Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTNORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASAN JOSE DIVISIONAPPLE, INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff,v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., aKorean corporation; SAMSUNGELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNGTELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,a Delaware limited liability company,Defendants.)))))))))))))))Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHKORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’SMOTION TO STAY AND SUSPENDTHE JUNE 29, 2012 PRELIMINARYINJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL OR,ALTERNATIVELY, PENDINGDECISION BY FEDERAL CIRCUIT ONSTAY PENDING APPEALOn June 29, 2012, this Court issued an order enjoining Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.;Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC; its officers,directors, partners, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, subsidiaries, and those acting in concertwith any of them, from making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, orimporting into the United States Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus smartphone and any product that is nomore than colorably different from the specified product and infringes U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604(“the ’604 Patent”).
See
ECF No. 221 (“PI Order”). As a condition of the preliminary injunction,
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document230 Filed07/03/12 Page1 of 18
 
 
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
the Court ordered Apple to post a bond in the amount of $95,637,141.60 to secure payment of anydamages sustained by Samsung if it is later found to have been wrongfully enjoined.
1
 On July 1, 2012, Samsung filed a Notice of Appeal of the preliminary injunction order tothe Federal Circuit.
See
ECF No. 218. Also on July 1, 2012, Samsung filed a Motion to Stay andSuspend the June 29, 2012 Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal or, Alternatively, PendingDecision by Federal Circuit on Stay Pending Appeal (“Motion to Stay”).
See
ECF No. 219(“Mot.”). Later that day, Apple filed an Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Stay.
See
ECF No.220 (“Opp’n”). The Court held a hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Stay on July 2, 2012. Havingconsidered the parties’ arguments and the relevant law, the Court hereby DENIES Samsung’sMotion to Stay.
I.
 
LEGAL STANDARD
Both the court of appeals and the district court have authority to stay an order pendingreview on appeal, as a function of its “‘traditional equipment for the administration of justice.’”
 Nken v. Holder 
, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) (quoting
Scripps-Howard Radio v. F.C.C.
, 316 U.S. 4,9-10 (1942));
see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(c) (district court); Fed. R. App. P. 8(a) (appellate court).While the district court has the authority to hold an order in abeyance pending review, “[a] stay isan ‘intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review,’ and accordingly ‘isnot a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result to the appellant.’”
 Nken
, 556U.S. at 427 (quoting
Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n
, 259 F.2d 921, 925(D.C. Cir. 1958) (per curiam), and
Virginian R. Co. v. United States
, 272 U.S. 658, 672 (1926),respectively).The standard for determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal is similar to thestandard for issuing a preliminary injunction.
Tribal Vill. of Akutan v. Hodel
, 859 F.2d 662, 663(9th Cir. 1988);
see Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council
, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (laying out four-pronged test for preliminary injunctive relief). For both the appellate court and the district court,
1
On June 29, 2012, the Court ordered Apple not to post the bond before July 3, 2012, so the partiescould brief a motion to stay, and the Court could hold a hearing on July 2, 2012. At the July 2,2012 hearing, the Court ordered Apple not to post the bond before the Court ruled on Samsung’sMotion to Stay.
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document230 Filed07/03/12 Page2 of 18
 
 
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHKORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
   U  n   i   t  e   d   S   t  a   t  e  s   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t   C  o  u  r   t
   F  o  r   t   h  e   N  o  r   t   h  e  r  n   D   i  s   t  r   i  c   t  o   f   C  a   l   i   f  o  r  n   i  a
“the factors regulating the issuance of a stay are generally the same: (1) whether the stay applicanthas made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant willbe irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure theother parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.”
 Hilton v. Braunskill
, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987);
accord Nken
, 556 U.S. at 425-26;
 Humane Soc’y of U.S. v.Gutierrez
, 558 F.3d 896, 896 (9th Cir. 2009). Generally speaking, the first two factors of thisstandard “are the most critical.”
 Nken
, 556 U.S. at 434. “It is not enough that the chance of success on the merits be ‘better than negligible.’”
 Id.
(quoting
Sofinet v. INS
, 188 F.3d 703, 707(7th Cir. 1999)). “By the same token, simply showing some ‘possibility of irreparable injury’ failsto satisfy the second factor.”
 Id.
(quoting
 Abbassi v. INS
, 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1998)).The court need not, however, give equal weight to each of the four factors.
Standard  Havens Prods. v. Gencor Indus.
, 897 F.2d 511, 512 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although the Supreme Courthas not spoken definitively on the matter, the Ninth Circuit has held that the “sliding scale,” or“serious questions,” approach to deciding motions for preliminary injunction and motions for staysurvived
Winter.
 
See Leiva-Perez v. Holder 
, 640 F.3d 962, 965 (9th Cir. 2011) (treating “
 Nken
’sendorsement of 
 Hilton
as an indication that we should continue to employ the type of ‘continuum’”approach to stay motions, wherein “courts balance the various stay factors once they areestablished”);
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell
, 632 F.3d 1127, 1134-35 (9th Cir. 2011)(holding that the “serious questions” sliding-scale approach for preliminary injunctions survives
Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council
, 555 U.S. 7 (2008)). Under the Ninth Circuit’s“serious questions” test, a movant seeking a stay “must show that irreparable harm is probable andeither: (a) a strong likelihood of success on the merits and that the public interest does not weighheavily against a stay; or (b) a substantial case on the merits and that the balance of hardships tipssharply in the [movant’]s favor.”
 Leiva-Perez
, 640 F.3d at 970;
cf. Alliance for the Wild Rockies
,632 F.3d at 1134-35. Ultimately, whether to grant a stay of a preliminary injunction pendingappeal is a matter of equitable discretion, and “‘[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon thecircumstances of the particular case.’”
 Nken
, 556 U.S. at 433 (quoting
Virginian R. Co
, 272 U.S. at
Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document230 Filed07/03/12 Page3 of 18
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.
    • Notes
    Load more