Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Decision Date21 January 2014
Docket NumberCase No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesAPPLE, 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.
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART AND

DENYING-IN-PART APPLE'S MOTION

FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT AND DENYING

SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]

The parties in this patent suit have cross moved for partial summary judgment on various issues. Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Apple, Inc. ("Apple") filed a motion for partial summary judgment against Defendants and Counterclaimants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung") on October 10, 2013. See ECF No. 803-4 ("Apple MSJ"). Samsung filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the same date. See ECF No. 805-3 ("Samsung MSJ"). The parties filed corresponding oppositions on November 1, 2013, see ECF Nos. 854-3 ("Samsung Opp'n"), 853-3 ("Apple Opp'n"), and replies on November 14, 2013, see ECF Nos. 944-4 ("Apple Reply"),946-3 ("Samsung Reply"). The Court heard oral arguments on these motions on December 12, 2013. After hearing oral argument on the matter, and reviewing the briefing by the parties, the evidence offered in support of the briefing, and the relevant case law, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Apple's motion for summary judgment and DENIES Samsung's motion for summary judgment.

I. BACKGROUND

At the center of the parties' dispute in this lawsuit are some of Apple and Samsung's latest smartphones, media players, tablets, and computers. The Court is also presiding over an earlier-filed case between the same parties that involves older devices. See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., No. 11-CV-01846, 2013 WL 6225202 (Nov. 25, 2013). In the present case, each side's claims include allegations that the other has infringed its utility patents by using, selling, offering to sell, and importing the accused devices in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. Apple moved to preliminarily enjoin Samsung's allegedly infringing sales of one of the accused products, the Galaxy Nexus. This Court granted Apple's preliminary injunction motion as to one of Apple's patents-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 (the "'604 Patent"), see Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., 877 F. Supp. 2d 838 (N.D. Cal. 2012), but the Federal Circuit reversed, in part because this Court erroneously construed a claim term from the '604 patent, see Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

In order to streamline the case for trial, the Court has required the parties to limit their infringement contentions to 5 patents, 10 asserted claims, and 15 accused products per side. See ECF No. 471 at 2.1 The parties have accordingly limited their infringement contentions as follows. Apple currently asserts claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 (the "'172 Patent"); claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (the "'647 Patent"); claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 7,761,414 (the "'414 Patent"); claims 24 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 6,847,959 (the "'959 Patent"); and claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 (the "'721 Patent") against the following Samsung products: Admire, Conquer 4G, Dart, Exhibit II 4G, Galaxy Nexus, Galaxy Note, Galaxy Note II, Galaxy SII, GalaxySII Epic 4G Touch, Galaxy SII Skyrocket, Galaxy S III, Galaxy Tab 2 10.1, Illusion, Stratosphere, and Transform Ultra. See ECF No. 786.2 Samsung currently asserts claims 10 and 35 of U.S. Patent No. 7,756,087 (the "'087 Patent"); claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 7,551,596 (the "'596 Patent"); claims 1, 14, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,577,757 (the "'757 Patent"); claims 25 and 27 of U.S. Patent No. 6,226,449 (the "'449 Patent"); and claims 1 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 5,579,239 (the "'239 Patent") against the following Apple products: iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, iPhone 5, iPad 2, iPad 3, iPad 4, iPad Mini, iPod Touch (5th Generation), iPod Touch (4th Generation), MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, Mac Mini, iTunes (including iTunes Match), and iCloud. See ECF No. 787. In a prior order, the Court construed various terms in these claims. See ECF No. 447 ("Claim Construction Order").

In its summary judgment motion, Apple asks this Court to rule that various accused products infringe claim 18 of the '172 Patent, claim 1 of the '647 Patent, and claim 20 of the '414 Patent; that two purported prior art systems fail to anticipate or render obvious claims 24 and 25 of the '959 Patent; and that U.S. Patent No. 7,587,446 (the "'446 Patent") anticipates claims 1, 14, and 15 of the '757 Patent.

Samsung's summary judgment motion seeks an order from this Court that certain accused products do not infringe claims 1, 4, 6, 8, and 9 of the '647 Patent; that Microsoft's Windows Mobile 5.0 platform anticipates claims 11 and 20 of the '414 Patent; that claims 24 and 25 of the '959 Patent are invalid as indefinite; and that claim 13 of the '596 Patent enjoys a priority date that is one year earlier than the date the claim was first presented to the USPTO. Additional facts are discussed below, as necessary, in the Court's analysis.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The standard for evaluating motions for summary judgment is well settled and set forth below. In addition, because, "in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the judge must view the evidence presented through the prism of the substantive evidentiary burden," Anderson v. LibertyLobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 254 (1986), the Court sets forth the substantive evidentiary burdens for literal infringement and anticipation—issues common to both parties' motions.

A. Summary Judgment

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), "[t]he court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Material facts are those that might affect the outcome of the case. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248. A dispute as to a material fact is "genuine" if the evidence is such that "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Id. The question is "whether a jury could reasonably find either that the [moving party] proved his case by the quality and quantity of evidence required by the governing law or that he did not." Id. at 254 (emphasis omitted). "'[A]ll justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [the nonmovant's] favor.'" United Steelworkers of Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp., 865 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc) (quoting Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 255).

The moving party bears the initial responsibility for informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, interrogatory answers, admissions, and affidavits, if any, that it contends demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). A party opposing a properly supported motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of that party's pleading, but must "cit[e] to particular parts of materials in the record" showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A); see also Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 250. The opposing party need not show the issue will be resolved conclusively in its favor. See Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 248-49. All that is necessary is submission of sufficient evidence to create a material factual dispute, thereby requiring a jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions at trial. See id.

B. Literal Infringement

A party must prove patent infringement by a preponderance of the evidence. See Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Ceramics & Plastics, Inc., 637 F.3d 1269, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2011). At this stage, the parties' infringement disputes center on whether certain Samsungproducts literally infringe certain patents. "Literal infringement requires the patentee to prove that the accused device contains each limitation of the asserted claim(s)." Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2000). "If any claim limitation is absent from the accused device, there is no literal infringement as a matter of law." Id.

C. Anticipation

Patents are presumed valid. See 35 U.S.C. § 282(a). A party challenging the validity of a patent claim bears the burden of proving invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. See Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P'ship, 131 S. Ct. 2238, 2242 (2011). An accused infringer may show that a patent claim is invalid as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and to do so "must show by clear and convincing evidence that a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of a claimed invention." Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

III. DISCUSSION
A. Preliminary Matters

Before addressing the merits of the parties' summary judgment arguments, the Court addresses two threshold issues that arise at various points in the parties' briefs: (1) whether additional claim construction is necessary and (2) the weight the Court should give to its conclusions at the preliminary injunction stage.

1. Claim Construction

Many of the present issues rest on claim construction positions that the parties never raised during the claim construction phase of this case. For example, Samsung seeks to construe "DDI field" in the '596 Patent to mean a "logical identifier representing the first PDU." Samsung MSJ at 23. The Court finds these arguments untimely. If the parties wanted to tee up summary judgment positions based on particular constructions, they "could (and should) have sought . . . construction[s] to [those] effect[s]." ...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT