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
Samsung Wins Reconsideration of Preliminary Injunction; Appeals Ct. Gives Judge Koh Authority to Rule ~pj Updated
Friday, September 28 2012 @ 05:01 PM EDT

The Federal Circuit just ruled that Samsung wins on its motion for a limited remand, so Judge Lucy Koh can rule on the issue of lifting the preliminary injunction on the Galaxy Tab 10.1.

Here's the order:

09/28/2012 - 35 - ORDER filed granting motion for limited remand [30] filed by Appellants Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeal at this time. (Per Curiam). Service: 09/28/2012 by clerk. [27322]
Koh had ruled that she lacked jurisdiction, but that if she had it, she would be inclined to lift the injunction, since the jury found that Samsung's tablet did not infringe, and that was the basis of the injunction, the thought that the jury would likely rule the other way. But they didn't. So, it's back to Judge Koh. She has the authority to decide the matter; does she still have the inclination to dissolve the preliminary injunction? Or will there be another delay? We'll see.

Jump To Comments

There are a few filings in the district court as well, and I'll get them for you and add them here.

Update: I have them now. One of them is Samsung's Notice [PDF] to Judge Koh that the Federal Circuit has granted Samsung's request and the matter has been remanded to her for a decision. Here's how Samsung's lawyers at Quinn Emanuel phrase it:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 62.1(c), Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) respectfully notify the Court that the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has remanded Samsung’s appeal of the June 26, 2012 preliminary injunction so that this Court may rule on Samsung’s motion to dissolve (ECF No. 1936). The Federal Circuit’s order was entered today and is attached hereto as Addendum A. 1

Samsung’s motion to dissolve is fully briefed (see ECF Nos. 1936, 1963, 1967), and the Court stated last week that, since “the sole basis for the June 26 Preliminary Injunction no longer exists,” it would have “dissolve[d] the June 26 Preliminary Injunction if the Court had jurisdiction.” (ECF No. 1968, at 3.) The Court now has jurisdiction, and there has been no change in the circumstances since last week that would support any other result. Samsung therefore respectfully requests, pursuant to Rule 62.1(c) and for the reasons set forth in Samsung’s prior papers, that the Court dissolve the preliminary injunction forthwith.

____________
1 Because the Federal Circuit granted a limited remand and retained jurisdiction over the appeal, no mandate will issue and the order is effective immediately. See FED. R. APP. P. 12.1(b) (“the court of appeals may remand for further proceedings but retains jurisdiction unless it expressly dismisses the appeal”); FED. R. CIV. P. 62.1(c) (“The district court may decide the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose.”).

If it sounds like Samsung would like a quick answer and is trying to get the judge to rule right away, without further excuses, you'd be right. First, they want Christmas sales, if possible. But they also don't want the judge to reason that all this can wait, given that the jury found other devices did infringe the patent, even if they ruled the Samsung's Galaxy Tab 10.1 did not.

Apple argues for exactly such a delay, on the premise that it would confuse the market to lift the injunction and then very possibly place it back in place shortly thereafter. So it wants the judge to wait for all the arguments to be heard on December 6th.

Samsung, in contrast, is hustling to get a quick answer from the judge, because it wants its name cleared before the public regarding the tablets and because it wants to sell them. And it's aware, one assumes, that asking for a ruling in September is better for Samsung than discussing it with this judge in December, when Apple's argument will probably sound more sensible, particularly because this court, Samsung believes, has been tilting unfairly Apple's way throughout and may be inclined to look for a way to rule for Apple, if at all possible.

And here are the additional filings at the district court:

2004 - Filed & Entered: 09/27/2012 Declaration in Support Docket Text: Declaration of Nathan Sabri in Support of [2003] Opposition/Response to Motion, to File Documents Under Seal and For An Order Prohibiting the Parties From Communicating with Jurors filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit C, # (4) Exhibit D, # (5) Exhibit E)(Related document(s)[2003]) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/27/2012)

2005 - Filed & Entered: 09/27/2012
Order on Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document
Docket Text: ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting [2000] Motion to Remove Incorrectly Filed Document (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/27/2012)

2006 - Filed & Entered: 09/28/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Courtland L. Reichman in Support of [1980] Renewed Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed byTelefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration Exhibit A, # (2) Exhibit Exhibit B, # (3) Exhibit Exhibit C, # (4) Proposed Order)(Related document(s)[1980]) (Reichman, Courtland) (Filed on 9/28/2012)

2007 - Filed & Entered: 09/28/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC Notice of Remand and Application for Decision (Attachments: # (1) Addendum A)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 9/28/2012)

Here's the text of the order in its entirety:

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit

______________

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

______________

2012-1506

______________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California in case no. 11-CV-1846,
Judge Lucy H. Koh.

______________

ON MOTION

______________

Before BRYSON, PROST and O'MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. move for a limited remand for the purpose of permitting the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to consider Samsung's motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction. Apple Inc. opposes the motion.

We grant the motion and remand for the purpose of allowing the trial court to consider Samsung's motion and Apple's arguments in opposition thereto. The appeal is held in abeyance pending further ruling from the trial court. The parties are to inform this court promptly of the trial court's ruling on the motion and propose how they believe the appeal should proceed in light of such ruling.

In granting the motion, the Federal Circuit takes no position on the proceedings the trial court should employ in considering the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction or on the merits of the motion.

Accordingly,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion to remand is granted. The court retains jurisdiction over the appeal at this time.

SEP 28 2012
Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc. Kathleen M. Sullivan, Esq.
Michael A. Jacobs, Esq.


  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 )