More activity in the Apple v. Samsung litigation, in the aftermath of the trial verdict. Thanks to the jury's unusually weird verdict, this aftermath could be very interesting indeed. I think it wouldn't be too much to say we may even be in uncharted waters, and the more the foreman
explains, the deeper we go into the dark unknown.
Meanwhile, do you remember Apple's
request that its motions to get permanent injunctions against a group of Samsung products be heard on the same day as Samsung's motion to lift the preliminary injunction that the judge, the Hon. Lucy Koh, placed on the Galaxy 10.1 pending a verdict? Samsung got an expedited schedule that set a hearing in September, while Apple's injunction motions couldn't be heard until December, and it wanted to file a motion for reconsideration, arguing it wasn't fair. Its request has been
So Samsung goes first, in September, because it's about one product (the Galaxy Tab 10.1) and only one patent the jury ruled Samsung didn't infringe (that's Apple's D'889 -- the infamous design patent about those rounded corners etc.), whereas Apple's request is complex, involving trying to block from the US at least 8 Samsung products (and whatever else Apple decides to throw in there). Apple and Samsung have also agreed, and the judge has signed off on it, that there will be no enforcement of the jury verdict until certain post-verdict motions are decided. And there's more to come on certain Apple claims that the judge, not the jury, has to decide.
Judge Koh asks the parties to brief her on the following issues on Samsung's motion to dissolve, starting with this: isn't a preliminary injunction automatically dissolved if a jury finds you not infringing after all, or does the fact that it's being appealed impact that? She writes:
In briefing Samsung’s Motion to Dissolve the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction, the parties shall address, in particular, the following issues: (1) whether the June 26, 2012 Preliminary Injunction order (“PI Order”) automatically dissolves upon entry of final judgment, see U.S. Philips Corp. v. KBC Bank N.V., 590 F.3d 1091, 1093-94 (9th Cir. 2010); (2) whether the fact that the PI Order is on appeal impacts or stays any such dissolution; and (3) whether this Court has jurisdiction to rule on Samsung’s dissolution motion while the PI Order is on appeal, see Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 59 (1982) (per curiam); McClatchy Newspapers v. Cent. Valley Typographical Union No. 46, 686 F.2d 731, 734-35 (9th Cir. 1982).
Apple also has been trying to block Samsung from including certain materials excluded from trial from Samsung's appeal, but Samsung
points out [PDF] that the question on appeal is whether the exclusions were proper in the first place, so it would be weird to leave them out. I don't know what Apple was thinking on that one.
asks for [PDF] a schedule on the various issues that the jury didn't decide, "Apple’s claims of waiver, equitable estoppel, unclean hands, and unfair competition," which the judge must decide. Apple would like them to be scheduled so that they can also be heard in December along with its injunction issues. Finally the parties have
agreed [PDF] to a schedule, which the judge has signed off on, whereby there will be no attempt by Apple to get any money from Samsung until all post-verdict motions are finally decided, with the only exceptions being motions for bills of cost or attorneys' fees:
Any attempt to execute or enforce the judgment, award, or verdict entered in favor of Apple and against Samsung (Dkt. Nos. 1931, 1933) shall be stayed until 14 days after the Court enters judgment resolving all post-trial motions filed pursuant to Rules 50, 52, 59, and 60 (but excluding any bill of costs or motion for attorney’s fees under Rule 54); and on the basis of this stipulation Samsung hereby withdraws without prejudice its Motion for Stay of August 24, 2012 Judgment (Dkt. No. 1941).
Here's Rule 50, "Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury Trial; Related Motion for a New Trial; Conditional Ruling", Rule 52, "Findings and Conclusions by the Court; Judgment on Partial Findings", Rule 59, "New Trial; Altering or Amending a Judgment", and Rule 60, "Relief from a Judgment or Order".
Filed & Entered: 08/31/2012
Opposition/Response to Motion
Docket Text: RESPONSE to (  MOTION for Stay of  August 24, 2012 Damages Judgment Under Fed. R. Civ.P.62(b) ) Pending Resolution Of Post-Trial Motions filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/31/2012) Modified text on 9/4/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Filed & Entered: 09/03/2012
Docket Text: STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE FOR ENFORCING JUDGMENT AND CERTAIN POST-VERDICT FILINGS filed by Apple Inc.. (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/3/2012) Modified text on 9/4/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Filed & Entered: 09/04/2012
Reply to Opposition/Response
Docket Text: REPLY Brief (re  Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Proffer of Witness Testimony and Exhibits ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/4/2012) Modified text on 9/4/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).
Filed & Entered: 09/04/2012
Motion for Miscellaneous Relief
Docket Text: MOTION Regarding Schedule for Briefing of Non-Jury Claims filed by Apple Inc.. Responses due by 9/18/2012. Replies due by 9/25/2012. (Attachments: # (1) Proposed Order)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 9/4/2012)
Filed & Entered: 09/06/2012
Order on Stipulation
Docket Text: Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting  Stipulation Re: Schedule for Enforcing Judgment and Certain Post-Verdict Filings.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)
Filed & Entered: 09/06/2012
Order on Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying  Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)