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
EPLY
I
N
S
UPPORT
O
F
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 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS RENEWED MOTION FOR APERMANENT 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 Document2925 Filed01/16/14 Page1 of 21
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
EPLY
I
N
S
UPPORT
O
F
R
ENEWED
M
OTION
F
OR
A
P
ERMANENT
I
NJUNCTION
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
I.
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
II.
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 1
A.
Samsung’s Infringement Has Irreparably Harmed Apple. ...................................... 2
1.
Dr. Hauser’s survey is strong evidence of a causal nexus. ......................... 2
2.
Consumer research and reviews demonstrate the importance of the features claimed by Apple’s utility patents. ................................................ 7
3.
Samsung’s copying confirms the existence of a causal nexus. ................... 8
B.
Monetary Damages Are Inadequate To Compensate Apple. .................................. 9
1.
Apple did not offer to license the asserted patents to Samsung in 2010. ............................................................................................................ 9
2.
The parties’ recent settlement discussions do not suggest that damages would be adequate. ..................................................................... 10
3.
Apple’s limited past licensing practices do not suggest that damages would be adequate to compensate for Samsung’s infringement. .............. 10
C.
The Balance Of Hardships Favors Entry Of An Injunction. ................................. 12
D.
The Public Interest Favors An Injunction. ............................................................ 13
E.
The Court Should Not Delay Enforcement Of Any Injunction During The ’915 Reexamination Proceedings. ......................................................................... 14
F.
There Is No Need For An Evidentiary Hearing. ................................................... 15
III.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2925 Filed01/16/14 Page2 of 21
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
EPLY
I
N
S
UPPORT
O
F
R
ENEWED
M
OTION
F
OR
A
P
ERMANENT
I
NJUNCTION
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) C
ASES
ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Communications Inc.
, 694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 9
Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp.
, 551 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ......................................................................................... 10, 11
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
, 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 8
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
, 735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................
passim
Douglas Dynamics, LLC v. Buyers Products Co.
, 717 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................. 2
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) .................................................................................................................. 2
Edwards Lifesciences AG v. CoreValve, Inc.
, 699 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 1
Ethicon Inc. v. Quigg
, 849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ......................................................................................... 13, 14
Funai Electric Co. v. Daewoo Electronics Corp.
, 616 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................. 8
LaserDynamics, Inc. v. Quanta Computer, Inc.
, 694 F.3d 51 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................. 10, 11
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
, 904 F. Supp. 1109 (W.D. Wash. 2012) ..................................................................................... 3
Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Technical Ceramics Corp.
, 702 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................. 1
Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp.
, 659 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 2
TV Interactive Data Corp. v. Sony Corp.
, 929 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2013) ................................................................................ 3, 4
Warner Chilcott Laboratories Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.
, 451 F. App’x 935 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ......................................................................................... 15
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2925 Filed01/16/14 Page3 of 21