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

M

OTION

F

OR

E

VIDENCE

T

HAT

A

PPLE

P

RACTICES

I

TS

P

ATENTS

A

ND

C

URATIVE

I

NSTRUCTIONS

Case No. 12-cv-00630-LHK

JOSH A. KREVITT (CA SBN 208552) jkrevitt@gibsondunn.com H. MARK LYON (CA SBN 162061) mlyon@gibsondunn.com GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 1881 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 Telephone: (650) 849-5300 Facsimile: (650) 849-5333 HAROLD J. McELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com JAMES P. BENNETT (CA SBN 65179) jbennett@mofo.com JACK W. LONDEN (CA SBN 85776) jlonden@mofo.com RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) rkrevans@mofo.com RUTH N. BORENSTEIN (CA SBN 133797) rborenstein@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 and Counterclaim-Defendant 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 corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. Case No.12-cv-00630-LHK

APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO PRESENT EVIDENCE THAT APPLE PRACTICES THE ’414, ’172, AND ’959 PATENTS AND CURATIVE INSTRUCTIONS

Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1567 Filed04/03/14 Page1 of 11

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

M

OTION

F

OR

E

VIDENCE

T

HAT

A

PPLE

P

RACTICES

I

TS

P

ATENTS

A

ND

C

URATIVE

I

NSTRUCTIONS


1

NOTICE OF MOTION

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) shall and hereby does move the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7, for permission to present testimony and evidence demonstrating that Apple practices the asserted patents and curative instructions on the grounds that Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) made prejudicial and false statements during opening statements that have unfairly prejudiced Apple. This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum, the supporting Declaration of Erik J. Olson, 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.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Apple seeks an Order permitting Apple to present testimony and evidence demonstrating that Apple has practiced and continues to practice the ’414, ’172, and ’959 patents in order to correct the false impressions created by Samsung’s counsel. Apple also requests that the Court recognize Apple’s continuing objection to any further misleading or false statements by Samsung. And Apple asks the Court to issue curative instructions, both now and with the final jury instructions, to curtail the harm and prejudice caused by Samsung’s improper statements to the jury. Dated: April 3, 2014

/s/ Harold J. McElhinny

Harold J. McElhinny


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

M

OTION

F

OR

E

VIDENCE

T

HAT

A

PPLE

P

RACTICES

I

TS

P

ATENTS

A

ND

C

URATIVE

I

NSTRUCTIONS


2

MEMORANDUM I. INTRODUCTION

During opening statements, Samsung’s counsel repeatedly made irrelevant, misleading, and even untrue statements that have undoubtedly caused the jury to form impressions that are highly prejudicial to Apple. Over and over again, Samsung’s counsel represented that Apple has never practiced the ’414, ’172, and ’959 patents—even though, as Samsung knows, Apple has sold and continues to sell products that use each of Apple’s asserted patents. The Court’s order limiting Apple’s ability to contend that it practices the ’414, ’172, and ’959 patents at trial does not (and cannot) permit Samsung to affirmatively present false factual statements to the jury; but now that Samsung has done precisely that, Apple should be permitted to respond with testimony and evidence demonstrating that Apple practices those patents. Samsung’s counsel also improperly suggested to the jury that it should consider the fact that Apple may seek permanent injunctive relief—which is irrelevant to the issues that the jury is being asked to decide and extremely prejudicial to Apple. And finally, Samsung’s counsel misrepresented the Federal Circuit’s preliminary injunction decision in a way that, again, is highly prejudicial to Apple. Samsung’s repetition of these misleading and untruthful statements has unfairly prejudiced Apple at the outset of the trial. As set forth below, Apple requests that the Court: (1) permit Apple to present testimony and evidence demonstrating that Apple has practiced and continues to practice the ’414, ’172, and ’959 patents in order to correct the false impressions created by Samsung’s counsel; (2) recognize Apple’s continuing objection to any further misleading or false statements by Samsung; and (3) issue curative instructions, both now and again with the final jury instructions, to curtail the harm and prejudice caused by Samsung’s improper statements to the jury.

II. ARGUMENT A. Samsung’s False Statements Regarding Whether Apple Practices The ’414, ’172, And ’959 Patents Are Highly Prejudicial To Apple And Require Curative Action.

Apple has sold and continues to sell products that include embodiments of all five
