decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
Judge Koh Denies Apple Request to File Motion for Reconsideration so Samsung Goes 1st; Parties Agree to Delay Enforcement ~pj
Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:41 PM EDT

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 denied [PDF].

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.

Apple also 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".

The filings:

1953 - Filed & Entered: 08/31/2012
Opposition/Response to Motion
Docket Text: RESPONSE to ( [1941] MOTION for Stay of [1933] 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).

1954 - Filed & Entered: 09/03/2012
Terminated: 09/06/2012
Stipulation
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).

1955 - Filed & Entered: 09/04/2012
Reply to Opposition/Response
Docket Text: REPLY Brief (re [1911] 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).

1956 - 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)

1957 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2012
Order on Stipulation
Docket Text: Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh granting [1954] Stipulation Re: Schedule for Enforcing Judgment and Certain Post-Verdict Filings.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)

1958 - Filed & Entered: 09/06/2012
Order on Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: Order by Hon. Lucy H. Koh denying [1950] Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration.(lhklc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/6/2012)


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )