Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846-317/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 15:1125 Trademark Infringement (Lanham Act)

---

1

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER STRIKING EVIDENCE

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

 Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A

Korean corporation; SAMSUNG

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York

corporation; SAMSUNG 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, 

a Delaware limited liability company,

 Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER STRIKING EVIDENCE 

On August 28, 2012, this Court filed an Order setting out the schedule for post-trial 

briefing. ECF No. 1945. In that Order, the Court stated that the “page limits set forth herein will 

be strictly enforced. Any argument that is not explicitly articulated within the briefing page limits 

will be disregarded. Any supporting documentation shall be for corroboration purposes solely and 

shall not be used as a vehicle for circumventing the Court’s page limits.” Id. at 3. 

Despite this Order, both parties submitted a large amount of documentation with their posttrial motions, much of which was either not cited at all in the briefing, or cited in only a conclusory 

manner, such that the arguments contained in the supporting documentation were not articulated 

within the briefing page limits. The Court has not relied on any of this documentation in ruling on 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 2212 Filed 01/02/13 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

ORDER STRIKING EVIDENCE

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

the parties’ post-trial motions. Accordingly, consistent with the Court’s August 28, 2012 Order, 

the following evidence is hereby stricken from the record:

ECF No. 2054-01, Erdem Decl. (entire document)

ECF No. 2054-03, Sukumar Decl. (entire document)

ECF No. 2054-04, Wind Decl. (entire document)

ECF No. 2057, Lucente Decl., ¶¶ 22-30

ECF No. 2065, Wagner Decl., ¶¶ 11-145, 147-228, Exhs. 1, 3-21, 23-53, 55-212

ECF No. 2129, Robinson Decl., ¶ 5

ECF No. 2130, Hauser Decl., ¶¶ 19-29

ECF No. 2127-3, Singh Decl. (entire document)

ECF No. 1982-2, Musika Decl., ¶¶ 10-29, 31-37, 40-53, 55-60, Exhs. 1-40, 44, 48-63, 66-68

ECF No. 1985, Schiller Decl., ¶¶ 4-9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2013 _________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 2212 Filed 01/02/13 Page 2 of 2