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
H
UAWEI
’
S
O
PPOSITION TO
S
AMSUNG
’
S
M
OTION TO
E
NJOIN
H
UAWEI
F
ROM
E
NFORCING
T
HE
I
NJUNCTION
I
SSUED BY
T
HE
I
NTERMEDIATE
P
EOPLE
’
S
C
OURT OF
S
HENZHEN
C
ASE
16-
CV
-02787-WHO
Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196)
mbettinger@sidley.com
Irene Yang (SBN 245464)
irene.yang@sidley.com
S
IDLEY
A
USTIN
LLP 555 California Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, California 94104 (415)772-1200 – Telephone(415)772-7400 – Facsimile
Attorneys for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., and HiSilicon Technologies Co. Ltd.
David T. Pritikin (
Pro Hac Vice
)
dpritikin@sidley.com
David C. Giardina (
Pro Hac Vice
)
dgiardina@sidley.com
Douglas I. Lewis (
Pro Hac Vice
)
dilewis@sidley.com
John W. McBride (
Pro Hac Vice
)
wmcbride@sidley.com
S
IDLEY
A
USTIN
LLP One South Dearborn Chicago, Illinois 60603 (312)853-7000 – Telephone(312)853-7036 – Facsimile
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., and HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Plaintiffs / Counterclaim-Defendants, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendants / Counterclaim-Plaintiffs, and SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA, Defendant, v. HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., Counterclaim-Defendant. Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
HUAWEI’S
OPPOSITION
TO
SAMSUNG’S
MOTION
TO
ENJOIN
HUAWEI
FROM
ENFORCING
THE
INJUNCTION
ISSUED
BY
THE
INTERMEDIATE
PEOPLE’S
COURT
OF
SHENZHEN
Hearing Date: March 14, 2018 Time: 2:00 PM Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
REDACTED VERSION OF DOCUMENT SOUGHT TO BE SEALED
Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 240-3 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 30
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
H
UAWEI
’
S
O
PPOSITION TO
S
AMSUNG
’
S
M
OTION TO
E
NJOIN
H
UAWEI
F
ROM
E
NFORCING
T
HE
I
NJUNCTION
I
SSUED BY
T
HE
I
NTERMEDIATE
P
EOPLE
’
S
C
OURT OF
S
HENZHEN
C
ASE
16-
CV
-02787-WHO
TABLE OF CONTENTS I.
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
II.
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 4
A.
The Parties .......................................................................................................... 4
B.
The Parties’ Negotiation History ......................................................................... 5
C.
The Litigation ..................................................................................................... 8
D.
The Shenzhen Court Decision ............................................................................10
III.
APPLICABLE LAW .....................................................................................................11
IV.
ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................12
A.
Microsoft v. Motorola
Does Not Support Samsung’s Proposed Anti-Suit Injunction. ...........................................................................................................................13
B.
Samsung’s Proposed Injunction Fails the Ninth Circuit’s
Gallo
Test. .................15
1.
Samsung Contradicts Its Own Litigation Position in Claiming this Case Is Dispositive of the Chinese Action. ..........................................................15
2.
The
Unterweser
Factors Do Not Support an Anti-Suit Injunction. ...........17
3.
Samsung’s Proposed Anti-Suit Injunction Would Offend Comity. ..........22
C.
Samsung Fails to Establish Any Entitlement to the Extraordinary Remedy of a Preliminary Injunction. .......................................................................................23
1.
Samsung Fails to Show it Would Be Irreparably Harmed. .......................23
2.
The Balance of Equities Favors Huawei, Not Samsung. ..........................24
3.
The Proposed Anti-Suit Injunction Is Not in the Public Interest. .............25
V.
CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................25
Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 240-3 Filed 02/20/18 Page 2 of 30
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
H
UAWEI
’
S
O
PPOSITION TO
S
AMSUNG
’
S
M
OTION TO
E
NJOIN
H
UAWEI
F
ROM
E
NFORCING
T
HE
I
NJUNCTION
I
SSUED BY
T
HE
I
NTERMEDIATE
P
EOPLE
’
S
C
OURT OF
S
HENZHEN
C
ASE
16-
CV
-02787-WHO
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases
Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Pena
, 865 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2017) ..............................................................................................12, 23
Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc.
, 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................................. 3, 18, 21, 23
Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.
, No. 3:17-cv-108-GPC-MDD, 2017 WL 3966944 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 7, 2017) ..........................22, 23
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
, No. 5-11-cv-01846 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) ........................................................................... 19
Caplan v. Fellheimer Eichen Braverman & Kaskey
, 68 F.3d 828 (3d Cir. 1995) ........................................................................................................ 24
China Trade & Dev. Corp. v. M.V. Choong Yong
, 837 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1987) ...................................................................................................11, 17
Credit Suisse v. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
, 130 F.3d 1342 (9th Cir. 1997) ................................................................................................... 19
Delgado v. Plaza Las Americas, Inc.
, 139 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998) ......................................................................................................... 21
Dotster, Inc. v. Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, Etc.
, 296 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (C.D. Cal. 2003) ..................................................................................... 24
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A.
, 446 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................................
passim
Gau Shan Co., Ltd. v. Bankers Trust Co
., 956 F.2d 1349 (6th Cir. 1992) ..............................................................................................12, 23
Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines
, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) .............................................................................................12, 17
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
, 696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) ..............................................................................................
passim
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
, 795 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2015) ..............................................................................................14, 15
Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc.
, 871 F. Supp. 2d 1089 (W.D. Wa. 2012) ...............................................................................13, 25
Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 240-3 Filed 02/20/18 Page 3 of 30