1
2345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ON ’915 PATENT
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22
nd
Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261) kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5
th
Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 William C. Price (Cal. Bar No. 108542) williamprice@quinnemanuel.com Michael T. Zeller (Cal. 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
SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ON THE ’915 PATENT AND TO STAY FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN LIGHT OF THE PTAB’S FINAL DECISION INVALIDATING THE ’915 PATENT
Date: To be set by Court Time: 1:30 p.m. Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3281 Filed09/16/15 Page1 of 17
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 -i-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ON ’915 PATENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................... 2
I.
THE MANDATE RULE DOES NOT PRECLUDE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ON THE ’915 PATENT, OR A STAY ........................................................ 2
A.
The Federal Circuit’s Affirmance Of This Court’s Infringement Judgment Does Not Preclude Consideration Of The PTAB’s Invalidity Ruling ...................... 2
B.
The Federal Circuit Did Not Actually Decide The Effects Of The PTAB’s Ruling On This Proceeding ....................................................................................... 4
C.
Manifest Injustice Would Warrant Deviation From A Decision Rejecting, Without Briefing, Collateral Estoppel Or A Stay...................................................... 6
II.
COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL APPLIES TO THE PTAB’S FINAL INVALIDITY DECISION ............................................................................................................................ 6
A.
Apple’s Conflation Of Cancellation With Finality Is Erroneous .............................. 6
B.
Collateral Estoppel Applies Under Controlling Finality Authorities That Apple Ignores ............................................................................................................ 9
III.
SAMSUNG’S ALTERNATIVE REQUEST FOR A STAY SHOULD BE GRANTED .......................................................................................................................... 10
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 13
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3281 Filed09/16/15 Page2 of 17
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728 -ii-
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHKSAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF INVALIDITY ON ’915 PATENT
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases
AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc.
, 759 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................8
Aevoe Corp. v. AE Tech Co., Ltd.
, No. 2:12-cv-00053-GMN-NJK, 2014 WL 1089676 (D. Nev. Mar. 18, 2014) ............................7
Amado v. Microsoft Corp.
, 517 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................4
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.
, 786 F.3d 983 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ....................................................................................................10
B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc.
, 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) .........................................................................................................1, 8, 9
Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
, 776 F.3d 837 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ......................................................................................................6
Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Global, Inc.
, No. 12-930-SLR, 2014 WL 2042470 (D. Del. May 8, 2014) ................................................7, 12
CreAgri, Inc. v. Pinnaclife, Inc.
, No. 11-CV-6635-LHK, 2013 WL 6673676 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2013) .......................................7
Desper Prods., Inc. v. QSound Labs, Inc.
, 157 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ....................................................................................................5
Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co.
, 166 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ....................................................................................................3
ePlus, Inc. v. Lawson Software, Inc.
, 760 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................................2, 3
Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp.
, 137 F.3d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................4, 5
Flexiteek Ams., Inc. v. PlasTEAK, Inc.
, No. 08-60996-CIV, 2010 WL 2976859 (S.D. Fla. July 20, 2010) .............................................12
Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc.
, 721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................2, 3, 7
Gould, Inc. v. United States
, 67 F.3d 925 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................................6
Hall v. Shinseki
, 717 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................5
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig.
, No. 2:07-ML-1816, 2013 WL 3223382 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2013) .............................................9
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document3281 Filed09/16/15 Page3 of 17