Scribd

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

A

PPLE

I

NC

.’

S

R

ENEWED

M

OTION

F

OR

A

P

ERMANENT

I

NJUNCTION

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com ERIK J. OLSON (CA 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 APPLE INC. WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 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 RENEWED MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION

Date: January 30, 2014 Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2897 Filed12/26/13 Page1 of 16

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

A

PPLE

I

NC

.’

S

R

ENEWED

M

OTION

F

OR

A

P

ERMANENT

I

NJUNCTION


i

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on January 30, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard before the Honorable Lucy Koh in Courtroom 8 of the above-entitled Court, located at 280 South 1st Street, San Jose, California, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) will move, and hereby does move, for a permanent injunction against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”). Pursuant to the Court’s procedures, Apple emailed Ms. Parker-Brown on December 20, 2013 to request a hearing date for this motion. Due to the holidays, however, Apple could not obtain a response to its request before filing this motion. Apple did not include (and could not have included) its renewed motion for a permanent injunction in its December 13, 2013 post-trial brief because the Federal Circuit’s mandate in the injunction appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 13-1129) had not yet issued. Apple is filing this motion promptly upon issuance of the Federal Circuit’s mandate on December 26, 2013, and has counted the number of pages in this motion against the 40-page limit set by the Court for post-trial briefs. Under the local rules, briefing for this motion should be complete by January 16, 2014. Apple respectfully requests that the Court hear Apple’s renewed motion for a permanent injunction along with the other post-trial motions in this case at the hearing scheduled for January 30, 2014. This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and authorities and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission by the Court. Dated: December 26, 2013 WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP By:

/s/ William F. Lee

WILLIAM F. LEE Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC.


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

A

PPLE

I

NC

.’

S

R

ENEWED

M

OTION

F

OR

A

P

ERMANENT

I

NJUNCTION


ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION ......................................................................................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................................... iii

I.

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1

II.

THE COURT SHOULD ENTER A PERMANENT INJUNCTION AGAINST SAMSUNG’S INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’381, ’915, AND ’163 PATENTS................. 1

A.

Samsung’s Infringement Has Irreparably Harmed Apple. ...................................... 2

B.

Money Damages Are Not An Adequate Remedy. .................................................. 6

C.

The Balance Of Hardships Favors Entry Of A Permanent Injunction. ................... 8

D.

The Public Interest Favors A Permanent Injunction. .............................................. 9

III.

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
