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

Case No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK

MEMO OF P’S AND A’S ISO TRO AND ANTI

-SUIT INJUNCTION

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON

LLP

A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations

STEPHEN S. KORNICZKY, Cal. Bar No. 135532 MARTIN R. BADER, Cal. Bar No. 222865 MATTHEW W. HOLDER, Cal. Bar No. 217619 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92130 Telephone: 858.720.8900 Facsimile: 858.509.3691 E mail skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com mbader@sheppardmullin.com mholder@sheppardmullin.com MICHAEL W. SCARBOROUGH, Cal. Bar No. 203524 MONA SOLOUKI, Cal. Bar No. 215145 LAI L. YIP, Cal Bar No. 258029 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 E mail mscarborough@sheppardmullin.com msolouki@sheppardmullin.com lyip@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CONTINENTAL AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, INC., Plaintiff, v. AVANCI, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No. 5:19-cv-02520-LHK

CONTINENTAL’S

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF ITS

EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE

Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh

Case 5:19-cv-02520-LHK Document 185-3 Filed 10/08/19 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 -i-



-SUIT INJUNCTION

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I.

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................3

A.

The Nature and Risks of Standardization ...................................................................3

B.

The Dispute Between the Parties ...............................................................................5

1.

Continental sought a direct license to Defendants’ SEPs.

..............................5

2.

Daimler and others filed complaints against Nokia with the European Commission. ..................................................................................6

3.

Nokia then filed retaliatory infringement lawsuits against Daimler. .............6

4.

Continental filed the present action to resolve the global dispute. .................7

5.

Nokia obtained a secret order thwarting Continental’s prior motion.

............7

6.

Sharp followed Nokia’s lead in filing infringement lawsuits against

Daimler. ..........................................................................................................9

7.

Conversant then joined its cohorts in suing Daimler. ..................................11

III.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD .................................................................................11

IV.

SHARP AND CONVERSANT SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM SEEKING INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST CONTINENTAL PRODUCTS, AND DEFENDANTS SHOULD BE ENJOINED FROM FILING NEW LAWSUITS TARGETING CONTINENTAL PRODUCTS. ...................................................................13

A.

The Parties and Issues Are Functionally the Same. .................................................13

1.

Continental is the real party-in-interest where Defendants sue for patent infringement based on the use of Continental and its

affiliates’ products.

.......................................................................................14

2.

This lawsuit is dispositive of the matters to be enjoined. .............................17

B.

Multiple

Unterweser

Factors Justify an Anti-Suit Injunction. .................................19

1.

Requests for injunctions on SEPs frustrate important U.S. policies. ...........19

2.

Defendants’ lawsuits are (and will be) vexatious and oppres

sive. ...............21

C.

The Impact of an Injunction on Comity Is Tolerable. ..............................................23

V.

A TRO IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. ......................................24

VI.

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................25


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 -ii-



-SUIT INJUNCTION

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s)

Cases

Apple v. Motorola

757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..................................................................................................20

Applied Med. Distrib. Corp. v. Surgical Co. BV

587 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2009) ......................................................................................................12

Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp.

553 F.2d 735 (1st Cir. 1977) ......................................................................................................16

E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A.

446 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2006) ..........................................................................................12, 19, 23

Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys.

773 F.3d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ....................................................................................................4

FTC v. Qualcomm Inc.

No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, 2019 WL 2206013 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2019) ...................................21

Gilbane Fed. v. United Infrastructure Projects Fzco

Case No. 14-cv-03254-VC, 2014 WL 4950011 (N.D. Cal. Sep. 24, 2014) ...............................13

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers

415 U.S. 423 (1974) ...................................................................................................................11

Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Case No. 3:16-CV-02787-WHO, 2018 WL 1784065 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2018) ...................................................................................12, 13, 18, 20, 24

Int’l Equity Invs. Inc. v. Opportunity Equity Partners Ltd.

441 F. Supp. 2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)

aff’d

, 246 Fed.Appx. 73 (2d Cir. 2007) .........................13

Kahn v. GMC

889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ..................................................................................................16

Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.

909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ..................................................................................................16

Laker Airways

,

Ltd. v. Sabena, Belgian World Airlines

731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984) ...................................................................................................21

Medtronic, Inc. v. Catalyst Research Corp.

518 F. Supp. 946 (D. Minn. 1981),

aff’d

, 664 F.2d 660 (8th Cir. 1981) ..............................17, 18

Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola Inc.

696 F.3d 872 (9th Cir. 2012) ..............................................2, 5, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23
