Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more ➡
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Add note
Save to My Library
Sync to mobile
Look up keyword
Like this
16Activity
×
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Apple Rule 50 Sept 21, 2012

Apple Rule 50 Sept 21, 2012

Ratings: (0)|Views: 73,558|Likes:
Published by TechCrunch

More info:

Published by: TechCrunch on Sep 22, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See More
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
A
PPLE
S
M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
(R
ENEWED
),
 
N
EW
T
RIAL
,
AND
A
MENDED
J
UDGMENT
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
11-
CV
-01846-LHKsf-3194101
 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)hmcelhinny@mofo.comMICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)mjacobs@mofo.comRACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)rkrevans@mofo.comJENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.comALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)atucher@mofo.comRICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)rhung@mofo.comJASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) jasonbartlett@mofo.comMORRISON & FOERSTER LLP425 Market StreetSan Francisco, California 94105-2482Telephone: (415) 268-7000Facsimile: (415) 268-7522Attorneys for Plaintiff andCounterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.WILLIAM F. LEEwilliam.lee@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP60 State StreetBoston, MA 02109Telephone: (617) 526-6000Facsimile: (617) 526-5000MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.comWILMER CUTLER PICKERINGHALE AND DORR LLP950 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, California 94304Telephone: (650) 858-6000Facsimile: (650) 858-6100UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, aDelaware limited liability company,Defendants.Case No.11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE INC.’S MOTION FORJUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW(RENEWED), NEW TRIAL, ANDAMENDED JUDGMENT [FRCP 50, 59]
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1989 Filed09/21/12 Page1 of 43
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
A
PPLE
S
M
OTION FOR
J
UDGMENT AS A
M
ATTER OF
L
AW
(R
ENEWED
),
 
N
EW
T
RIAL
,
AND
A
MENDED
J
UDGMENT
C
ASE
N
O
.
 
11-
CV
-01846-LHK
i
sf-3194101
 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 6, 2012, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter ascounsel may be heard before the Honorable Lucy Koh in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitledCourt, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Apple will move, and herebydoes move, for judgment as a matter of law (renewed), a new trial, and amended judgment againstSamsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and SamsungTelecommunications America, Inc. as follows:
 
Judgment as a matter of law that Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress isprotectable and famous, or in the alternative, a new trial;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE model)infringes and dilutes Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress, or in the alternative, anew trial;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that Samsung’s Galaxy Tab 10.1 (WiFi and 4G LTE model)infringes U.S. Design Patent No. 504,889 (D’889 patent), or in the alternative, a new trial;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that the Samsung Galaxy Ace phone infringes U.S. DesignPatent No. 618,677 (D’677 patent), or in the alternative,
if 
there is a new trial involvingthe D’667 it should include the Galaxy Ace phone;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that the Samsung Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T, Epic 4G Touch,and Skyrocket) and Infuse 4G phones infringe U.S. Design Patent No. 593,087 (D’087patent), or in the alternative,
if 
there is a new trial involving the D’087 it should includethe Galaxy S II and Infuse 4G phones;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T, T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, andSkyrocket), and Infuse 4G phones dilute Apple’s registered iPhone Trade Dress (U.S.Trademark Registration No. 3,470,983), or in the alternative,
if 
there is a new trialinvolving the registered iPhone Trade Dress it should include the Captivate, Continuum,Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T, T-Mobile, Epic 4GTouch, and Skyrocket), and Infuse 4G phones;
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1989 Filed09/21/12 Page2 of 43
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ii
sf-3194101
 
 
Judgment as a matter of law that the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic4G, Galaxy Prevail, Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T, T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, andSkyrocket), and Infuse 4G phones dilute Apple’s unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dress, orin the alternative,
if 
there is a new trial involving the unregistered iPhone 3G Trade Dressit should include the Captivate, Continuum, Droid Charge, Epic 4G, Galaxy Prevail,Galaxy S II (i9100, AT&T, T-Mobile, Epic 4G Touch, and Skyrocket), and Infuse 4Gphones;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that Apple’s unregistered combination iPhone Trade Dress isprotectable and famous, and that each accused Samsung smartphone product dilutesApple’s unregistered combination iPhone Trade Dress, or in the alternative, a new trial;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that the Samsung Intercept, Replenish, and Galaxy Acephones infringe claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915 (’915 patent), or in the alternative,
if 
 there is a new trial involving the ’915 patent it should include the Intercept, Replenish,and Galaxy Ace phones;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that the Samsung Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge,Intercept, Nexus S 4G, Transform, and Vibrant phones infringe claim 50 of U.S. PatentNo. 7,864,163 (’163 patent), or in the alternative,
if 
there is a new trial involving the ’163patent it should include the Captivate, Continuum, Gem, Indulge, Intercept, Nexus S 4G,Transform, and Vibrant phones;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that Samsung’s infringement of the D’889 and D’087 patentsand of Apple’s unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress was willful, or in the alternative,
if 
 there is to be a new trial on any of Apple’s infringement claims, the new trial shouldinclude Apple’s willfulness claims where the jury made no finding or found nowillfulness;
 
Judgment as a matter of law that Samsung’s dilution of Apple’s unregistered combinationiPhone Trade Dress and of unregistered iPad/iPad 2 Trade Dress was willful, or in thealternative,
if 
there is to be a new trial on any of Apple’s dilution claims, the new trial
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document1989 Filed09/21/12 Page3 of 43

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->