Source: https://de.scribd.com/doc/237442252/14-08-21-Order-Denying-Samsung-s-Alice-based-Motion
Timestamp: 2016-04-28 23:52:51
Document Index: 333719641

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§101', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 102', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 101', '§ 112', '§ 101']

HochladenSign inJoinBooksAudiobooksComicsSheet MusicEditors' Picks BooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks AudiobooksHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks ComicsHand-picked favorites from our editorsEditors' Picks Sheet MusicHand-picked favorites from our editorsTop BooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop AudiobooksWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop ComicsWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreTop Sheet MusicWhat's trending, bestsellers, award-winners & moreCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodCrafts & HobbiesFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesArts & IdeasBiography & MemoirBusiness & LeadershipChildren'sComputers & TechnologyCooking & FoodFantasyFiction & LiteratureHappiness & Self-HelpHealth & WellnessHistoryHome & GardenHumorLGBTMystery, Thriller & CrimePolitics & EconomyReferenceReligionRomanceScience & NatureScience FictionSociety & CultureSports & AdventureTravelYoung AdultCategoriesAdaptationsChildren’sCrime & MysteryFictionHumorMangaNonfictionRomanceSciFi, Fantasy & HorrorSuperheroesYoung AdultPublishersArcanaArchie ComicsBOOM! StudiosDynamiteIDW PublishingKingstone ComicsMarvel ComicsSpace Goat ProductionsTop Cow ComicsTop Shelf ProductionsValiant Comics ZenescopeDifficultyBeginnerIntermediateAdvancedMixedInstrumentBrassDrums & PercussionGuitar, Bass, and FrettedPianoStringsVocalWoodwindsGenreClassicalCountryFolkJazz & BluesMovies & MusicalsPop & RockReligious & HolidayStandardsWelcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more1Case No.: 12-CV-00630 ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 U
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN J OSE DIVISION APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants and Counterclaimants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 After trial and shortly before the J uly 10, 2014 hearing on post-trial motions, Samsung requested supplemental briefing to argue that the asserted claims of Apple’s ’959 and ’721 patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (J une 19, 2014) (“Alice”). See ECF No. 1935. After receiving briefing from both sides on procedural and substantive issues (ECF No. 1937), the Court DENIES Samsung’s request for judgment of invalidity regarding the ’959 and ’721 patents as untimely. Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1952 Filed08/21/14 Page1 of 5
2 Case No.: 12-CV-00630 ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 U
I. BACKGROUND The trial in this case began on March 31, 2014, and the jury verdict was entered on May 5, 2014. ECF No. 1884. In accordance with a pretrial case management order (ECF No. 1398), the parties completed briefing of all post-trial motions on J une 13, 2014, with a hearing on those motions scheduled for J uly 10, 2014. On J une 19, 2014, the Supreme Court decided Alice. On J uly 3, 2014, one week before the post-trial hearing, Samsung filed a “Request for Leave for Supplemental Briefing” to address Alice. ECF No. 1935 (“Req.”). Samsung simultaneously filed its proposed supplemental brief, which claimed that asserted claim 25 of the ’959 patent and claim 8 of the’721 patent are invalid under § 101 as unpatentable abstract ideas. ECF No. 1935-2 (“Supp. Br.”). In its proposed order, Samsung requested that Apple’s response be due J uly 8, 2014, with Samsung’s reply due J uly 9, 2014. ECF No. 1936. On J uly 4, 2014, the Court issued an order allowing both parties to file supplemental briefs to address both procedural and substantive issues. ECF No. 1937. In accordance with that order, Apple filed its response on J uly 17, 2014 (ECF No. 1947, “Resp.”), and Samsung filed its reply on J uly 24, 2014 (ECF No. 1950, “Reply”). II. DISCUSSION The Court concludes in this case that Samsung could have—but failed to—preserve § 101 invalidity defenses, and that Samsung’s request for the Court to adjudicate a legal theory that was disclosed after trial is untimely, regardless of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Alice. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the merits of Samsung’s § 101 arguments. Samsung’s request is a belated attempt to litigate entirely new substantive defenses. Samsung seeks post-trial judgment as a matter of law of invalidity under § 101 for the ’959 and ’721 patents, Supp. Br. at 1, and claims that supplemental briefing “would assist the Court in assessing the impact of Alice on the pending post-trial motions,” Req. at 1. However, Samsung failed to assert and to preserve § 101 defenses for any Apple patents before, during, or after trial, and now fails to demonstrate good cause for the Court to evaluate new defenses months after the conclusion of trial. Samsung’s arguments to the contrary are unavailing. Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1952 Filed08/21/14 Page2 of 5
3 Case No.: 12-CV-00630 ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 U
First, Samsung claims that it “preserved § 101 by advancing invalidity contentions that raised § 101.” Reply at 4. Samsung cites statements in its May 24, 2013 disclosures of invalidity contentions to Apple. See ECF No. 540-16 at 66-67 (contentions for ’959 patent), 113-14 (contentions for ’721 patent). However, those disclosures were very brief and served over ten months prior to trial, which started on March 31, 2014. After Samsung served those invalidity contentions, the parties proceeded with expert discovery. Samsung’s technical experts on invalidity for the ’959 and ’721 patents (Drs. Martin Rinard and Saul Greenberg, respectively) did not disclose any opinions regarding § 101 in their reports. As a result, the parties have not provided any expert opinions (or other potentially relevant evidence) regarding their § 101 arguments. Samsung also declined to assert § 101 in summary judgment motions. Samsung has identified no other disclosure after its May 24, 2013 invalidity contentions where Samsung stated that it would continue to assert § 101. Next, Samsung argues that it preserved § 101 “by seeking a declaration of invalidity in the J oint Amended Pretrial Statement,” and that “the defense was undeniably ‘implicit’ in the J oint Pretrial Statement’s request for an invalidity finding – a request that necessarily incorporated Samsung’s invalidity contentions, including their discussion of §101.” Reply at 4. Samsung’s arguments are misplaced. On March 13, 2014, the parties filed a J oint Amended Pretrial Statement and Proposed Order, listing all remaining disputed issues. ECF No. 1455-1. Samsung enumerated 31 disputed legal issues—including defenses under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112—but did not identify any § 101 defenses against any Apple patents, nor incorporate Samsung’s earlier invalidity contentions. See id. at 12-18. The pretrial order “controls the course of the action unless the court modifies it,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(d), and the Ninth Circuit has “consistently held that issues not preserved in the pretrial order have been eliminated from the action,” S. Cal. Retail Clerks Union v. Bjorklund, 728 F.2d 1262, 1264 (9th Cir. 1984). “Although we liberally construe pretrial orders, a theory will be barred if not at least implicitly included in the order.” Eagle v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 769 F.2d 541, 548 (9th Cir. 1985). Here, Samsung did not “implicitly” include § 101 by merely requesting a declaration of invalidity of the asserted patent claims because invalidity encompasses a range of legal theories under separate statutes that require different forms of proof. The Ninth Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1952 Filed08/21/14 Page3 of 5
4 Case No.: 12-CV-00630 ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 U
Circuit requires greater specificity in identifying asserted legal theories prior to trial. See Dream Games of Ariz., Inc. v. PC Onsite, 561 F.3d 983, 995-96 (9th Cir. 2009) (“Allowing Dream Games to argue secondary liability in response to a J MOL motion and on appeal would unduly prejudice PC Onsite by not giving it fair notice of the claims at trial.”). Critically, Samsung did not raise § 101 at trial or in any pre-verdict or post-verdict motions for judgment as a matter of law (“J MOL”). During trial, Samsung filed multiple pre-verdict J MOL motions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(a). See ECF Nos. 1663, 1806-1. Then, Samsung filed a renewed post-verdict J MOL motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b). See ECF No. 1896-3. In those motions, Samsung identified numerous invalidity defenses, including anticipation, obviousness, and indefiniteness. See, e.g., ECF No. 1806-1 at 4-5; ECF No. 1896-3 at 28-34. However, in none of those motions did Samsung seek judgment under § 101. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that “a party must file a pre-verdict J MOL motion on all theories . . . that it wishes to challenge with a post-verdict J MOL.” i4i Ltd. P’ship v. Microsoft Corp., 598 F.3d 831, 845 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Duro-Last, Inc. v. Custom Seal, Inc., 321 F.3d 1098, 1107-08 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In a recent example, Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed, LLC, the Federal Circuit followed this principle in a situation where the defendant made an insufficient pre-verdict J MOL motion on anticipation under § 102. No. 2013-1451, slip op. at 7-8 (Fed. Cir. J uly 14, 2014). Noting that “the Supreme Court has held previously that our Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are to be strictly followed in circumstances such as this one,” the court concluded that the defendant “forfeited its right to move for J MOL on anticipation.” Id. at 8-9. The court reached this conclusion even though “Medisim may not have been surprised by BestMed’s invalidity contentions” after BestMed presented its anticipation defense at trial. Id. at 8. Here, Samsung did not even present § 101 at trial or in any J MOL motions. Accordingly, Samsung did not preserve an opportunity to seek J MOL of invalidity under § 101 after trial. Finally, Samsung asserts that the timing of the Alice decision excuses Samsung’s delay in raising any § 101 defenses because Alice was issued on J une 19, 2014 and “changed the prevailing standard for determining subject matter eligibility.” Req. at 1-2. These arguments are misplaced. Samsung identified § 101 defenses in its invalidity contentions, but then simply chose not to pursue Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1952 Filed08/21/14 Page4 of 5
5 Case No.: 12-CV-00630 ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT OF INVALIDITY UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 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 U
them. For example, Samsung did not include § 101 defenses in its expert reports, summary judgment motions, pretrial statement, trial evidence, or J MOL motions during and after trial. Any uncertainty in the law due to the pending Alice decision did not excuse Samsung’s delay. Tellingly, Samsung raised and maintained invalidity defenses based on indefiniteness under § 112 throughout trial and post-trial motions, even though the Supreme Court’s decision on indefiniteness in Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2120 (J une 2, 2014), was pending during those times. Indeed, in its May 23, 2014 post-trial J MOL motion, Samsung noted the pending decision in Nautilus, excerpts from the U.S. Supreme Court oral argument, and the competing proposed legal standards for indefiniteness that were under consideration, and argued that claim 25 of the ’959 patent would be invalid under any of those proposed standards. See ECF No. 1896-3 at 33-34 & n.4. By contrast, Samsung made no such effort regarding § 101 defenses. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Alice on December 6, 2013, before it granted certiorari in Nautilus on J anuary 10, 2014. Thus, Samsung had even more notice that the Supreme Court might issue a new decision regarding patentable subject matter. Samsung points out that in Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK, this Court requested supplemental briefing regarding attorney fees in light of new Supreme Court decisions, and advocates the same procedure here. See ECF No. 3092, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-
CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2014). However, in that situation, Apple had timely raised and maintained a request for attorney fees. See Apple’s Mot. for Attorneys’ Fees, ECF No. 2851-
8, Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.). Therefore, Samsung’s reliance on that situation is unpersuasive here. Samsung’s untimely attempt to invalidate two asserted patent claims months after the close of trial would unfairly prejudice Apple. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Samsung’s request for judgment as a matter of law of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ’959 and ’721 patents is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: August 21, 2014 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District J udge Case5:12-cv-00630-LHK Document1952 Filed08/21/14 Page5 of 5
14-08-21 Order Denying Samsung's Alice-based Motion by Florian Mueller15K viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: © All Rights ReservedDownload as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
Related14-09-03 Apple Motion for Ongoing Patent Royalties From Samsung14-09-03 Apple Motion for Ongoing Patent Royalties From Samsungby Florian Mueller14-09-05 Samsung Reply Brief in Appeal of Ruling in First Apple Case14-09-05 Samsung Reply Brief in Appeal of Ruling in First Apple Caseby Florian Mueller14-09-08 Order on Apple's JMOL Motion in 2nd Samsung Case14-09-08 Order on Apple's JMOL Motion in 2nd Samsung Caseby Florian Mueller14-08-27 Order Denying Apple Motion for Permanent Injunction Against Samsung14-08-27 Order Denying Apple Motion for Permanent Injunction Against Samsungby Florian Mueller14-09-09 Order on Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law14-09-09 Order on Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Lawby Florian Mueller14-08-14 Google Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Rockstar Cases)14-08-14 Google Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Rockstar Cases)by Florian Mueller14-08-07 Samsung Filing on Office Action in Reexamination of Apple's '172 Patent14-08-07 Samsung Filing on Office Action in Reexamination of Apple's '172 Patentby Florian Mueller14-05-23 Apple Motion for JMOL and Retrial14-05-23 Apple Motion for JMOL and Retrialby Florian Mueller14-12-24 Google HTC LG Rackspace RedHat SAP Amicus Brief14-12-24 Google HTC LG Rackspace RedHat SAP Amicus Briefby Florian Mueller14-09-22 Oracle-Myriad Dismissal of Claims After Settlement14-09-22 Oracle-Myriad Dismissal of Claims After Settlementby Florian Mueller14-06-16 Oracle v. Google Formal Mandate to District Court14-06-16 Oracle v. Google Formal Mandate to District Courtby Florian Mueller14-05-19 Apple-Samsung Joint Submission on ADR14-05-19 Apple-Samsung Joint Submission on ADRby Florian Mueller14-07-03 Samsung's Proposed Supplemental Brief Re. Alice Opinion14-07-03 Samsung's Proposed Supplemental Brief Re. Alice Opinionby Florian Mueller14-11-25 Order Granting in Part Apple's Motion for Ongoing Royalties14-11-25 Order Granting in Part Apple's Motion for Ongoing Royaltiesby Florian Mueller14-05-05 Final Amended Apple v. Samsung II Jury Verdict14-05-05 Final Amended Apple v. Samsung II Jury Verdictby Florian Mueller14-07-28 Apple Responsive Brief to Samsung Appeal14-07-28 Apple Responsive Brief to Samsung Appealby Florian Mueller14-10-06 Google petition for writ of certiorari in Oracle (c) case.pdf14-10-06 Google petition for writ of certiorari in Oracle (c) case.pdfby Florian Mueller14-12-17 Samsung Brief (Reponse to Apple Appeal of Injunction Denial)14-12-17 Samsung Brief (Reponse to Apple Appeal of Injunction Denial)by Florian Mueller14-05-23 Samsung Opening Brief in Appeal of First Apple Case14-05-23 Samsung Opening Brief in Appeal of First Apple Caseby Florian Mueller15-10-28 Ericsson Opposition to Apple Motion for Summary Judgment15-10-28 Ericsson Opposition to Apple Motion for Summary Judgmentby Florian Mueller14-09-15 Motorola Mobility Opening Brief in FRAND Appeal14-09-15 Motorola Mobility Opening Brief in FRAND Appealby Florian Mueller15-10-08 Letter Re. EPO Elizabeth Hardon15-10-08 Letter Re. EPO Elizabeth Hardonby Florian Mueller15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patentsby Florian Mueller14-03-05 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple Re. Public Disclosures of Confidential Info14-03-05 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple Re. Public Disclosures of Confidential Infoby Florian Mueller15-10-14 Apple Motion for Summary Judgment Against Ericsson15-10-14 Apple Motion for Summary Judgment Against Ericssonby Florian Mueller15-09-18 Order Denying Google Motion to Preclude15-09-18 Order Denying Google Motion to Precludeby Florian Mueller15-09-18 Partial Final Judgment Over 548 Million Dollars15-09-18 Partial Final Judgment Over 548 Million Dollarsby Florian Mueller14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment Order14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment Orderby Florian MuellerSimilar to 14-08-21 Order Denying Samsung's Alice-based Motion14-09-03 Apple Motion for Ongoing Patent Royalties From Samsung14-09-03 Apple Motion for Ongoing Patent Royalties From Samsung14-09-05 Samsung Reply Brief in Appeal of Ruling in First Apple Case14-09-05 Samsung Reply Brief in Appeal of Ruling in First Apple Case14-09-08 Order on Apple's JMOL Motion in 2nd Samsung Case14-09-08 Order on Apple's JMOL Motion in 2nd Samsung Case14-08-27 Order Denying Apple Motion for Permanent Injunction Against Samsung14-08-27 Order Denying Apple Motion for Permanent Injunction Against Samsung14-09-09 Order on Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law14-09-09 Order on Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law14-08-14 Google Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Rockstar Cases)14-08-14 Google Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Rockstar Cases)14-08-07 Samsung Filing on Office Action in Reexamination of Apple's '172 Patent14-08-07 Samsung Filing on Office Action in Reexamination of Apple's '172 Patent14-05-23 Apple Motion for JMOL and Retrial14-05-23 Apple Motion for JMOL and Retrial14-12-24 Google HTC LG Rackspace RedHat SAP Amicus Brief14-12-24 Google HTC LG Rackspace RedHat SAP Amicus Brief14-09-22 Oracle-Myriad Dismissal of Claims After Settlement14-09-22 Oracle-Myriad Dismissal of Claims After Settlement14-06-16 Oracle v. Google Formal Mandate to District Court14-06-16 Oracle v. Google Formal Mandate to District Court14-05-19 Apple-Samsung Joint Submission on ADR14-05-19 Apple-Samsung Joint Submission on ADR14-07-03 Samsung's Proposed Supplemental Brief Re. Alice Opinion14-07-03 Samsung's Proposed Supplemental Brief Re. Alice Opinion14-11-25 Order Granting in Part Apple's Motion for Ongoing Royalties14-11-25 Order Granting in Part Apple's Motion for Ongoing Royalties14-05-05 Final Amended Apple v. Samsung II Jury Verdict14-05-05 Final Amended Apple v. Samsung II Jury Verdict14-07-28 Apple Responsive Brief to Samsung Appeal14-07-28 Apple Responsive Brief to Samsung Appeal14-10-06 Google petition for writ of certiorari in Oracle (c) case.pdf14-10-06 Google petition for writ of certiorari in Oracle (c) case.pdf14-12-17 Samsung Brief (Reponse to Apple Appeal of Injunction Denial)14-12-17 Samsung Brief (Reponse to Apple Appeal of Injunction Denial)14-05-23 Samsung Opening Brief in Appeal of First Apple Case14-05-23 Samsung Opening Brief in Appeal of First Apple Case15-10-28 Ericsson Opposition to Apple Motion for Summary Judgment15-10-28 Ericsson Opposition to Apple Motion for Summary Judgment14-09-15 Motorola Mobility Opening Brief in FRAND Appeal14-09-15 Motorola Mobility Opening Brief in FRAND Appeal15-10-08 Letter Re. EPO Elizabeth Hardon15-10-08 Letter Re. EPO Elizabeth Hardon15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents15-11-04 Apple Reply in Support of Alice Motion Against Two Ericsson Patents14-03-05 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple Re. Public Disclosures of Confidential Info14-03-05 Samsung Motion to Compel Apple Re. Public Disclosures of Confidential Info15-10-14 Apple Motion for Summary Judgment Against Ericsson15-10-14 Apple Motion for Summary Judgment Against Ericsson15-09-18 Order Denying Google Motion to Preclude15-09-18 Order Denying Google Motion to Preclude15-09-18 Partial Final Judgment Over 548 Million Dollars15-09-18 Partial Final Judgment Over 548 Million Dollars14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment Order14-01-21 Apple v. Samsung Summary Judgment OrderOutcomes of U.S. German UK Infringement AssertionsOutcomes of U.S. German UK Infringement Assertions15-07-27 Corel Software v. Microsoft Patent Infringement Complaint15-07-27 Corel Software v. Microsoft Patent Infringement Complaint