1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-i-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO DISMISS APPLE'S COUNTERCLAIMS
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .......................................................................................... 1MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................. 2INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 2FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................... 3I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................................. 3II.
APPLE‘S ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING SECTION TWO OF THE SHERMANACT ....................................................................................................................................... 5A.
Apple Defines the Relevant Market Solely According to the Scope of
Samsung‘s Declared
-Essential Patents and Their Incorporation in the ETSIStandard ..................................................................................................................... 5B. Apple Contends That Samsung Delayed Its Disclosure of Essential Patents,
Inducing ETSI To Incorporate Samsung‘s Patents into the UMTS Standard
........... 6III.
APPLE‘S ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THATAPPLE IS LICENSED TO
SAMSUNG‘S DECLARED E
SSENTIAL PATENTS ............ 7IV.
APPLE‘S ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL ........................... 7V.
APPLE‘S ALLEGATIONS
REGARDING UNFAIR COMPETITION .............................. 8ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 8I. LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................... 8A.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6): Dismissal of Implausible Claims ...................................... 8II.
APPLE FAILS TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO GRANT RELIEFPURSUANT TO SECTION 2 OF THE SHERMAN ACT .................................................. 9A.
An Antitrust Litigant Must Allege a ―Relevant Market‖
.......................................... 9B. Apple Has Failed To Allege Any Cognizable Market in which SamsungHas Power and Has Failed To Allege Any Measure of Market Share at All .......... 11III.
APPLE‘S ALLEGATIONS
OF ANTICOMPETITIVE CONDUCT REMAININSUFFICIENT .................................................................................................................. 12IV. APPLE FAILS TO PLEAD FACTS SUFFICIENT TO GRANT RELIEF FORBREACH OF CONTRACT OR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT THAT APPLE IS
LICENSED TO SAMSUNG‘
S DECLARED-ESSENTIAL PATENTS ............................ 14A.
Under California Law, Apple‘s Pleadings Fail To Establish the Formation
of a Valid Contract .................................................................................................. 15
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document405 Filed11/22/11 Page2 of 30