obtain the order authorizing discovery to be conducted
ex parte. Such ex parte applications are typically justified by the fact that the parties will be
given adequate notice of any discovery taken pursuant to the request and will then have the
opportunity to move to quash the discovery or to participate in it.”) (Internal quotations and
citations omitted).
27
28
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
1
litigations. This application is supported by the memorandum of points and authorities below
2
and the Declaration of Christine Haskett, filed concurrently herewith. The proposed order and
3
subpoena are attached to this application as Exhibits A and B, respectively.
4
I.
5
INTRODUCTION
Motorola Mobility Inc. and Motorola, Inc. (collectively “Motorola”) have filed
6
lawsuits against Apple in the United States and Germany. These lawsuits allege Apple’s
7
products infringe patents that Motorola has declared essential to practice various
8
telecommunications standards. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1782, interested parties, such as Apple, may
9
obtain discovery for use in foreign litigations from companies located within the United States.
10
In support of its defenses to the actions filed by Motorola against Apple in
11
Germany, Apple seeks narrowly-tailored discovery from another wireless device manufacturer,
12
Ericsson Inc. (“Ericsson”). Specifically, Apple seeks documents relating to whether Ericsson
13
had or has a license or is or was otherwise authorized to practice some or all of the patents that
14
have been asserted by Motorola against Apple.
15
Apple’s application satisfies Section 1782’s three statutory requirements. First, it
16
is in “the district in which [the] person resides,” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), because Ericsson’s North
17
American headquarters are in Plano, Texas. Second, Apple seeks the discovery “for use in a
18
proceeding in a foreign ... tribunal,” id., including the Higher District Court of Karlsruhe,
19
Germany and the District Courts of Mannheim and Dusseldorf, Germany. Third, Apple and its
20
foreign subsidiaries qualify as “interested persons” in those foreign proceedings. See id.; Intel
21
Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241, 256 (2004) (litigants are common
22
example of “interested persons”).
23
Moreover, the factors identified by the Supreme Court to guide courts’ discretion
24
in analyzing applications under Section 1782 all favor granting Apple’s request. Ericsson is not
25
a participant in the foreign proceedings, and Section 1782 provides an effective mechanism for
26
obtaining this targeted discovery across various cases. In addition, the foreign jurisdictions at
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
2
1
issue are receptive to the type of discovery sought by Apple, the discovery provides key
2
information for the foreign proceedings, and the request is not made to circumvent any
3
limitation on discovery imposed by the foreign courts. Finally, the discovery request is narrowly
4
tailored and is not unduly intrusive or burdensome.
5
Accordingly, Apple respectfully requests that the Court enter the order attached
6
as Exhibit A, allowing Apple to serve the subpoena attached as Exhibit B.
7
II.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
8
9
Motorola has filed lawsuits against Apple in the United States, before the
International Trade Commission, and in Germany. The functionalities accused by Motorola in
10
many of these actions relate to the wireless communications functionality of the iPhone and
11
iPad. (Haskett Decl. ¶ 10.) Ericsson markets wireless communication devices. (Haskett Decl. ¶
12
10.) Motorola’s German lawsuits are pending in Germany’s Higher District Court of Karlsruhe,
13
Mannheim District Court, and Dusseldorf District Court. (Id. ¶¶ 4-7 ).
14
III.
15
16
ARGUMENT
A.
Legal Standard
Section 1782 is “the product of congressional efforts, over the span of nearly 150
17
years, to provide federal-court assistance in gathering evidence for use in foreign tribunals.”
18
Intel Corp., 542 U.S. at 247. Over time, Congress has “substantially broadened the scope of
19
assistance federal courts could provide for foreign proceedings.” Id. at 247-249. Section 1782
20
provides in part:
21
24
The district court of the district in which a person resides or is
found may order him to give his testimony or statement or to
produce a document or other thing for use in a proceeding in a
foreign or international tribunal .... The order may be made ...
upon the application of any interested person and may direct that
the testimony or statement may be given, or the document or other
thing be produced, before a person appointed by the court.
25
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). The statute thus sets forth three requirements, authorizing the district court
26
“to grant a Section 1782 application where (1) the person from whom discovery is sought
22
23
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
3
1
resides or is found in the district of the district court to which the application is made, (2) the
2
discovery is for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunal, and (3) the application is made by
3
a foreign or international tribunal or ‘any interested person.” In re Ecuador, No. C-10-80225
4
MISC CRB (EMC), 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102158, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2010) (quoting
5
In re Chevron, 709 F. Supp. 2d 283, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)).
6
In Intel, the Supreme Court set forth several non-exclusive factors to aid district
7
courts in determining how to exercise their discretion in granting Section 1782 applications.
8
These factors include: (1) whether “the person from whom discovery is sought is a participant in
9
the foreign proceeding”; (2) “the nature of the foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings
10
underway abroad, and the receptivity of the foreign government or the court or agency abroad to
11
U.S. federal-court judicial assistance”; (3) whether the request is “an attempt to circumvent
12
foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other policies of a foreign country or the United States”;
13
and whether the discovery is “unduly intrusive or burdensome.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264-65.
14
15
B.
Apple’s Application Meets the Section 1782 Requirements.
Apple’s request for discovery meets each of the three statutory requirements.
16
First, the person from whom discovery is sought, Ericsson, “resides or is found” in this District.
17
28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Ericsson has its North American headquarters at 6300 Legacy Drive,
18
Plano, Texas, which is located within this District. (Haskett Decl. Ex. 1 (see excerpt of
19
Ericsson’s webpage: http://www.ericsson.com/thecompany/company_facts/worldwide/na/us.)
20
Second, the discovery is sought for use in a “proceeding before a foreign
21
tribunal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a). Specifically, Apple seeks the information for use in establishing
22
at least the defense of license, unfair competition, and/or antitrust defenses in patent
23
infringement actions brought by Motorola in three foreign tribunals: the Mannheim District
24
Court, the Dusseldorf District Court, and the Higher District Court of Karlsruhe.
25
As previous cases have recognized, these and related foreign adjudicative bodies
26
qualify as “tribunals” for purposes of Section 1782. See, e.g., Cryolife, Inc. v. Tenaxis Medical,
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
4
1
Inc., No. C08-05124 HRL, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3416, at *1, 5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2009)
2
(permitting discovery for use in patent infringement suit pending in “Dusseldorf Regional Court
3
in Germany”).
4
Third, as named parties in the foreign actions, Apple and its subsidiaries qualify
5
as “interested part[ies].” 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a); Intel, 542 U.S. at 256 (“No doubt litigants are
6
included among ... the ‘interested person[s]’ who may invoke § 1782”); see Heraeus Kulzer,
7
GmbH v. Biomet, Inc., 633 F.3d 591, 594 (7th Cir. 2011).
8
9
10
Accordingly, Apple has satisfied the statutory requirements for an application
under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.
C.
11
The Supreme Court’s Intel Factors Strongly Favor Granting Apple’s
Application.
In addition, the factors identified by the Supreme Court in Intel and later cases
12
weigh heavily in favor of the Court exercising its discretion to grant Apple’s request for
13
discovery.
14
15
1.
Ericsson Is Not a Party to the Foreign Proceedings.
The Intel Court first asked whether “the person from whom discovery is sought is
16
a participant in the foreign proceeding.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 264 (noting that “nonparticipants in
17
the foreign proceeding may be outside the foreign tribunal’s jurisdictional reach; hence, their
18
evidence, available in the United States, may be unobtainable absent § 1782 aid”). Here,
19
Ericsson is not a party to the foreign litigations, and the material sought—licenses and
20
communications in Ericsson’s possession—may not be within the foreign tribunal’s
21
jurisdictional reach. See Heraeus Kulzer, 633 F.3d at 597 (authorizing Section 1782 discovery
22
because German litigant could not “obtain even remotely comparable discovery by utilizing
23
24
25
26
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
5
1
German procedures”); Cryolife, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3416 at * 13 (holding that “petitioner
2
need only show that the information” sought under Section 1782 “will be useful”).3
3
2.
4
Apple Seeks Highly Relevant Information That Will Assist the
Foreign Courts.
The Intel Court next counseled courts to “take into account the nature of the
5
foreign tribunal, the character of the proceedings underway abroad, and the receptivity of the
6
foreign government or the court or agency abroad to U.S. federal-court judicial assistance.”
7
Intel, 542 U.S. at 264. Because the nature and character of the foreign proceedings involve
8
Motorola’s allegations of patent infringement, discovery regarding potentially relevant license
9
agreements would be critical. See London v. Does, 279 F. App’x 513, 515 (9th Cir. 2008)
10
(affirming order granting 1782 discovery when proof sought was “critical” in light of the
11
“nature and character of the foreign case”); In re Bayer AG, 146 F.3d 188, 195-96 (3d Cir.
12
1998) (documents relevant to the foreign proceedings are “presumptively discoverable” under
13
Section 1782). In particular, licenses that Motorola has granted to other providers of wireless
14
devices are relevant to Apple’s potential liability in the foreign proceedings.
15
Moreover, prior cases have recognized the receptiveness of German courts to the
16
use of discovery obtained through Section 1782. E.g., Heraeus Kulzer, 633 F.3d at 597;
17
Cryolife, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3416, at *8-9.
18
3.
19
No Foreign Discovery Restrictions Bar Apple’s Requested Discovery.
28 U.S.C. § 1782 does not require that the documents sought be discoverable in
20
the foreign courts. Intel, 542 U.S. at 260-63. However, a district court may consider whether an
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
Courts frequently grant Section 1782 discovery even from parties to foreign cases. E.g.,
Heraeus Kulzer, 633 F.3d at 596 (permitting Section 1782 discovery from opposing party in
foreign suit and noting “[t]he importance of American-style discovery to [plaintiff/applicant’s]
ability to prove” its case); Cryolife, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3416, at *1-2, 15 (same); In re
Procter & Gamble Co., 334 F. Supp. 2d 1112, 1113, 1118 (E.D. Wise. 2004) (granting Section
1782 request for discovery from entity involved in multiple foreign suits against applicant).
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
6
1
applicant was seeking in bad faith “to circumvent foreign proof-gathering restrictions or other
2
policies of a foreign country or the United States.” Id. at 265.4 Here, Apple is unaware of any
3
restrictions on proof-gathering procedures that would prohibit obtaining the discovery it seeks
4
through Section 1782. To the contrary, as noted above, courts have routinely granted
5
applications under Section 1782 for evidence to be used in the foreign courts at issue here. E.g.,
6
Heraeus Kulzer, 633 F.3d at 597.
7
4.
8
The Intel Court finally noted that “unduly intrusive or burdensome requests may
Apple’s Discovery Is Narrowly Tailored to Avoid Undue Burden.
9
be rejected or trimmed.” Intel, 542 U.S. at 265. Here, Apple’s proposed discovery requests are
10
narrowly tailored and minimally burdensome. Apple is requesting document discovery on only
11
two topics, targeted to a small, discrete set of documents: intellectual property licenses between
12
Ericsson and Motorola and communications regarding the licenses. The universe of responsive
13
documents is thus likely to be small and easily searchable, avoiding any undue burden on
14
Ericsson.
15
5.
16
Granting Apple’s Section 1782 Request Would Promote Efficient
Discovery.
Courts have also considered other evidence bearing on whether the discovery
17
sought accomplishes the goals of the statute, which include “providing efficient means of
18
assistance to participants in international litigation in our federal courts.” Marubeni Am. Corp. v.
19
LBA Y.K, 335 Fed. App’x. 95, 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotation omitted). Here, given the
20
21
4
22
23
24
25
26
See also In re Esses, 101 F.3d 873, 876 (2d Cir. 1996) (“[O]nly upon authoritative proof that a
foreign tribunal would reject evidence obtained with the aid of Section 1782 should a district
court refrain from granting the assistance offered by the act.”) (emphasis in original); Euromepa
S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 51 F.3d 1095, 1097, 1101 (2d Cir. 1995) (permitting discovery under
Section 1782 and observing that court “can simply refuse to consider any evidence that [1782
applicant] gathers by what might be—under French procedures—an unacceptable practice”);
Procter & Gamble, 334 F. Supp. 2d at 1116 (holding that “to decline a § 1782(a) request based
on foreign nondiscoverability, a district court must conclude that the request would undermine a
specific policy of a foreign country or the United States”).
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
7
1
multiple German cases between Apple and Motorola, Section 1782 provides an effective means
2
for obtaining the discovery sought by Apple. Rather than seeking the same discovery in each of
3
the foreign litigations, Apple can obtain the discovery with one application under Section 1782.
4
Procter & Gamble, 334 F. Supp. 2d at 1115 (observing that it would be inefficient to require
5
party to patent infringement actions in Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, France and the United
6
Kingdom “to seek the same discovery” in each of them).
7
*
8
Accordingly, the Intel factors strongly favor the Court exercising its discretion to
9
*
*
grant Apple’s application. Indeed, courts in this Circuit have routinely permitted discovery
10
under Section 1782, when, as here, the applicant has satisfied the statutory requirements and the
11
above factors weighed in favor of granting relief. E.g., In re Am. Petroleum Institute, 11-80008-
12
JF (PSG), slip op. (N.D. Cal. Apr. 7, 2011) (Haskett Decl. Ex. 2); In re Ecuador, 2010 WL
13
3702427, at *2; London, 279 F. App’x at 513; Chevron Corp. v. E-Tech Int’l, 2010 WL
14
3584520 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2010); Govan Brown & Assocs. v. Doe, No. 10-2704-PVT, 2010
15
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88673, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010); Mirana v. Battery Tai-Shing Corp.,
16
No. 08-80142, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2008) (Haskett Decl. Ex. 3).
17
IV.
18
CONCLUSION
Apple seeks narrowly tailored discovery for use in several currently pending
19
foreign proceedings. Because Apple’s request satisfies the three statutory requirements of 28
20
U.S.C. § 1782 and because the Intel factors all weigh in favor of granting the application, Apple
21
respectfully requests that this Court issue the proposed order attached as Exhibit A, authorizing
22
the issuance of a subpoena in substantially the same form as Exhibit B.
23
25
___/s/ Robert T. Haslam______
Robert T. Haslam
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
26
Attorneys for applicant Apple, Inc.
24
Dated: __1/20/2012__
27
EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR
AN ORDER PURSUANT TO
28 U.S.C. § 1782
28
8
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?