Buy This Entire Record For
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
United States District Court, Ninth Circuit
April 29, 2013
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean business entity; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
Michael Jacobs, Erik Olson, Nathaniel Bryan Sabri, William Lee, Mark Selwyn, Lauren Fletcher Plaintiff Attorneys.
Kathleen Sullivan, Victoria Maroulis, William Price, Scott Kidman, and Michael Zeller Defense Attorneys
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.
A case management conference was held on April 29, 2013. A further case management conference is set for August 21, 2013, at 2:00 p.m.
At the case management conference on April 29, 2013, the Court made the following rulings on the record:
§ For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED Samsung's Motion for Entry of Partial Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(b) as to the 14 accused products for which the Court upheld the jury award and Samsung's counterclaims, and for a stay pending appeal.
§ For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIED without prejudice Samsung's Request for a Stay pending reexamination of the'381 and 915 patents at issue in the new damages trial.
§ Samsung may renew its motion for a stay of the new trial on damages as to the 381 patent if the USPTO does not re-open the prosecution of the 381 reexamination following Apple's response to the final office action finding claim 19 of the 381 patent invalid. Any such motion, and any opposition to such motion, may not exceed three (3) pages in length. The parties shall contact Ms. Parker Brown for a hearing date. The response to any such motion is due ten days after the filing of a motion.
§ Similarly, if the USPTO issues a final office action finding claim 8 of the 915 patent invalid, and does not re-open the prosecution of the 915 reexamination following Apple's response to the final office action, Samsung may re-new its motion for a stay of the new trial on damages as to the 915 patent. Such a motion will be subject to the same limitations and procedures as set forth above.
§ For the reasons stated on the record, the Court GRANTED-IN-PART and DENIED-IN-PART Apple's Conditional Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting New Damages Trial on Galaxy S II AT&T and Infuse 4G.
§ The Court reinstates the jury award of $40, 494, 356.00 for the Galaxy S II AT&T. Accordingly, the Galaxy SII AT&T will not be included in the new trial on damages.
§ The Court does not reinstate the jury award of $44, 792, 974.00 for the Infuse 4G. The Infuse 4G will be included in the new trial on damages. The parties may not introduce any data regarding Infuse 4G sales that occurred prior to May 15, 2011.
§ For the reasons stated on the record, the Court REJECTED Samsung's argument that the Seventh Amendment requires a new trial on ...