Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
10Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
13-07-08 Samsung Motion for New Trial or Final Judgment on '381 Patent

13-07-08 Samsung Motion for New Trial or Final Judgment on '381 Patent

Ratings: (0)|Views: 34,069 |Likes:
Published by Florian Mueller
July 8, 2013 motion by Samsung for a new trial or final judgment on liability for infringement of the '381 rubber-banding patent
July 8, 2013 motion by Samsung for a new trial or final judgment on liability for infringement of the '381 rubber-banding patent

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Florian Mueller on Jul 09, 2013
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

11/23/2013

pdf

text

original

 
1

 
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL OR,ALTER  NATIVELY FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPCharles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22
 
nd
Floor San Francisco, California 94111Telephone: (415) 875-6600Facsimile: (415) 875-6700Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5
 
th
Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139Telephone: (650) 801-5000Facsimile: (650) 801-5100Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017Telephone: (213) 443-3000Facsimile: (213) 443-3100Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,INC. and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLCUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,vs.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean business entity; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a NewYork corporation; SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,Defendant.CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK 
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTIONFOR NEW TRIAL REGARDING '381PATENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.59 BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVEREDEVIDENCE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
Date: August 15, 2013Time: 1:30 p.m.Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2338-3 Filed07/08/13 Page1 of 22
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 -i-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR,ALTER  NATIVELY FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
OR 
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .......................................................................................... 1PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 3STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 4ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 7I. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59 BASED ONTHE REEXAMINATION OF APPLE'S '381 PATENT ...................................................... 7A. THE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE REEXAMINATION IS NEWLYDISCOVERED ..........................................................................................................8B. THE EXERCISE OF DILIGENCE WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED INTHE EVIDENCE BEING DISCOVERED AT AN EARLIER STAGE ................ 10C. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE REEXAMINATION WOULD HAVECHANGED THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE '381 PATENT ............. 11D. UNDER THE NEW CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ADVOCATED BYAPPLE AND ADOPTED BY THE EXAMINER, THE JURY WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND INFRINGEMENT OF THE '381 PATENT ........................ 12II. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ENTER JUDGMENT ONLIABILITY ......................................................................................................................... 15CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 17
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2338-3 Filed07/08/13 Page2 of 22
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 -ii-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK  NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL, OR,ALTER  NATIVELY FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
OR 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPageCases
 Am. Piledriving Equip., Inc. v. Geoquip, Inc.
,637 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................................................11
 Aquatex Industries, Inc. v. Techniche Solutions
,419 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ..................................................................................................13
CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP 
,112 F.3d 1146 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ..................................................................................................11
 In re Calmar, Inc.
,854 F.2d 461 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ....................................................................................................17
Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp.
,102 F.3d 524 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ....................................................................................................11
 Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal 
,204 F.3d 920 (9th Cir. 2000) ........................................................................................................8
 Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Laboratories Inc.
,305 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ..................................................................................................13
 Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. v. Baxter Intern., Inc.
,2006 WL. 1330003 (N.D. Cal. 2006) ...................................................................................11, 12
 Jones v. Aero/Chem Corp.
,921 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1990) ........................................................................................................8
 Landis v. North American Co.
,299 U.S. 248 (1936) ...................................................................................................................17
 Robert Bosch, LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
, __ F.3d __, 2013 WL. 2664281 (Fed. Cir. June 14, 2013) ..............................................4, 15, 17
SK hynix Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
,2013 WL. 1915865 (N.D. Cal. 2013) .................................................................................8, 9, 10
Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.
,54 F.3d 1570 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ....................................................................................................11
Standard Havens Products, Inc. v. Gencor Industries, Inc.
,897 F.2d 511 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ............................................................................................8, 9, 10
TDM America LLC v. U.S.
,100 Fed. Cl. 485 (Fed.Cl. 2011) ...............................................................................................8, 9
Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown
,939 F.2d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ..................................................................................................11
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2338-3 Filed07/08/13 Page3 of 22

Activity (10)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Kevin Cho liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

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