Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

67 F.Supp.3d 1100

113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1040

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

United States District Court, N.D. California, San Jose Division.

Signed September 8, 2014

Andrew J. Danford, Richard W. O'Neill, Sarah R. Frazier, Joseph J. Mueller, Katie Marie Saxton, Esq., Kevin Scott Prussia, Lauren B. Fletcher, Peter James Kolovos, Ronald Richard Demsher, Timothy Davis Syrett, William F. Lee, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Boston, MA, Hervey Mark Lyon, Frederick S. Chung, Josh A. Krevitt, Quincy Lu, Samuel K. Whitt, Timothy Wade Malone, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Andrew L. Liao, Anna Tin–Yee Lee, John P. Pettit, Kathryn Diane Zalewski, Liv Leila Herriot, Mark Daniel Selwyn, Michael James Silhasek, Timothy Anthony Tatarka, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Benjamin George Damstedt, Cooley Godward Kronish LLP, Brittany N. DePuy, Christopher Leonard Robinson, Erik J. Olson, Kenneth Alexander Kuwayti, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Efrain Staino Flores, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Adele R. Frankel, Cosmin Maier, Peter James Shen, Samuel Calvin Walden, Victor F. Souto, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Daniel J. Thomasch, Joshua R. Furman, Paul Torchia, Steven S. Kim, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, New York, NY, Anna Bonny Chauvet, Gregory H. Lantier, Heath Allen Brooks, James L. Quarles, III, Nina S. Tallon, Olga Lysenko Tobin, Thomas Edward Anderson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Brian Buroker, Megan Fluckiger, Sarah Sladic, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Washington, DC, Azar Mouzari, Holly Ann Jones, Jason C. Lo, Jeffrey G. Lau, Jennifer J. Rho, Jordan H. Bekier, Minae Yu, Rodney Joseph Stone, Shannon Edward Mader, Stephanie Jean Kim, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, David C. Yang, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Nicole Marie Smith, Morrison and Foerster LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Casey James McCracken, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Irvine, CA, Christopher James Wiener, Esther Kim, Harold J. McElhinny, Jack Williford Londen, James P. Bennett, Matthew Ian Kreeger, Michael A. Jacobs, Nathaniel Bryan Sabri, Rachel Krevans, Richard S.J. Hung, Ruth N. Borenstein, Morrison and Foerster LLP, Emily L. Fedman, Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, San Francisco, CA, Mark Nolan Reiter, Michael Anthony Valek, Robert Vincent, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, Sarah Elizabeth Spires, Skiermont Puckett, Dallas, TX, Mary Prendergast, Morrison and Foerster LLP, San Diego, CA, Scott Frederick Llewellyn, Morrison Foerster LLP, Denver, CO, for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant.

Daniel C. Posner, Michael Thomas Zeller, Amardeep Lal Thakur, Anthony Paul Alden, Brett Dylan Proctor, Christopher Earl Price, Elliot J. Siegel, Eric John Emanuel, John Steven Gordon, John B. Quinn, Kara Michelle Borden, Kenneth Reed Chiate, Susan Rachel Estrich, Valerie Anne Lozano, William Charlie Price, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Daryl M. Crone, Crone Hawxhurst LLP, David Raymond Garcia, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David Elsberg, Anastasia M. Fernands, Carlos A. Rodriguez, Edward John DeFranco, John T. McKee, Joseph Milowic, III, Joshua P. Jaffe, Maxim Price, Patrick Daniel Curran, Richard Wolter Erwine, Ron Hagiz, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, New York, NY, Derek J. Tang, Amy H. Candido, Carl Gunnar Anderson, Charles K. Verhoeven, Clark Craddock, Jacob Klein Danziger, James Dubois Judah, Jordan Ross Jaffe, Kevin Alexander Smith, Kristin J. Madigan, Lindsay Cooper, Matthew S. Warren, Michael Louis Fazio, Peter Allen Klivans, Rebecca Ann Bers, Robert Nai–Shu Kang, Sean Sang–Chul Pak, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Gary L. Halling, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Mark C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, San Francisco, CA, Aaron P. Maurer, David Michael Horniak, David M. Krinsky, Dov Philip Grossman, Stanley E. Fisher, Williams & Connolly, LLP, Alan Lee Whitehurst, Deepa Acharya, Jared Weston Newton, Marissa R. Ducca, Samuel Mark Drezdzon, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, DC, Alexander David Baxter, Kevin P.B. Johnson, Rachel M. Kassabian, Robert William Stone, Todd Michael Briggs, Victoria F. Maroulis, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Redwood Shores, CA, David A. Nelson, Nathan Andrew Hamstra, Stephen A. Swedlow, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Chicago, IL, Lance L. Yang, Robert Jason Becher, Scott Alan Florance, Scott B. Kidman, Scott Liscom Watson, Shahin Rezvani, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants and Counterclaimants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART APPLE'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

[PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION]

LUCY H. KOH, United States District Judge

On May 5, 2014, after a thirteen-day trial and approximately four days of deliberation, a jury in this patent case reached a verdict. ECF No. 1884. On May 23, 2014, Apple filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, amended judgment, new trial, and damages enhancements. ECF No. 1897–3 (“Mot.”). On June 6, 2014, Samsung filed an opposition. ECF No. 1906 (“Opp'n”). On June 13, 2014, Apple filed a reply. ECF No. 1919 (“Reply”). The Court held a hearing on the post-trial motions on July 10, 2014. Having considered the law, the record, and the parties' arguments, the Court GRANTS Apple's request for judgment as a matter of law of non-infringement of claim 15 of the '239 patent with respect to Apple's iPad products, GRANTS Apple's request for supplemental damages and prejudgment interest, and DENIES Apple's motion for judgment as a matter of law in all other respects.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 permits a district court to grant judgment as a matter of law “when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion and the conclusion is contrary to that reached by the jury.” Ostad v. Or. Health Scis. Univ., 327 F.3d 876, 881 (9th Cir.2003). A party seeking judgment as a matter of law after a jury verdict must show that the verdict is not supported by “substantial evidence,” meaning “relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”

Callicrate v. Wadsworth Mfg., Inc., 427 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2005) (citing Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir.1992) ). The Court must “view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party ... and draw all reasonable inferences in that party's favor.” See E.E.O.C. v. Go Daddy Software, Inc., 581 F.3d 951, 961 (9th Cir.2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

A new trial is appropriate under Rule 59 “only if the jury verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.” DSPT Int'l, Inc. v. Nahum, 624 F.3d 1213, 1218 (9th Cir.2010). A court should grant a new trial where necessary “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 729 (9th Cir.2007).

II. ANALYSIS

A. Infringement of Claim 8 of the '721 Patent by Samsung's Galaxy S II Products

Apple moves for judgment as a matter of law that Samsung's accused Galaxy S II products infringe claim 8 of the '721 patent or, in the alternative, for a new trial on infringement and damages for those products. Mot. at 3. The '721 patent discloses unlocking a portable electronic device by using a predetermined gesture on a touch-sensitive screen. See generally '721 Patent col. 1. The '721 patent targeted the problem of “unintentional activation or deactivation of functions due to unintentional contact with the touch screen” in portable devices. Id. Apple asserted claim 8 of the '721 patent against Samsung. Claim 8 depends from claim 7. Both claims recite:

7. A portable electronic device, comprising:

a touch-sensitive display;

memory;

one or more processors; and

one or more modules stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more modules including instructions:

to detect a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;

to continuously move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact while continuous contact with the touch-sensitive display is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and

to unlock the hand-held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.

8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions to display visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.

Apple accused six Samsung phones of infringing the '721 patent. For the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, and Stratosphere, Apple accused the “slide to unlock” feature in those phones. For the Galaxy S II, Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch, and Galaxy S II Skyrocket (“Galaxy S II products”), Apple accused only the “slide to answer” feature.¹ While the jury found that the Admire, Galaxy Nexus, and Stratosphere infringe claim 8, the jury found that the Galaxy S II products do not infringe. ECF No. 1884 at 5. The Court DENIES Apple's motion, as explained below.

“To prove infringement, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to show the presence of every element or its equivalent in the accused device.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1301 (Fed.Cir.2011). “If any claim limitation is absent from the accused device, there is no literal infringement as a matter of law.” Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1247 (Fed.Cir.2000). Accordingly, the jury needed to identify only one limitation missing from the accused products to reach its...