12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S RENEWED MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
C
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd 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, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 William C. Price (Bar No. 108542) williamprice@quinnemanuel.com 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, Defendants. CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’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
[EVIDENTIARY HEARING REQUESTED] REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2915-5 Filed01/09/14 Page1 of 31
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-i- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S RENEWED MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................................ ii
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 2
I.
APPLE HAS STILL FAILED TO SHOW ANY IRREPARABLE HARM CAUSED BY INFRINGEMENT OF THE UTILITY PATENTS ....................................... 2
A.
The Hauser Conjoint Survey Does Not Satisfy The Causal Nexus Standard ........... 3
1.
The Hauser Survey’s Methodological Flaws Preclude Its “Price Premiums” From Reliably Proving That The Patented Features Drive Consumer Demand .............................................................................. 4
2.
The Hauser Survey Suffers From Other Methodological Flaws That Preclude A Reliable Finding Of Causal Nexus ............................................. 7
B.
The Generic Consumer Reviews Do Not Satisfy The Causal Nexus Standard ................................................................................................................... 10
C.
The Purported Evidence Of Copying Does Not Satisfy The Causal Nexus Standard ................................................................................................................... 12
II.
THE EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THAT MONETARY DAMAGES WOULD ADEQUATELY COMPENSATE APPLE ......................................................................... 13
A.
Apple Voluntarily Offered To License
All
Its Utility Patents To Samsung In October 2010 And Afterwards ................................................................................ 13
B.
Apple’s Other Licenses Confirm That Monetary Damages Are Adequate............. 15
III.
THE BALANCE OF HARDSHIPS DOES NOT FAVOR AN INJUNCTION ................. 18
IV.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST WEIGHS AGAINST AN INJUNCTION ............................... 21
V.
ALTERNATIVELY, THE COURT SHOULD STAY ENFORCEMENT OF ANY INJUNCTION WITH RESPECT TO THE ’915 PATENT ................................................ 23
VI.
THE COURT SHOULD HOLD AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING ................................... 25
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 25
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2915-5 Filed01/09/14 Page2 of 31
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
-ii- Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S RENEWED MOTION FOR A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.
, 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..................................................................................................13
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
, 483 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2007) ......................................................................................................1
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
, 551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ..................................................................................................18
Advanced Cardio. Sys., Inc. v. Medtronic Vascular, Inc.
, 579 F. Supp. 2d 554 (D. Del. 2008) ...........................................................................................18
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
678 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ......................................................................................1, 3
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
, 735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................
passim
Belden Techs., Inc. v. Superior Essex Commc’ns LP
, 802 F. Supp. 2d 555 (D. Del. 2011) ...........................................................................................20
Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.
, 543 F.3d 683 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................23
Brocklesby v. United States
, 767 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1985) ....................................................................................................15
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc.
, 576 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................4
Charlton v. Estate of Charlton
, 841 F.2d 988 (9th Cir. 1988) ......................................................................................................25
Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.
, 460 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ..................................................................................................24
eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) .....................................................................................................................2
Flexiteek Americas, Inc. v. PlasTEAK, Inc.
, 2010 WL 2976859 (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2010) .............................................................................24
Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans
, 16 F. Supp. 2d 1164 (C.D. Cal. 1998) ........................................................................................15
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2915-5 Filed01/09/14 Page3 of 31