Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 2011
• Docket Number: Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
• Parties: APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff,

v.SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean corporation;

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation;

SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC,

a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants.

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

Dated: December 2, 2011

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

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 S 4G and Infuse 4G phones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet computer ("tablet") because these Samsung products infringe upon Apple's Design Patent No. D618,677 ("the D'677 patent"), D593,087 ("the D'087 patent"), or D504,889 ("the D'889 patent").¹ See Proposed Prelim. Inj. Order, July 1, 2011, ECF No. 86-1. Additionally, Apple seeks to preliminarily enjoin Samsungfrom "making, using, offering to sell, or selling within the United States, or importing into the United States" Samsung's Galaxy S 4G, Infuse 4G, and Droid Charge phones and Galaxy Tab 10.1 tablet because these products infringe upon Apple's United States Patent No. 7,469,381 ("the '381 patent"). See id. 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 DENIES Apple's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

BACKGROUND

In the world of telecommunications and electronics, Apple and Samsung are industry leaders. Apple identifies itself as a revolutionary and an innovator in "mobile communication devices, personal computers, and portable digital media players." First Amended Complaint ("FAC") U 13, June 16, 2011, ECF No. 75. Samsung, in its own right, is the "largest provider by volume of mobile devices in the United States and the second largest in the world." Samsung's Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims U 22, June 30, 2011, ECF No. 80.

At the center of the parties' dispute in this lawsuit are Samsung's cellular telephones and tablet computers, which Apple claims are slavish copies of its own products. Apple introduced its popular cell phone, the iPhone, in 2007. At the time it was introduced, Apple contends that the iPhone "was radically different" from the previous versions of cell phones because the features "were combined in an elegantly designed product with a distinctive user interface, icons, and eyecatching displays that gave the iPhone an unmistakable look." FAC ¶ 1. The iPad, Apple's tablet computer, was introduced in 2010. According to Apple, the iPad was revolutionary because of the product's "innovative technology and distinctive design." FAC ¶ 3. Apple accuses Samsung of "creating products that blatantly imitate the appearance of Apple's products to capitalize on Apple's success." FAC ¶ 4.

Samsung disputes the innovativeness of Apple's designs and instead argues that smartphones and tablets have evolved naturally in the direction of Apple's design patents. Specifically, Samsung argues that technology advances have allowed screen sizes to increase and the overall size of electronic devices to decrease. Thus, according to Samsung, the design featuresthat Apple claims as proprietary are in fact the natural progression of technology and design in the industry. See generally Samsung's Opp'n to Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ("Opp'n") at 2-4.

On April 15, 2011, Apple filed suit against Samsung alleging that Samsung's products infringe on Apple's utility and design patents as well as Apple's trademark and trade dress. It is the design patents that are at the core of this preliminary injunction motion. Importantly, the Court's analysis will focus not on the function of these ubiquitous products, but on their visual characteristics. Apple moved for a preliminary injunction on July 1, 2011, seeking to enjoin the sale of four recently released Samsung products. First, Apple accuses two Samsung smartphones—the Samsung Galaxy S 4G and the Samsung Infuse 4G—of infringing on Apple's design patents. The Galaxy S 4G was released in February 2011, and the Infuse 4G was released in May 2011. Apple alleges that the two phones infringe upon Apple's D'677 and D'087 patents.

Apple's D'087 patent application was filed on July 30, 2007, and the patent issued on May 26, 2009, for an electronic device with the following visual characteristics:

D'087 - Figure 43

D'087 - Figure 44

D'087 - Figures 47 and 48

Apple's D'677 patent application was filed on November 18, 2008 (with a related application date of July 30, 2007), and the patent issued on June 29, 2010, for an electronic device with the following visual characteristics:D'677 - Figure 3

D'677 - Figure 4

D'677 - Figures 7 and 8

Apple also moves for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the sale of Samsung's tablet computer, the Galaxy Tab 10.1, which was released on June 8, 2011. Apple contends that the Galaxy Tab 10.1 infringes upon Apple's D'889 design patent. The D'889 patent application was filed on March 17, 2004, and the patent issued on May 10, 2005, for an electronic device with the following visual characteristics:

D'889 - Figure 1

D'889 - Figure 4

D'889 - Figure 5 Finally, Apple seeks to enjoin the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1, the Samsung Infuse 4G, the Samsung Galaxy S 4G, and a third phone, the 4G LTE (otherwise known as the Droid charge phone), because all of these products allegedly infringe upon Apple's '381 patent. The '381 patent, issued on December 23, 2008, claims a method for "List Scrolling and Document Translation, Scaling and Rotation on a Touch-Screen Display." The '381 patent affects the display of images on a touch screen device. When a user places a finger on a screen and drags a displayed image past the edge of the document and releases the finger, the page bounces back to fill the full screen. A bounce-back function, which Apple contends infringes upon its '381 patent, exists in all four of the Samsung devices at issue in this preliminary injunction motion.

Asserting its four patents at issue in this motion, Apple seeks to enjoin the four Samsung products at issue - the Infuse 4G, the Galaxy S 4G, the Galaxy Tab 10.1, and the Droid charge phone - from the U.S. market until Apple is able to have its claims heard at a full trial on the merits. Additional facts necessary to the determination of Apple's motion are more fully discussed below.

EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS

Before addressing Apple's preliminary injunction motion, the Court considers several evidentiary matters that have been raised by both parties.

I. Motion to Exclude Ordinary Observer Expert

As a preliminary matter, Samsung has separately moved to exclude the declaration of Apple's proffered industrial design expert, Cooper Woodring, on the ground that he lacks the experience and relevant knowledge to opine on the ordinary observer's perceptions of smartphones and tablet computers. ECF No. 176, at 1, 8 (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); Fed. R. Evid. 702). Apple submitted Mr. Woodring's declaration in support of the instant motion for a preliminary injunction.

The Court DENIES² Samsung's separate motion to exclude on the ground that Samsung failed to comply with Civil Local Rule 7-3, which requires that any evidentiary objections to amotion be contained within the opposition memorandum. See also Cortez v. Global Ground Support, LLC, No. 09-CV-4138, 2010 WL 5173861, at *2 n.5 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2010) (declining to consider evidentiary objections filed in separate brief pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-3(a)). Furthermore, Civil Local Rule 7-3 limits the opposition memorandum to 25 pages. With leave of the Court, Samsung filed a 40-page opposition memorandum that included none of the evidentiary objections presented in Samsung's separate motion to exclude (indeed, it appears that Samsung cited evidence from the declaration it seeks to exclude). Thus, it would further neither the spirit nor the letter of Civil Local Rule 7-3 for the Court to consider Samsung's separate evidentiary objections. Cf. C & C Jewelry Mfg., Inc. v. West, No. 09-CV-01303, 2011 WL 835821, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2011) (considering objections contained in document separate from the opposition memorandum because objections and opposition memorandum "together total[ed] less than twenty five pages" and consideration of the evidentiary objections therefore did not violate the spirit of Civil L.R. 7-3(a)).

Finally, in ruling on a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court has discretion to consider evidence even if it would be inadmissible at trial. The Ninth Circuit has held that "[t]he trial court may give even inadmissible evidence some weight, when to do so serves the purpose of preventing irreparable harm before trial." Flynt Distrib. Co. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984); see also V.L. v. Wagner, 669 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1115 n.8 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ("[O]n a motion for a preliminary injunction, the Court may consider inadmissible evidence, giving such evidence appropriate weight depending on the competence, personal knowledge, and credibility of the declarants."). Thus, even if Samsung had complied with Civil Local Rule 7-3, the Court would have had other grounds to deny Samsung's objection to the testimony of Cooper Woodring.

II. Other Evidentiary Objections

Both parties have filed or lodged with the Court additional evidence and objections after formal briefing of the motion for a preliminary injunction was closed. After Apple filed its reply brief, Samsung was granted leave to file objections to any non-rebuttal evidence submitted in support of Apple's reply to the motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF No. 276. Samsung filed its...