12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
APPLE INC.’S BRIEF REGARDING APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com ERIC J. OLSON (SBN 175815) ejolson@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. WILLIAM F. LEE (
pro hac vice
) william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,Plaintiff, v. 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, Defendants. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE INC.’S BRIEF REGARDING APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS Date:
December 9, 2013
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Place:
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge:
Hon. Paul S. Grewal
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2838-2 Filed12/02/13 Page1 of 25
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
APPLE INC.’S BRIEF REGARDING APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. SUMMARY OF SAMSUNG’S AND QUINN EMANUEL’S PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS .......................................................................................................2 A. The Protective Order ................................................................................................3 B. The Improperly Disclosed and Disseminated Apple Information ...........................4 1. The Apple License Terms are Confidential .................................................4 2. The Apple-Nokia License Terms Have Not Been Disclosed By Apple or Nokia .............................................................................................5 C. Samsung’s and Quinn Emanuel’s Improper Dissemination of Apple License Terms and Failure to Timely Disclose Known Breaches of the Protective Order .......................................................................................................7 1. Samsung and Quinn Emanuel Block Discovery of Full Extent of Their Protective Order Breaches ..................................................................9 D. Improper Uses of Apple License Terms ................................................................10 1. Samsung’s Use of Apple’s Confidential Information Against Apple in Litigation and In Licensing Discussions .....................................10 2. Samsung’s Use of Apple’s Confidential Information Against Others .........................................................................................................13 (a) Nokia ..............................................................................................13 (b) Ericsson ..........................................................................................14 III. THE COURT SHOULD SANCTION SAMSUNG AND QUINN EMANUEL TO CURE THE HARM—AND CONTINUING THREAT—TO APPLE AND THE OTHER AFFECTED PARTIES, AND TO VINDICATE THE COURT’S RULES AND ORDERS. ...................................................................................................15 A. Remedies To Begin To Cure The Harm And Continuing Threat To Apple ..........16 1. Public Findings Of Samsung’s Misconduct ...............................................17 2. Bar Against Samsung And Quinn Emanuel For A Period Of Two Years From Entering New Situations Where They Could Misuse Apple Confidential Information .................................................................18 3. Bar Against Samsung Pursuing An Injunction In The -630 Case Because Of Its Unclean Hands ..................................................................19 4. Attorneys’ Fees ..........................................................................................19 B. Sanctions To Uphold The Integrity Of The Judicial Process And Deter Future Misconduct .................................................................................................20 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................21
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2838-2 Filed12/02/13 Page2 of 25
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
APPLE INC.’S BRIEF REGARDING APPROPRIATE SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S PROTECTIVE ORDER VIOLATIONS
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) C
ASES
A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Const. Co.
, 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992)................................................................................................19
Biocore Medical Techs. Inc. v. Khosrowshahi
, 1998 WL 919126 (D. Kan. Nov. 6, 1998) ...............................................................................20
Brocade Comm. Sys., Inc. v. A10 Networks, Inc.,
Case No. 10-3428-PSG, 2013 WL 890126 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 23, 2013) ....................................15
Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.
, 501 U.S. 32 (1991) ...................................................................................................................15
Mfr.’s Fin. Co. v. McKey
, 294 U.S. 442 (1935) .................................................................................................................19
Grace v. Center for Auto Safety
, 155 F.R.D. 591 (E.D. Mich. 1994) ..........................................................................................16
In re Deutsche Bank
Trust Co. Americas
, 605 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................11
In re Dual-Deck Video Cassette Recorder Antitrust Litig.
, 10 F.3d 693 (9th Cir. 1993) .....................................................................................................15
Lamb-Weston, Inc. v. McCain Foods, Ltd.
, 941 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1991) ...................................................................................................18
Lion Raisins Inc. v. United States
, 64 Fed. Cl. 536 (Ct. Claims 2005) ...........................................................................................18
Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Pribyl
, 259 F.3d 587 (7th Cir. 2001) ...................................................................................................18
Shockley v. Arcan, Inc.
, 248 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2001)................................................................................................19
Trenado v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co.
, 274 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Tex. 2011) .............................................................................................20
S
TATUTES
35 U.S.C. § 285 ..............................................................................................................................20
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2838-2 Filed12/02/13 Page3 of 25