Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/235595282/14-07-28-Apple-Responsive-Brief-to-Samsung-Appeal
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 03:30:50+00:00

Document:
14-07-28 Apple Responsive Brief to Samsung Appeal | I Phone | Apple Inc.
Northern District of California in case no. 11-CV-1846, J udge Lucy H. Koh.
BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF-CROSS APPELLANT APPLE INC.
Matthew Ahn (former), Charles S. Barquist, J ason R. Bartlett, Ruth N.
Williford Londen, Harold J . McElhinny, Andrew Ellis Monach, Erik J .
Lauren B. Fletcher, Sarah R. Frazier, Richard Goldenberg, Robert J .
Derek Lam, Gregory H. Lantier, Brian Larivee, William F. Lee, Andrew L.
Victor F. Souto, Thomas G. Sprankling, Timothy Davis Syrett, Nina S.
MAVRAKAKIS LAW GROUP LLP: Kenneth H. Bridges (former), Michael T.
American Seating Co. v. USSC Group, Inc., 514 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir.
Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Electronics, Inc., 847 F.2d 819 (Fed. Cir.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 727 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir.
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 735 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir.
Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp. 476 (D. Minn.
Blockbuster Videos, Inc. v. City of Tempe, 141 F.3d 1295 (9th Cir.
Catalina Lighting, Inc. v. Lamps Plus, Inc., 295 F.3d 1277 (Fed. Cir.
Clicks Billiards, Inc. v. Sixshooters, Inc., 251 F.3d 1252 (9th Cir.
Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 720 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.
Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir.
Fuddruckers, Inc. v. Docs B.R. Others, Inc., 826 F.2d 837 (9th Cir.
Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir.
L.A. Gear, Inc. v. Thom McAn Shoe Co., 988 F.2d 1117 (Fed. Cir.
Malletier v. Dooney & Bourke, Inc., 561 F. Supp. 2d 368 (S.D.N.Y.
Nike, Inc. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 138 F.3d 1437 (Fed. Cir.
OddzOn Products, Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir.
PHG Technologies, LLC v. St. John Cos., 469 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir.
Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Manufacturing Co., 620 F.2d 1166 (6th Cir.
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 439 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir.
Versata Software, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 717 F.3d 1255 (Fed. Cir.
Whitserve LLC v. Computer Packages, Inc., 694 F.3d 10 (Fed. Cir.
Wong v. Regents of University of California, 410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir.
This Court previously resolved three appeals in this case.
appeal was voluntarily dismissed after the jurys verdict.
Samsungs requests to seal certain confidential record material. Apple Inc. v.
Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2012-1600, 2012-1606, 2013-1146, 727 F.3d 1214 (Fed.
Cir. Aug. 23, 2013) (Prost, J ., joined by Bryson & OMalley, J J .).
courts grant of Apples motion for a preliminary injunction. Apple Inc. v.
(Prost, J ., joined by Moore & Reyna, J J .) (Apple II), pet. for rehg denied (J an.
The district court had jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. 1121 and 28 U.S.C.
under 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(1) or 1292(c)(2).
litigation in an effort to end Samsungs unfair competition.
On appeal, Samsung contends that Apple should recover nothing at all.
not come close to the standard required to overturn any portion of the verdict.
anticipated and the district court correctly held the 163 patent not indefinite.
interface brought Apple enormous success. A40627-A40628.
critical to its instant commercial success. A40628.
protect areas that [Apple] do[es] not want people to copy. A42019:15-16.
The iPhone design is protected by, among others, U.S. Design Patent Nos.
A1313-A1314; see A41016-A41019; Apple I, 678 F.3d at 1317.
A1298; see A41021-A41022; Apple I, 678 F.3d at 1317.
evenly rounded corners set off from the displays other icons.
A41504; A90090; see Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1358.
patent), and 7,864,163 (163 patent).
modifying a document or image (e.g., a two-fingered pinch-to-zoom gesture).
A1136 (claim 8); A41823-A41824; see Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1358.
A41837-A41838; see Apple III, 735 F.3d at 1358.
C. Samsung Deliberately Copied Apples iPhone And iPad.
most stylish brand overall (A25174).
Apples. E.g., A25487; A25492; A25496; see A41414-A41416.
years iPhone 3GS model. A24688.
patents. Samsungs documents show that this copying was no accident.
effect in Samsungs products as serious and critical defect); A41764-A41773.
fun and add a game-like quality to interactions. A25178.
Significant Market Share From Apple.
E. Apple Brought This Lawsuit To Halt Samsungs Copying.
Samsung refused, Apple brought this lawsuit.
A632-A643. The first jury awarded over $1 billion in damages. A646-A647.
willful because Samsungs defenses were objectively reasonable. A74-A80.
A114; A8169. The court ordered a partial retrial on damages for those products.
pressing those issues on appeal.
viewed in light of the substantially different prior art.
as clearly foreclosed by Federal Circuit precedent. A100 (citing Nike, Inc. v.
Samsungs copied products amply permitted a finding of likely dilution.
Apple proved its own lost profits through its experts market-share analysis.
Samsungs failure to timely disclose it.
and that conclusion is contrary to that of the jury. Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v.
Cir. 2010). So, too, are design-patent infringement and utility-patent anticipation.
Energy Transp. Grp. v. William Demant Holding A/S, 697 F.3d 1342, 1351 (Fed.
Cir. 2012). Indefiniteness is a legal issue reviewed de novo. Braintree Labs., Inc.
v. Novel Labs., Inc., 749 F.3d 1349, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
v. NFL, 791 F.2d 1356, 1360 (9th Cir. 1986)).
new trial. SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn Techs., Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
1304 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (en banc))); Dang v. Cross, 422 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.
substance of the applicable law was [not] fairly and correctly covered).
Denial of a new trial is reviewed for abuse of discretion, Molski v. M.J.
Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 2007), as are evidentiary rulings, Boyd v.
City & Cnty. of S.F., 576 F.3d 938, 943 (9th Cir. 2009).
I. THE DESIGN-PATENT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.
jurys validity findings for Apples design patents.
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (cited at Samsung Br. 19) cannot overrule SynQor.
439 F.3d 1312, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
similarities in the overall design, not an element-by-element comparison).
Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d 1396, 1399, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997)).
Emphases are added unless otherwise indicated.
detail is likely to do more harm than good. Id.
design must not be governed solely by function[.] (alteration in original)).
Unican Corp., 94 F.3d 1563, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
[the] design is dictated by how the article claimed in the patent works. A1401.
functionality by considering alternative designs, advertising, and other factors.
See McKenna & Strandburg, Progress and Competition in Design, 17 Stan.
An Alternative When the Low Standards of Copyright Are Too High?, 31 S. Ill. U.
requirement means that the design must not be governed solely by function).
that they are not truly alternatives. 469 F.3d at 1367.
in the instructions as a whole clearly mislead the jury).
observer test for infringement, which tracked the Supreme Courts language.
supposing it to be the other.).
considers similarity through the eyes of a hypothetical ordinary observer).
show any prejudice from the instructions given.
B. Substantial Evidence Supports The Jurys Infringement Findings.
clearly justified the jurys infringement findings.
avoidance of infringement by labelling).
A24723; A24725; A24736; A24740; A24748.
A90147; see A24709; A24712; A24748.
show Apples claimed features to be purely functional or structural. Br. 27.
beauty. E.g., A24903-A24906; A27141-A27144; A27150-A27152.
element, clear cover, or speaker at the top renders Apples designs functional.
of a clear cover over the display portion requires that patented design element.
(design not functional when alternative designs available).
(Br. 32-34) that the prior art somehow refutes Apples infringement proof. Not so.
overall impression. A43608:17-A43609:11; see A43610-A43613.
that these significant differences substantiate[d] his infringement opinion.
regarded as deceptively similar to the claimed design, and thus infringing.).
easily see the substantial differences between Apples patents and the prior art.
Samsungs attorney used the words little details in cross-examining Mr.
Bressler (Br. 33 (quoting A43624)); Mr. Bressler did not use or adopt them.
height and width proportions were noticeably different from both patented designs.
and differently placed, and the width of its frame was different. A43608-A43609.
anywhere other than the smaller, narrower display. A43610:9-A43611:3.
centered and had a very large key running across the bottom. A43611:15-25.
A24726; A24732; A24734; A24737; A24741; A24749.
industry (A25261). See supra pp. 14-15.
testified that the D305 design is a beautiful set of icons. A40630:21-22. Dr.
could not use a smartphone unless it had color[ful] rounded squares as icons.
black and white is strong and terrific).
See A27203-A27204, A27206, A27476-A27477 (admitted as physical exhibits).
ornamental, not dictated by function.
Legally Proper And Supported By Substantial Evidence.
infringement, consisting of Samsungs profits from eleven infringing phones. Br.
1. The total profit instruction was proper.
A design-patent holder is entitled to an infringers total profit, 35 U.S.C.
qualities of the patented article. Bergstrom v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 496 F. Supp.
elsewhere, current law required the district court to instruct the jury as it did.
E.g., Lemley, A Rational System of Design Patent Remedies, 17 Stan. Tech. L.
have been wrong as a matter of law).
and not some profitsis well-supported by the statutes history and purpose.
Co., 114 U.S. 439 (1885)).
sum was not apportionable. 18 Cong. Rec. at 834.
was enacted to overturn the Dobson rule that an apportionment was required).
total profit provision for design patents.); Nike, 138 F.3d at 1443.
requirements into 289 should be rejected.
all, from Congress, not by the J udiciary forecasting Congress likely disposition.
elsewhere concede that their desired policy change requires congressional action.
law gives the right to recover all profits from an infringement [of a design patent].
be proved to be attributable to the design.).
found. Br. 36 (quoting A6982).
profit was due to the [infringing] design).
Samsungs passing citation (Br. 37) to Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S.
1 (1966), also does not support reading in an apportionment/causation requirement.
the old statute, which unsurprisingly required some revision in language.
(1991). Congress did neither here.
Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79, 81-82 (2d Cir. 1916)).
all subsequent panels absent a change in law[.]).
argument. Schnadig Corp. v. Gaines Mfg. Co., 1977 WL 23183, at *3 (W.D.
from the refrigerator belonged to him.
Congress enacted 289 to overturn.
invoke impleader, as one of Samsungs amici explains. Lemley, supra, at 231.
II. THE TRADE-DRESS JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.
features such as size, shape, color, color combinations, texture, or graphics.
McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition 24:73 (4th ed. 2014).
damages all collapse under substantial record evidence.
sales, (iii) actual recognition, and (iv) registration. See id.; A1418; Jada Toys, Inc.
dresses were famous in J uly 2010 when Samsungs diluting uses began. A60-A61.
iPhone advertising before J uly 2010. A40654-A40655; A24902; A24965.
orchestrated to create a high degree of distinctiveness of the trade dress elements.
arrangement of those elements create. Clicks Billiards, 251 F.3d at 1259.
front face and graphical user interface, which again showed Apples trade dress.
sales before the iPhone 4s release in J une 2010. A24901.
with a new phone (A42119:20-24).
the iPhone 4 in J une 2010. See A24904-A24905.
hits on Google, making it indeed a household name (Br. 47). A25162.
iPhone ha[d] become the standard for consumers and the industry alike.
the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.
on which the jury was instructed. A57-A58; A1412; A1415.
conclusion that the component parts of the [trade dress] were functional.).
Apples trade dresses are non-functional.
had utilitarian advantage. A24896; see supra p. 55.
simple or inexpensive method of manufacture. Talking Rain, 349 F.3d at 603.
processes to create the receiver slot in the glass and to machine the [steel] bezel.
physical design did not contribute unusually to the usability of the device.
explained that [i]ts very simple. It was the most beautiful of our designs.
showing other iPhone prototypes, demonstrated numerous alternative designs.
3. Samsungs aesthetic functionality argument fails.
impose a significant non-reputation-related competitive disadvantage.
Au-Tomotive Gold, Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 457 F.3d 1062, 1072 (9th Cir.
fact that a trademark is desirable does not, and should not, render it unprotectable.
were developed for beauty and distinctiveness, not for superior performance.
dress would put Samsung at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.
which should be weighed given the facts and circumstances of the case.
confirmed, significant evidence supports the jurys dilution finding. A61-A62.
themselves by examining Samsungs products.
Samsung identifies tiny purported variations in the home screen icons. Br.
colorful icons, all of which Samsungs devices possess. See Levi Strauss & Co. v.
device is identical, nearly identical, or substantially similar).
see supra p. 55; Clamp Mfg. Co. v. Enco Mfg. Co., 870 F.2d 512, 517 (9th Cir.
(A41588-A41589), which shows a high degree of recognition.
association between its products and Apples trade dresses.
copied Apples trade dresses, creating a high degree of [actual] dilution.
and shockingly similar to the iPhone).
state of mind of industry commentators who perceived the devices as similar.
A62; see Conversive, Inc. v. Conversagent, Inc., 433 F. Supp. 2d 1079, 1091 (C.D.
their belief that those persons were Barney (emphasis in original)).
D. Samsungs Constitutional Argument Is Waived And Incorrect.
E.R. Fegert, Inc., 887 F.2d 955, 957 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Fuji Photo Film Co.
v. Jazz Photo Corp., 394 F.3d 1368, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
At any rate, Samsung identifies no case holding the statute unconstitutional.
simultaneously protect particular product features. I.P. Lund Trading ApS v.
federal preemption of state regulation of intellectual property. Bonito Boats, Inc.
within Congresss power to regulate interstate commerce, see 15 U.S.C.
Samsung points to nothing in the Patent Clause suggesting otherwise.
E. Substantial Evidence Supports The Damages Award.
awarded for these six products is well-supported.
(9th Cir. 1990); see also Bollinger v. Oregon, 305 F. Appx 344, 345 (9th Cir.
instructions on those specific bases).
by not objecting to the final jury instructions on that basis. A7199; A7226-A7227.
[district] court and is waived. Grosvenor, 896 F.2d at 1152.
the context of the entire trial (emphasis omitted)).
associated with Apples famous iPhone trade dresses. 15 U.S.C.
Samsungs attacks on the jurys factual finding of willful dilution all fail.
2013 WL 5575070, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 10, 2013).
(A41483-A41484) and set the standard in the industry (A25173). See supra pp.
purely factual question for the jury to decide. A62; see, e.g., B&H Mfg. Co. v.
status as a competitor or the form of Apples trade dresses. See 15 U.S.C.
(A78-A79), which has no analog in the trade-dress dilution context. See supra pp.
3. Substantial evidence supports the damages amount.
A1426; see Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Co., 982 F.2d 1400, 1408 (9th Cir. 1993).
no evidence that it met its burden (see Br. 62-63).
and the award is clearly within the range encompassed by the record as a whole.
other than its use of Apples trade dress (A26444; see A26441).
(9th Cir. 1993); Kaufman Co. v. Lantech, Inc., 926 F.2d 1136, 1141 (Fed. Cir.
alternatives in calculating Apples lost profits. A42083; A42090-A42092.
on evidence of sales, costs, and potential lost sales).
III. THE UTILITY-PATENT JUDGMENT SHOULD BE AFFIRMED.
Of The 915 Patent Is Not Inherently Anticipated.
as Apple did with Samsungs code to demonstrate infringement. A41827-A41828.
source code and agreed that he could not find an event object in Nomura.
A42938:9-12. The jury was entitled to reject Samsungs invalidity contentions.
possible way of tracking movement history involves an event object. Br. 65.
based on waived claim construction becomes a pure factual issue).
B. Claim 50 Of The 163 Patent Is Not Indefinite.
them indefinite. E.g., Verve, LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed.
not mention the supposedly anticipatory reference (Hillis) from the reexamination.
of degree like substantially equal to. Id. at 1351.
standard. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129 (2014).
Samsungs burden to demonstrate indefiniteness by clear and convincing evidence.
Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. Pship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011).
shows that a skilled artisan would understand its meaning (A9).
centering would result in empty space on the side of the screen. A40759-40760.
showing space beyond the edge of a document). Id.
verdict is accepted, the $114 million award is well-supported by the evidence.
infringement.). The unchallenged jury instructions reflected that principle.
including Samsungs Interceptwhen reconstructing the but for world.
had any acceptable, available alternatives in any event, as the next section explains.
Ace were not acceptable, available alternatives.
have been an acceptable, available alternative to Samsungs infringing products.
Presidio, 702 F.3d at 1361).
customer who wants those advantages. 702 F.3d at 1361 (citation omitted).
significantly different from the patented product.).
find that such hypothetical alternatives would not have been available.
3. Apple presented sufficient evidence of demand.
the lack of U.S. sales of the Galaxy Ace. A51203.
infringing alternatives. Id. at 1331.
patent as a blast and wicked cool. A27142-A27143; see A50819-A50820.
patented features. 567 F.3d at 1330-1331.
findings of demand based on far more generalized proof. See, e.g., Funai Elec. Co.
preferred the 915 patents technology over the non-infringing alternatives. Br.
examining Dr. Hauser (A50610); the jury was free to reject it.
D. Substantial Evidence Supports The Reasonable-Royalty Awards.
profits analysis, including Dr. Hausers survey and several Samsung documents.
by the record as a whole (internal quotation marks omitted)).
Samsung criticizes the district court for citing Ms. Daviss expert report (Br.
73), but the court did so in response to Samsungs untimely challenge to Ms.
sufficient to defeat Samsungs J MOL motion. Id.
the significant demand for the patented features through his conjoint analysis.
A50911-A50912. Taken together, the evidence is more than substantial.
A. Samsung Shows No Instructional Error.
new trial. See, e.g., SynQor, 709 F.3d at 1379; Dang, 422 F.3d at 804-805.
that Samsung reaped as a result.
sanctions and exclusions of evidence.).
abuse of discretion. Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1175 (9th Cir. 2000).
would have more probabl[y] than not affected the outcome. ATD Corp. v.
ultimately chose not to call Mr. Lee as a witness. A90356-A90358.
2014, by the CM/ECF system.
Word 2010 in a proportionally spaced typeface: Times New Roman, font size 14.
brief may contain the same number of additional pages or words.
Order in the matter of SLB Invest (India) Limited.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 

v. 

v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 

v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.