Huawei Techs., Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO

Citation340 F.Supp.3d 934
Decision Date25 September 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 3:16-cv-02787-WHO
Parties HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES, CO, LTD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO, LTD., et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California

Michael J. Bettinger, Curt Holbreich, Irene Inkyu Yang, Kevin Joseph O'Brien, Rachel R. Davidson, Sidley Austin LLP, San Francisco, CA, Nathaniel C. Love, Pro Hac Vice, David Giardina, Pro Hac Vice, David T. Pritikin, Pro Hac Vice, Douglas I. Lewis, Pro Hac Vice, John Weatherby McBride, Pro Hac Vice, Leif E. Peterson, II, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, Russell E. Cass, Clark Hill PLC, Chicago, IL, Cory D. Szczepanik, Pro Hac Vice, John P. Wisse, Pro Hac Vice, Cory David Szczepanik, Sidley Austin LLP, Dallas, TX, Ellen S. Robbins, Pro Hac Vice, Akerman LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Nathan A. Greenblatt, Sidley Austin LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Charles Kramer Verhoeven, Brian E. Mack, Carl Gunnar Anderson, David Andrew Perlson, Iman Lordgooei, Jocelyn, Ma, Melissa J. Baily, Sam Stephen Stake, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Benjamin Laban Singer, Evan N. Budaj, Singer Bea LLP, San Francisco, CA, Cole Daniel Malmberg, Kevin P.B. Johnson, Mark Thomas Gray, Ray R. Zado, Victoria F. Maroulis, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, Daryl M. Crone, Crone Hawxhurst LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David LeRay, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel, Thomas D. Pease, Pro Hac Vice, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, Alan Lee Whitehurst, Pro Hac Vice, Jared Weston Newton, Pro Hac Vice, Marissa R. Ducca, Pro Hac Vice, Philip Charles Sternhell, Pro Hac Vice, Deepa Acharya, Quinn Emmanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Samuel Bryant Davidoff, Pro Hac Vice, Williams and Connolly LLP, Rafik Paul Zeineddin, Pro Hac Vice, Zeineddin PLLC, Kevin Hardy, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.


Re: Dkt. Nos. 328, 329, 330, 335, 336, 337

William H. Orrick, United States District Judge


Plaintiffs Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc. and Huawei Technologies USA, Inc. (collectively, "Huawei") and defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. (collectively, "Samsung") are major players in the world of wireless telecommunications—a world governed by cellular technology standards, such as the 3G UMTS and 4G LTE standards developed by the Third Generation Partnership Project ("3GPP") and promulgated by standard setting organizations like the European Telecommunications Standards Institute ("ETSI").1 Both Huawei and Samsung have agreed to license their declared standard essential patents ("SEPs") on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory ("FRAND") terms and conditions under ETSI's Intellectual Property Rights ("IPR") Policy. Compl. ¶ 63 (Dkt. No. 1[redacted], Dkt. No. 3-4[under seal] ); see also Samsung's Answer and Am. Counterclaims ¶¶ 29, 54 (Dkt. No. 91[redacted]; Dkt. No. 90-2[under seal] ). But they have been unable to agree on the terms of a cross-license to their patent portfolios or on a process that would result in a global resolution of these issues. Instead, they have chosen combat in piecemeal litigation around the globe.

This case is one of the pieces. My order here addresses each party's motion for summary judgment concerning the patents at issue, Huawei's Daubert motion and motion to preclude Samsung's FRAND experts, and Samsung's two motions to strike or exclude Huawei's expert reports. Because the parties are intimately familiar with the background in this case, I will only repeat what is necessary to resolve the issues presented by these motions.


On May 24, 2016, Huawei filed this action asserting claims for breach of contract, declaratory judgment of FRAND terms and conditions for a cross-license, and patent infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,369,278, U.S. Patent No. 8,416,892, U.S. Patent No. 8,483,166, U.S. Patent No. 8,812,848, U.S. Patent No. 8,644,239, U.S. Patent No. 8,885,587, U.S. Patent No. 8,885,583, U.S. Patent No. 8,639,246, U.S. Patent No. 8,412,197, U.S. Patent No. 8,996,003, U.S. Patent No. 8,724,613. Compl. (Dkt. No. 1[redacted], Dkt. No. 59[unredacted] ).

Samsung answered on August 22, 2016, and amended on October 16, 2016, asserting counterclaims for breach of contract, antitrust monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2, patent infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,228,827 ("the '827 patent"), 8,315,195 ("the '195 patent"), RE44,105 ("the RE'105 patent"), 8,457,588 ("the '588 patent"), 8,509,350 ("the '350 patent"), 9,113,419 ("the '419 patent"), 8,619,726 ("the '726 patent"), 8,761,130 ("the '130 patent"), 9,288,825 ("the '825 patent"), 7,706,348 ("the '348 patent"), and 8,995,924 ("the '924 patent"), and declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of Huawei's patents-in-suit. Answer and Am. Counterclaims (Dkt. No. 91[redacted], Dkt. No. 90-2[sealed] ).

At the initial case management conference, the parties disputed whether bifurcating the case would be the most efficient way to manage it. 9/13/16 Minute Entry (Dkt. No. 75); see Joint Case Management St. (Dkt. No. 67). Huawei expressed its view that this case should be bifurcated to address the FRAND-related issues prior to the patent infringement issues, but Samsung insisted that Huawei was "asking the court to put the remedy before liability, put the cart before the horse, and that [would] not streamline things." 9/13/16 Hr'g Tr. at 20:9–12 (Dkt. No. 82). Given that the parties could not agree, I denied the request.

On November 21, 2016, I denied Samsung's motion to dismiss two of Huawei's patents (the '892 patent and the '239 patent ) on grounds that they fail to claim patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Order Denying Samsung's MTD (Dkt. No. 103).

On April 27, 2017, I granted Samsung leave to amend its infringement contentions to include additional infringing instrumentalities and change the conception dates for its '827 patent and '105 patent. Order Granting Samsung Leave to Am. Inf. Contentions (Dkt. No. 130). I also directed the parties to submit joint or competing case proposals to assist in managing the scope of this case.

On June 2, 2017, I issued a case management order adopting the case narrowing procedures implemented by the Hon. Lucy Koh in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. , 5:12-cv-630-LHK (Dkt. Nos. 394, 471). The order directed the parties to limit their infringement contentions to 5 patents, 10 asserted claims, and 15 accused products per side.2

On August 31, 2017, I issued the claim construction order for the five most significant terms selected by each side. Claim Construction Order (Dkt. No. 168).3

On March 26, 2018, I granted Huawei's request to stay infringement claims for Samsung's '588 patent pending inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Order Granting Stay of Infringement Claim for '588 Patent Pending Inter Partes Review (Dkt. No. 267).4 Under different circumstances, I granted a similar request from Samsung to stay certain infringement claims for Huawei's '197 patent and '166 patent pending inter partes review. Order Granting Stay of Infringement Claim for '197 and '166 Patents (Dkt. No. 307).

On April 13, 2018, I granted Samsung's motion for an antisuit injunction enjoining Huawei from enforcing the injunction orders issued by the Intermediate People's Court of Shenzhen, which had found that Samsung is infringing two of Huawei's Chinese SEPs, Order Granting Samsung's Mot. for Antisuit Injunction (Dkt. No. 280[redacted] ). I denied Huawei's motion to alter, amend, or reconsider that order on June 19, 2018. (Dkt. No. 310).

On July 17, 2018, the parties stipulated to dismissal, without prejudice, of Huawei's cause of action for declaratory judgment of FRAND terms and conditions for a cross-license (count II). Stipulation (Dkt. No. 354); Order (Dkt. No. 361).

On July 3, 2018, Huawei filed its motion for summary judgment ("Huawei's MSJ") (Dkt. No. 328[redacted], Dkt. No. 327-8[under seal] ), motion to preclude Samsung's FRAND experts from offering improper legal opinions ("Huawei's FRAND-related Mot. to Strike") (Dkt. No. 329[redacted], Dkt. No. 327-6[under seal] ), and Daubert motion on technical issues ("Huawei's Daubert Mot.") (Dkt. No. 330[redacted], Dkt. No. 327-4[redacted] ).

The next day, Samsung filed its motion for summary judgment ("Samsung's MSJ") (Dkt. No. 336[redacted], Dkt. No. 333-2[under seal] ), motion to strike report and testimony of Huawei's experts Padilla, Lasinski, Jackson, deLisle, and Ding ("Samsung's Daubert Mot.") (Dkt. No. 335[redacted], Dkt. No. 334-2[under seal] ), and motion to strike portions of expert reports, largely based on inadequate disclosures ("Samsung's Mot. to Strike") (Dkt. No. 337[redacted], Dkt. No. 334-2[under seal] ).

On August 15, 2018, I heard argument from the parties. This order addresses those motions. The numerous administrative motions filed in conjunction with these substantive motions will be addressed separately.


A party is entitled to summary judgment where it "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and [it] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). A dispute is genuine if it could reasonably be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A fact is material where it could affect the outcome of the case. Id.

The moving party has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323–24, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the movant has made this showing, the burden shifts to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • Horizon Medicines LLC v. Alkem Labs. Ltd.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • November 30, 2020
    ...U.S. at 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040.The cases relied on by Plaintiff do not support Plaintiff's desired outcome. Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 340 F. Supp. 3d 934, 960 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Cadence Pharm. Inc. v. Exela PharmSci Inc. , 780 F.3d 1364, 1370-72 (Fed. Cir. 2015) address method ......
  • TC Tech. LLC v. Sprint Corp., 16-cv-153-RGA
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Delaware
    • April 15, 2019
    ...practice [included] every limitation of the [interference] count." Id. at 1327-28.Sprint relies on Huawei Technologies, Co. v. Samsung Electronics Co. , 340 F. Supp. 3d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2018). In Huawei , the court found a computer simulation sufficient to show the alleged prior invention was......
  • Tiarks v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • September 8, 2021
    ...Beard v. State , 2020 Ark. 62, at 7, 594 S.W.3d 29, 32.In support of his argument, Tiarks relies on Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. , 340 F. Supp. 3d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2018). In Huawei , the district court excluded the expert testimony of an economist that was offered to "vouch" for or......
  • Tiarks v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arkansas
    • September 8, 2021
    ...v. State, 2020 Ark. 62, at 7, 594 S.W.3d 29, 32. In support of his argument, Tiarks relies on Huawei Techs. Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 340 F.Supp.3d 934 (N.D. Cal. 2018). In Huawei, the district court excluded the expert testimony of an economist that was offered to "vouch" for or support t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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