No. 2014-1335
United States Court of Appeals
for the
Federal Circuit
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
– v. – SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation, SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants-Appellants.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK, HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
S
USAN
R.
E
STRICH
M
ICHAEL
T.
Z
ELLER
R
OBERT
J.
B
ECHER
B.
D
YLAN
P
ROCTOR
Q
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
S
ULLIVAN
,
LLP 865 South Figueroa Street, 10
th
Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 (213) 443-3000 K
ATHLEEN
M.
S
ULLIVAN
W
ILLIAM
B.
A
DAMS
Q
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
S
ULLIVAN
,
LLP 51 Madison Avenue, 22
nd
Floor New York, New York 10010 (212) 849-7000
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (For Continuation of Appearances See Inside Cover)
Case: 14-1335 Document: 129 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2014
CORRECTED REPLY BRIEF FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
V
ICTORIA
F.
M
AROULIS
Q
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
S
ULLIVAN
,
LLP 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5
th
Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 (650) 801-5000 K
EVIN
A.
S
MITH
Q
UINN
E
MANUEL
U
RQUHART
&
S
ULLIVAN
,
LLP 50 California Street, 22
nd
Floor San Francisco, California 94111 (415) 875-6600
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC
Case: 14-1335 Document: 129 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2014
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2
I.
APPLE IS UNABLE TO DEFEND THE $399 MILLION JUDGMENT FOR DESIGN-PATENT INFRINGEMENT ........................... 2
A.
No Properly-Instructed Jury Could Find Design-Patent Infringement .......................................................................................... 2
1.
Apple Fails To Rehabilitate The District Court’s
Instructions On Scope And Infringement ................................... 2
(a)
Scope And Functionality .................................................. 3
(b)
Deceptive Similarity ......................................................... 5
(c)
Prior Art ............................................................................ 6
2.
Apple Fails To Identify Substantial Evidence Of Deceptive Similarity To Ornamental
Features ........................... 6
(a)
D’677 And D’087 Patents
................................................ 7
(b)
D’305 Patent
................................................................... 14
B.
No Properly-
Instructed Jury Could Award Samsung’s Entire
Profits For Design-Patent Infringement .............................................. 14
1.
Apple Fails To Overcome The District Court’s Erro
r In Omitting A Causation Requirement ......................................... 14
2.
Apple Fails To Overcome The District Court’s Error In Omitting A Nexus To The “Article Of Manufacture”
.............. 16
II.
APPLE IS UNABLE TO DEFEND THE $382 MILLION JUDGMENT FOR TRADE-DRESS DILUTION ........................................ 18
Case: 14-1335 Document: 129 Page: 3 Filed: 09/05/2014