Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 July 2012
• Docket Number: Case No. 12–CV–00630–LHK.
• Citation: 877 F.Supp.2d 838
• Parties: APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 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.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

877 F.Supp.2d 838

APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,

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.

Case No. 12–CV–00630–LHK.

United States District Court,

N.D. California,

San Jose Division.

July 1, 2012.

Harold J. McElhinny, Morrison & Foerster LLP, San Francisco, CA, Hervey Mark Lyon, Josh A. Krevitt, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Andrew L. Liao, Wilmerhale, Mark Daniel Selwyn, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Jason C. Lo, Jennifer J. Rho, Rodney Joseph Stone, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Joshua R. Furman, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, New York, NY, Mark Nolan Reiter, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Dallas, TX, Michael A. Jacobs, Richard S.J. Hung, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert Vincent, Sarah Elizabeth Simmons, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff.

Brian Buroker, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, David Elsberg, Anastasia M. Fernands, New York, NY, Charles K. Verhoeven, Kevin Alexander Smith, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, John M. Caracappa, Washington, DC, Kevin P.B. Johnson, Victoria F. Maroulis, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Patrick M. Shields, William Charlie Price, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants.

Paul Torchia, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, New York, NY, pro hac vice.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

LUCY H. KOH, District Judge.

Plaintiff Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) brings this motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) from “making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States” Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone. See Pl.'s Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 10 (“Mot.”). Although Apple's Complaint asserts a total of eight patents and identifies seventeen accused products, Apple moves to preliminarily enjoin only the Galaxy Nexus smartphone, and moves to do so only on the basis of four patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 8,086,604 (“the '604 Patent”); (2) U.S. Patent No. 5,946,647 (“the '647 Patent”); (3) U.S. Patent No. 8,046,721 (“the '721 Patent”); and (4) U.S. Patent No. 8,074,172 (“the '172 Patent”). The Court held a hearing on this motion on June 7, 2012. Having considered the parties' submissions, argument, and the relevant law, and for the reasons discussed herein, Apple's motion to preliminarily enjoin the Galaxy Nexus is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

Both in the United States and globally, Apple and Samsung have established themselves as fierce competitors in the smartphone market and fierce adversaries in the courtroom. This particular lawsuit, filed by Apple against Samsung on February 8, 2012, is but one action in a worldwide constellation of litigation between the two companies. See Compl., ECF No. 1; Joint Case Management Statement 8–10, Apr. 25, 2012, ECF No. 141 at 8–10 (identifying over 40 related cases between the parties); Mot. at 6. Indeed, this Court is presiding over another lawsuit, Apple v. Samsung (“Apple I” ), No. 11–cv–01846 (N.D.Cal. filed Apr. 15, 2011), in which Apple previously moved to preliminarily enjoin three earlier Samsung smartphone models (Samsung's Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Droid Charge), as well as the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, based on alleged infringement of various Apple design and utility patents. In a May 14, 2011 ruling, the Federal Circuit affirmed this Court's denial of Apple's motion to enjoin the three smartphones, but vacated the portion of the Court's decision regarding the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet, and remanded for further proceedings. See Apple v. Samsung, 678 F.3d 1314 (Fed.Cir.2012). Samsung petitioned for rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied on June 19, 2012. On remand, the Court granted the motion for a preliminary injunction on June 26, 2012.

The instant preliminary injunction motion, filed alongside the Complaint on February 8, 2012, seeks to enjoin Samsung's Galaxy Nexus smartphone, which was released in the U.S. in December 2011. Def.'s Opp'n to Mot. Prelim. Inj. (“Opp'n”) at 2. At the time this motion was briefed, the Galaxy Nexus was the latest in Samsung's Galaxy line of Android-based smartphones, the first of which was released in 2009.¹ Opp'n at 2; Decl. of Christopher Vellturo (“Vellturo Decl.”) ¶ 9 & Ex. 19. Android is a free, open-source mobile software platform developed by Google, Inc. (“Google”) that any developer can use to create applications for mobile devices, and that any handset manufacturer can install on a device. Opp'n at 2. Galaxy Nexus is the first smartphone to run Android version 4.0, an operating system called “Ice Cream Sandwich,” and is the first Android smartphone that will allow the phone to be interoperable with other Android-based devices, including those running the Ice Cream Sandwich operating system. Vellturo Decl. ¶ 9. The version of Ice Cream Sandwich installed on the Galaxy Nexus is designed by Google. Decl. of Sangbong Lee (“Sangbong Lee Decl.”) ¶¶ 3–4.

Apple accuses the Galaxy Nexus of infringing four patents: (1) the ' 604 Patent, titled “Universal Interface for Retrieval of Information in a Computer System,” which generally describes a “unified search” feature; (2) the '647 Patent, titled “System and Method for Performing an Action on a Structure in Computer–Generated Data,” which generally describes a “links for structures” feature; (3) the '721 Patent, titled “Unlocking a Device by Performing Gestures on an Unlock Image,” which generally describes a “slide to unlock” feature; and (4) the '172 Patent, titled “Method, System, and Graphical User Interface for Providing Word Recommendations,” which generally describes a “word recommendations” or “auto correct” feature.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Although the Patent Act authorizes district courts to grant injunctions to prevent the infringement of patent rights, the owner of a valid and infringed patent is not entitled to an injunction as a matter of right. See35 U.S.C. § 283 (2006) (a federal court “ may grant injunctions in accordance with the principles of equity to prevent the violation of any right secured by patent, on such terms as the court deems reasonable” (emphases added)); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391–92, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006). Rather, “the decision whether to grant or deny injunctive relief rests within the equitable discretion of the district courts,” and “such discretion must be exercised consistent with traditional principles of equity.” eBay, 547 U.S. at 394, 126 S.Ct. 1837. The rule enunciated in eBay is as applicable to preliminary injunctions as it is to permanent injunctions. See Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, Alaska, 480 U.S. 531, 546 n. 12, 107 S.Ct. 1396, 94 L.Ed.2d 542 (1987) (“The standard for a preliminary injunction is essentially the same as for a permanent injunction with the exception that the plaintiff must show a likelihood of success on the merits rather than actual success.”). Therefore, “[t]he grant or denial of a preliminary injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283 is within the sound discretion of the district court.” Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., 452 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2006) (citing Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, 239 F.3d 1343, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2001)).

In light of the longstanding principles of equity that govern any request for injunctive relief, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying litigation; (2) it is likely to suffer immediate, irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities weighs in its favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008); Abbott Labs., 452 F.3d at 1334 (citing Polymer Techs., Inc. v. Bridwell, 103 F.3d 970, 973 (Fed.Cir.1996)). “[N]o one factor, taken individually, is necessarily dispositive.” Chrysler Motors Corp. v. Auto Body Panels of Ohio, Inc., 908 F.2d 951, 953 (Fed.Cir.1990). Rather, “the district court must weigh and measure each factor against the other factors and against the form and magnitude of the relief requested.” Hybritech Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 849 F.2d 1446, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1988). Both the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have cautioned that because a preliminary injunction is granted before the defendant has had an opportunity to fully defend itself at trial, “a preliminary injunction is a drastic and extraordinary remedy that is not to be routinely granted.” Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech., Inc., 995 F.2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1993) (citing Nutrition 21 v. United States, 930 F.2d 867, 869 (Fed.Cir.1991); Ill. Tool Works, Inc. v. Grip–Pak, 906 F.2d 679, 683 (Fed.Cir.1990)); see Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008) (“A preliminary injunction is an ‘extraordinary and drastic remedy’ ” that “is never awarded as of right.”) (quoting 11A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2948, at 129 (2d ed.1995)). Indeed, “a preliminary injunction ... should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion.” Mazurek v. Armstrong, 520 U.S. 968, 972, 117 S.Ct. 1865, 138 L.Ed.2d 162 (1997) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Winter, 555 U.S. at 22, 129 S.Ct. 365.

To establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its patent infringement claims, Apple must show that it will likely prove at trial that the Galaxy Nexus infringes “one or more claims of the patents-in-suit,” and must...