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, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22
nd
Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Kevin 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 94065-2139 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, vs. 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, Defendant. CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL REGARDING '381 PATENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 59 BASED ON NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY
Date: August 15, 2013 Time: 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 CONTENTS Page
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION .......................................................................................... 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ....................................................................................................... 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................................ 4 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 7 I. THE COURT SHOULD ORDER A NEW TRIAL UNDER RULE 59 BASED ON THE REEXAMINATION OF APPLE'S '381 PATENT ...................................................... 7 A. THE EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE REEXAMINATION IS NEWLY DISCOVERED .......................................................................................................... 8 B. THE EXERCISE OF DILIGENCE WOULD NOT HAVE RESULTED IN THE EVIDENCE BEING DISCOVERED AT AN EARLIER STAGE ................ 10 C. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE REEXAMINATION WOULD HAVE CHANGED THE CLAIM CONSTRUCTION FOR THE '381 PATENT ............. 11 D. UNDER THE NEW CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ADVOCATED BY APPLE AND ADOPTED BY THE EXAMINER, THE JURY WOULD NOT HAVE FOUND INFRINGEMENT OF THE '381 PATENT ........................ 12 II. ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD ENTER JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY ......................................................................................................................... 15 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 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 AUTHORITIES Page Cases
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