Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846/USCOURTS-cand-5_11-cv-01846-443/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 RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

APPLE INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD., 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN 

LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S 

EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

Re: Dkt. Nos. 3404, 3396, 3397, 3398

On February 18, 2016, the parties each filed three motions in limine in advance of the 

damages retrial in this matter scheduled to begin on March 28, 2016. In addition, Samsung 

identified five additional evidentiary disputes in the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement. As 

previously ordered, the Court will hold oral argument on Samsung’s three motions in limine at the 

Pretrial Conference scheduled for March 3, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. See ECF No. 3423 (Order re: Oral 

Argument). The Court finds that Apple’s motions in limine and the five additional evidentiary 

disputes raised by Samsung are appropriate for resolution without oral argument pursuant to Civil 

Local Rule 7–1(b). The Court has considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant law, and the 

record in this case, and sets forth its rulings below. 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 1 of 8
2

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

I. BACKGROUND

The Court’s September 1, 2015 Case Management Order permitted each party to file three 

motions in limine. ECF No. 3272 at 3 (“September 1, 2015 Order”). Apple filed motions in 

limine (1) Regarding Post-Trial Events, see ECF No. 3396; (2) Regarding Reexamination or IPR 

Proceedings, see ECF No. 3397; and (3) Regarding New ’915 Design-Arounds, see ECF No. 

3398. Samsung opposed or partially opposed each of Apple’s motions. See ECF No. 3417; ECF 

No. 3418; ECF No. 3420. For its part, Samsung filed motions in limine to (1) Exclude Evidence 

or Argument Regarding Samsung’s Revenue or Profit from All Infringing Sales; (2) Exclude 

Evidence of Market Share Based on Products Not at Issue in This Trial; and (3) Exclude 

Testimony of Julie Davis as to a Purely Legal Issue. See ECF No. 3395-3. Apple opposed each of 

Samsung’s motions. See ECF No. 3416; ECF No. 3417; ECF No. 3418. 

In the parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement, Samsung identified its three motions in limine as 

Disputed Evidentiary Issues Nos. 1–3. ECF No. 3404 at 16–17. Samsung additionally identified 

five additional evidentiary disputes, Nos. 4–8, regarding various other issues. ECF No. 3404 at 

18–19. Apple responded to each of these five disputes in the Joint Pretrial Statement. ECF No. 

3404 at 14–15.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has broad discretion to manage the conduct of a trial and the evidence presented 

by the parties. See, e.g., ECF No. 3380 at 5 (collecting cases). In addition, the Federal Rules of 

Evidence “confer broad discretion on the trial judge to exclude evidence on any of the grounds 

specified in Rule 403.” United States v. Hearst, 563 F.2d 1331, 1349 (9th Cir. 1977). Federal 

Rule of Evidence 403 provides that “[t]he court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative 

value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, 

confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting 

cumulative evidence.” Each ruling below balances the factors set forth in Rule 403.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 2 of 8
3

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

III. DISCUSSION

A. Apple’s Motions In Limine

1. Apple’s Motion In Limine No. 1 — Regarding Post-Trial Events

Apple’s first motion in limine broadly seeks to exclude all evidence that post-dates the 

2012 trial. ECF No. 3396. The Court has already ordered that the discovery cut-off of the 2012 

trial will apply to the 2016 damages retrial, and that except as otherwise specifically ordered the 

parties may not rely on new methodologies, new theories, or new data not timely disclosed in 

advance of the 2012 trial. See September 1, 2015 Order at 2–3. Apple has not identified what 

additional specific evidence Samsung seeks to use at trial that Apple wishes to exclude in this 

motion in limine. Accordingly, Apple’s broad request is DENIED without prejudice to Apple 

raising any specific objections at trial.

2. Apple’s Motion In Limine No. 2 — Regarding Reexamination or IPR 

Proceedings

Apple’s second motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence regarding patent reexamination 

and inter partes review proceedings concerning the patents in suit. ECF No. 3397. Samsung 

acknowledges that the Court has already ruled that “evidence of how other courts or tribunals have 

construed or ruled on any Apple or Samsung patents” is not admissible evidence, ECF No. 1267 at 

3; ECF No. 2562 at 22:6–17, and has no intention of relitigating the Court’s ruling. ECF No. 3420 

at 1. Accordingly, the Court’s prior rulings remain in effect as law of the case. Samsung 

maintains its objections “for purposes of preservation only.” ECF No. 3420 at 1. Apple’s second 

motion in limine is therefore GRANTED.

3. Apple’s Motion In Limine No. 3 — Regarding New ’915 Design-Arounds

Apple’s third motion in limine seeks to exclude evidence regarding ’915 design-arounds 

that post-date the 2012 trial. The Court has consistently held that in the interests of fairness, 

efficiency, and the need for a coherent record on appeal, the parties may not introduce new 

evidence in the 2016 damages retrial. See, e.g., September 1, 2015 Order at 2–3; see also ECF 

No. 3380. The Court imposed the same evidentiary cutoff in the 2013 damages retrial, and the use 

of that evidentiary cutoff has now been affirmed by the Federal Circuit. For these reasons, as well 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 3 of 8
4

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

as the reasons articulated in the Court’s separate Order Denying Samsung’s Motion To Introduce 

At the Damages Retrial Evidence Created After the July 2012 Trial, see ECF No. 3430, Apple’s 

motion in limine is GRANTED to the extent that Samsung may not introduce evidence (including 

source code) or testimony (whether through a fact witness or through an expert) regarding

implementation of any ’915 design-around that occurred after the 2012 trial.

Samsung argues that, in addition to seeking to exclude new evidence and testimony

relating to the actual implementation of Samsung’s design-around after the 2012 trial, Apple’s 

motion in limine improperly seeks to preclude testimony concerning the hypothetical possibility of 

a design-around, which Samsung’s expert, Stephen Gray, disclosed in expert reports in advance of 

the 2012 trial. ECF No. 3417 at 1–2; see ECF No. 3417-3, ¶¶ 198–204 (excerpt from Apr. 16, 

2012 Rebuttal Expert Report of Stephen Gray). To the extent Apple’s motion seeks to preclude 

Samsung from relying on properly disclosed expert opinions, as opposed to new evidence or 

testimony, it is DENIED.

Accordingly, as set forth above, Apple’s third motion in limine is GRANTED IN PART 

AND DENIED IN PART.

B. Samsung’s Disputed Evidentiary Issues

As noted above, the first three disputed evidentiary issues identified by Samsung in the 

parties’ Joint Pretrial Statement are Samsung’s motions in limine, which will be argued at the 

Pretrial Conference. Without authorization, Samsung included five additional motions in limine 

as “disputed evidentiary issues” in its portion of the Joint Pretrial Statement. ECF No. 3404 at 18–

19. Samsung’s evasion of the three motions in limine limit alone would be sufficient basis to deny 

Samsung’s motions without consideration of the merits. In the interest of efficiency and to 

provide guidance for the parties in advance of the upcoming retrial, however, the Court will 

address Samsung’s remaining “disputed evidentiary issue” motions in limine that Samsung filed 

without authorization from the Court.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 4 of 8
5

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

1. Samsung’s Disputed Evidentiary Issue Nos. 4 & 5 — References to Samsung 

Being a Korean Company or References to Nationality of Samsung Witnesses

Samsung’s fourth disputed evidentiary issue asks that Apple “be precluded from making 

references to [Samsung Electronics Co.] being a foreign or Korean corporation and to [Samsung 

Telecommunications America and Samsung Electronics America] having a foreign or Korean 

parent.” ECF No. 3404 at 18. Samsung’s fifth disputed evidentiary issue similarly asks that 

Apple “be precluded from referencing the nationality or country of employment of Samsung 

witnesses.” ECF No. 3404 at 18. 

Samsung’s request to bar any reference to Samsung Electronics Co. being Korean or any 

reference to the nationality of Samsung’s witnesses is overly broad. The Court directs the parties 

to the Court’s detailed ruling on this issue in its February 7, 2014 Order Denying Samsung’s 

Motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law following the 2013 damages retrial. ECF No. 2947 at 

20–29 (“February 7, 2014 Order”). As the Court explained in that ruling, for example, Apple’s 

references to “Samsung Korea” were permissibly “made to explain Samsung’s corporate structure 

and the interplay between various executives.” The Court held that, in context, these questions 

and comments did not evoke racial or national origin prejudice. Accordingly, Samsung’s request 

to broadly bar such references is DENIED without prejudice to Samsung raising any specific 

objections at trial.

Although the Court denies Samsung’s broad request, the Court is mindful that a portion of 

Apple’s closing argument at the 2013 damages retrial included a troubling theme which could 

have been perceived as invoking racial or ethnic prejudice. In its February 7, 2014 Order, the 

Court found that the incident was isolated and did not permeate Apple’s trial conduct at the 2013 

damages retrial. In light of the Court’s admonitions in the February 7, 2014 Order, the Court has 

no reason to believe that Apple will make similar comments going forward. Nevertheless, the 

Court repeats its admonishment that the parties’ counsel “be mindful of the important role that 

lawyers play in the actual and perceived fairness of our legal system” as they prepare for the 

upcoming trial. February 7, 2014 Order at 28–29.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 5 of 8
6

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

2. Samsung’s Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 6 — Undisclosed “But For” 

Opinion of Apple’s Survey Expert

At the 2013 damages retrial, in response to cross-examination questioning by Samsung, 

Apple’s survey expert John Hauser testified that but for the infringing features, many surveyed 

Samsung consumers would not have bought infringing Samsung phones. In a November 17, 2013

Order, the Court ruled that Hauser’s “but for” opinion was an undisclosed new opinion. ECF No. 

2776. As a sanction under Rule 37(c)(1)(C) for this failure to disclose, the Court ruled that Apple 

could not rely on Hauser’s new “but for” opinion in argument. Id. at 8–9. Apple also stated on 

the record that its damages expert, Julie Davis, would not rely on Hauser’s new theory in her 

testimony. Id. at 9.

However, the Court did not strike Hauser’s trial testimony, in part because Samsung did 

not contemporaneously object to the testimony, and in part because striking the testimony would 

have drawn further attention to Hauser’s new opinion by re-raising it with the jury the following 

day. ECF No. 2776 at 8. Here, by contrast, precluding Hauser from testifying as to his 

undisclosed “but for” opinion does not present similar concerns about drawing the jury’s attention 

to the undisclosed opinion because the trial has not yet begun. Given the Court’s previous ruling 

that Apple may not rely on Hauser’s undisclosed “but for” theory, Samsung’s request to preclude 

Hauser from testifying as that theory is GRANTED.

3. Samsung’s Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 7 — Allegations of Copying or 

Demand

Samsung’s seventh disputed evidentiary issue states, in its entirety, “Apple should be 

precluded from introducing allegations and purported evidence of copying or demand where such 

evidence is either irrelevant to Apple’s sought damages, was not previously disclosed by Apple as 

related in any way to damages, or where the potential probative value is substantially outweighed 

by its prejudicial or misleading effect.” ECF No. 3404 at 18–19. Samsung broadly requests that 

the Court prevent Apple from introducing irrelevant evidence, evidence that has not been 

previously disclosed, and evidence whose probative value is substantially outweighed by its 

prejudicial or misleading effect. Samsung does not, however, actually identify any specific 

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 6 of 8
7

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

evidence Samsung seeks to exclude. Samsung’s broad request is therefore DENIED without 

prejudice to Samsung raising any specific objections at trial.

4. Samsung’s Disputed Evidentiary Issue No. 8 — Samsung Products as NonInfringing Alternatives

Samsung’s eighth disputed evidentiary issue asks “whether, and to what extent, Samsung’s 

products not accused of infringement of the ’915, ’381, ’163, D’305, D’087, or D’677 patents, or 

found by the 2012 jury not to infringe one or more of those patents, are evidence of non-infringing 

alternatives to those patents.” ECF No. 3404 at 19.

It is unclear what ruling Samsung’s eighth issue seeks. The Court has already issued 

multiple rulings in both the instant retrial and the 2013 damages retrial on Apple’s objections to

Samsung’s proposed use of Samsung products found not to infringe one or more of Apple’s 

patents as evidence of non-infringing alternatives to those patents. See ECF Nos. 2657, 2696, 

3380. Samsung has neither specified what further clarification Samsung desires nor what 

unaccused products Samsung seeks to rely upon as evidence of non-infringing alternatives. To the 

extent Samsung’s eighth disputed evidentiary issue seeks a ruling on an evidentiary issue, that 

request is DENIED without prejudice.

IV. CONCLUSION

In summary, for the foregoing reasons:

 Apple’s first motion in limine (regarding post-trial events) is DENIED WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE.

 Apple’s second motion in limine (regarding reexamination proceedings) is 

GRANTED.

 Apple’s third motion in limine (regarding new ’915 design-arounds) is GRANTED

IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.

 Samsung’s fourth and fifth disputed evidentiary issues (motions to preclude

references to Samsung being a Korean company or references to nationality of 

Samsung witnesses) are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 7 of 8
8

Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK 

ORDER RE: APPLE’S MOTIONS IN LIMINE AND SAMSUNG’S EVIDENTIARY DISPUTES

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

Northern District of California

 Samsung’s sixth disputed evidentiary issue (motion to preclude the undisclosed 

“but for” opinion of Apple’s survey expert) is GRANTED.

 Samsung’s seventh disputed evidentiary issue (motion to preclude allegations of 

copying or demand) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

 Samsung’s eighth disputed evidentiary issue (motion regarding Samsung products 

as non-infringing alternatives) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 2, 2016

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document 3440 Filed 03/02/16 Page 8 of 8