Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 18

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 1

Filed: 08/19/2015

2014-1335, 2015-1029

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT


APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
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-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Case No. 5:11-CV-1846, Judge Lucy H. Koh.
MOTION TO STAY ISSUANCE OF MANDATE
Susan R. Estrich
Michael T. Zeller
Robert J. Becher
B. Dylan Proctor
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Flr.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 443-3000

Kathleen M. Sullivan
William B. Adams
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Flr.
New York, NY 10010
(212) 849-7000

Victoria F. Maroulis
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Flr.
Redwood Shores, CA 94111
(650) 801-5000

Kevin A. Smith
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California St., 22nd Flr.
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 875-6600

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 2

Filed: 08/19/2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1
I.

II.

SAMSUNGS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WILL


PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS .................................................... 3
A.

The Petition Will Present A Substantial Question Regarding


Design Patent Claim Construction And Scope ..................................... 4

B.

The Petition Will Present A Substantial Question Regarding


Design Patent Damages ......................................................................... 5

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS BECAUSE A STAY WILL AVOID


POTENTIALLY
DUPLICATIVE
AND
WASTEFUL
PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CAUSING ANY HARM TO APPLE ............. 7

CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................... 9
STATEMENT REGARDING CONSENT .............................................................. 10
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST .............................................................................. 11
PROOF OF SERVICE ............................................................................................. 14

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 3

Filed: 08/19/2015

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
695 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................ 6
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
Nos. 2014-1335, 2015-1029 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2015) ........................................ 1
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
222 F. 902 (2d Cir. 1915) ..................................................................................... 6
Bush & Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros.,
234 F. 79 (2d Cir. 1916) ....................................................................................... 6
eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC,
547 U.S. 388 (2006) .............................................................................................. 7
Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc.,
543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 4, 5
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc.,
517 U.S. 370 (1996) .............................................................................................. 4
Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 2120 (2014) .......................................................................................... 4
OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc.,
122 F.3d 1396 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................ 4
Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc.,
597 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................ 5
Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 831 (2015) ............................................................................................ 4
Untermeyer v. Freund,
58 F. 205 (2d Cir. 1893) ....................................................................................... 6
Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co.,
268 F. 966 (6th Cir. 1920) .................................................................................... 6
ii

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 4

Filed: 08/19/2015

Statutes & Rules


35 U.S.C. 289 ..........................................................................................2, 3, 5, 6, 7
Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2) ............................................................................................ 1
Fed. R. App. P. 41(d)(2)(A) ....................................................................................... 1
S. Ct. R. 10(c)......................................................................................................... 5, 7
Miscellaneous Authorities
Practice Note to Federal Circuit Rule 41 .................................................................. 8

iii

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 5

Filed: 08/19/2015

Pursuant to Rule 41(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure,


Appellants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC1 (Samsung) respectfully move for
an order staying issuance of the mandate in this appeal pending the filing and
disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the
United States and, if the petition is granted, pending the Supreme Courts final
disposition. This Court issued its opinion and judgment on May 18, 2015. See
Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2014-1335, 2015-1029 (Fed. Cir. May 18,
2015). Samsung filed a timely petition for rehearing en banc on June 17, 2015,
which was denied on August 13, 2015. Accordingly, the mandate is currently
scheduled to issue on August 20, 2015. Samsung intends to file a petition for a
writ of certiorari by November 12, 2015.
ARGUMENT
A motion to stay the mandate pending the filing of a petition for a writ of
certiorari should be granted if the movant show[s] that the certiorari petition
would present a substantial question and that there is good cause for a stay. FED.
R. APP. P. 41(d)(2)(A). Both conditions are met here. Samsungs petition will
include substantial questions regarding at least (i) a district courts obligation to
1

Effective January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC


(STA) merged with and into Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and therefore
STA no longer exists as a separate corporate entity.

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 6

Filed: 08/19/2015

construe design patents and instruct juries about their scope, and (ii) the proper
interpretation of the design-patent damages statute, 35 U.S.C. 289an issue that
is of vital importance to the technology industry and drew substantial support from
amici at the rehearing stage (see ECF Nos. 187, 194-98).
Moreover, good cause exists for a stay because it will forestall action in the
district court that could potentially necessitate a remedial order of the Supreme
Court if certiorari were granted. Given this Courts reversal of the denial of
Samsungs motion for judgment as a matter of law on Apples trade-dress dilution
claims, issuance of the mandate will vacate the district court's 2014 final judgment
entered against Samsung. Since the Samsung products wrongly found to dilute
Apples asserted trade dresses were also found to infringe one or more Apple
patents, the district court will necessarily require further proceedings to determine
Apples damages on its design-patent and utility-patent infringement claims. Such
further proceedings will likely be extensive and will likely entail a damages retrial
on the products erroneously found to dilute Apples asserted trade dresses. Indeed,
in similar circumstances following the first trial in this case, the district court
ordered a damages retrial on several products following its partial grant of
Samsungs post-trial motions.
It would be wasteful and inefficient to undertake further damages
proceedings here, however, were the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 7

Filed: 08/19/2015

or vacate on design-patent liability or damages. Staying issuance of the mandate


thus will promote judicial efficiency and economy by avoiding the prospect of
multiple, duplicative proceedings, and the need for a remedial order from the
Supreme Court should a new judgment be entered below. Such a stay, moreover,
will not unfairly prejudice Apple, as its judgment, which continues to accrue
interest, remains protected by the supersedeas bond that Samsung has posted.
I.

SAMSUNGS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI WILL


PRESENT SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS
A stay of issuance of the mandate is warranted because Samsungs petition

for a writ of certiorari will present at least two substantial questions concerning
design-patent liability and damages. First, the petition will present the question
whether a district court must ensure, through proper claim construction and jury
instructions, that a finding of design-patent infringement does not rest on
unprotected functional elements of the design. Second, the petition will present the
question whether an award of an infringers entire profits exceeds the scope of
Section 289 where a patented design is only a minor feature of an infringing
product. Each question is independently sufficient to stay issuance of the mandate.
Together, the questions present issues of enormous importance to patent litigation
and the scope of innovation, especially in high-technology industries, for this
Courts decision leaves design patents alone among intellectual property rights as a
basis to obtain windfall awards far exceeding any inventive contribution.
3

Case: 14-1335

A.

Document: 208

Page: 8

Filed: 08/19/2015

The Petition Will Present A Substantial Question Regarding


Design Patent Claim Construction And Scope

In affirming design-patent infringement in the absence of any judicial claim


construction properly distinguishing ornamental from functional elements in
Apples design patents, this Courts decision conflicts with decisions of the
Supreme Court requiring district courts to construe the scope and meaning of a
patent claim and not abdicate such claim construction to a jury, Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390-91 (1996), even when it involves
factual disputes, Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 835-39
(2015). Such construction must inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in
the art about the scope of the invention. Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 2120, 2124 (2014). And, as this Court previously held, that duty to
conduct claim construction [applies] in design patent cases, as in utility patent
cases. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665, 679 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(en banc).
Moreover, in holding that a district court need only recite without
elaboration a design patents standard language claiming the ornamental design
as shown in the figures, this Courts decision conflicts with prior decisions of this
Court, which, until now, had made clear that where a design contains both
functional and non-functional elements, the scope of the claim must be construed
to distinguish those elements. OddzOn Prods., Inc. v. Just Toys, Inc., 122 F.3d
4

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 9

Filed: 08/19/2015

1396, 1405 (Fed. Cir. 1997), quoted in Egyptian Goddess, 543 F.3d at 680; see
Richardson v. Stanley Works, Inc., 597 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
These conflicts on significant issues of patent law fit squarely within the
criteria that the Supreme Court considers in deciding whether to grant a petition for
a writ of certiorari because they implicate an important question of federal law
that has not been, but should be, settled by the Court and present conflicts with
relevant decisions of the Supreme Court. See S. Ct. R. 10(c). There is thus a
reasonable probability that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to resolve the
conflicts on these important issues.
B.

The Petition Will Present A Substantial Question Regarding


Design Patent Damages

In upholding an award of Samsungs total profits for its smartphone products


found to infringe Apples design patents notwithstanding that the design patents
claimed only minor portions of the product and the infringing designs covered only
minor portions of the accused phones, this Courts decision additionally conflicts
with the plain language, legislative history and purpose of Section 289.

In

allowing awards to the extent of infringers profits, Section 289 is best read as
imposing a ceiling but not a floor, and other language in the statute supports the
view that the infringers-profits provision was not meant to jettison ordinary
principles of causation, as the legislative history of the relevant amendment
confirms.
5

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 10

Filed: 08/19/2015

The decision conflicts as well as with decisions of other courts of appeals


interpreting the Patent Act closer in time to the relevant amendment. As those
courts have held, where a complex, multi-component product is found to infringe a
design patent, Section 289 is best interpreted to limit recovery to those infringers
profits attributable to the portion of the product to which the patented design was
applied. See, e.g., Young v. Grand Rapids Refrigerator Co., 268 F. 966, 974 (6th
Cir. 1920) (affirming denial of all profits from sale of refrigerators where infringed
patent related only to design of refrigerators door latch); Bush & Lane Piano Co.
v. Becker Bros., 234 F. 79, 81-83 (2d Cir. 1916) (allowing award of infringers
profits from patented design of piano case but not from sale of entire piano); Bush
& Lane Piano Co. v. Becker Bros., 222 F. 902, 904-05 (2d Cir. 1915) (same);
Untermeyer v. Freund, 58 F. 205, 211-12 (2d Cir. 1893) (affirming award of
infringers profits from sale of watch case to which design was applied and not
from sales of watch itself).
This Courts decision to allow an award of an infringers total profits under
Section 289 will lead to outsized, windfall damages awards, which, combined with
this Courts expansive holdings on design-patent liability, will allow a designpatent holderunique among owners of intellectual propertyto leverage its
patent for competitive gain beyond that which the inventive contribution and value
of the patent warrant. Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 695 F.3d 1370, 1375

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 11

Filed: 08/19/2015

(Fed. Cir. 2012). The Supreme Court has shown keen interest in reviewing other,
similar issues of causation and proportionality in patent law. See eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
Samsungs petition thus will present a significant conflict among the circuits
as to the scope of Section 289, as well as an important question of design-patent
damages law that has not been, but should be, settled by the [Supreme] Court. S.
Ct. R. 10(c). The nationwide significance of this issue is demonstrated by the
numerous and varied amici that supported Samsungs rehearing petition and their
expressions of concern that this Courts rulings will result in a flood of design
patent litigation that would stifle innovation. 2

There is thus a reasonable

probability that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari to consider the designpatent damages issue as well as the question presented on design-patent scope.
II.

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS BECAUSE A STAY WILL AVOID


POTENTIALLY DUPLICATIVE AND WASTEFUL PROCEEDINGS
WITHOUT CAUSING ANY HARM TO APPLE
There is good cause for the Court to stay issuance of the mandate because a

stay will ensure that the district court and the parties do not needlessly expend
The following amici supported Samsungs rehearing petition: Dell Inc.,
eBay Inc., Facebook Inc., Google Inc., Hewlett-Packard Co., Limelight Networks,
Inc., Newegg Inc., SAS Institute Inc., the Hispanic Leadership Fund, the National
Black Chamber of Commerce, the National Grange of the Order of the Patrons of
Husbandry, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, and Professor
Mark Lemley, et al.
2

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 12

Filed: 08/19/2015

resources on further proceedings that could be upset by the Supreme Court.


Indeed, the Practice Note to Federal Circuit Rule 41 indicates that a stay is
warranted in precisely these circumstancesi.e., where it would forestall action
in the trial court or agency that would necessitate a remedial order of the Supreme
Court if the writ of certiorari were granted.
In light of this Courts decision and judgment reversing the denial of
Samsungs motion for judgment as a matter of law on trade-dress dilution, the
district court must determine on remand the amount of damages to which Apple is
entitled on its claims for design-patent infringement and utility-patent
infringement. See Slip Op. 33. Assessing the consequences of this reversal will
require substantial proceedings. Notably, the damages retrial in this case arose
from similar circumstances. After the first trial, the district court partially granted
Samsungs post-trial motions, and ruled that a new trial on damages was required
[b]ecause the Court has identified an impermissible legal theory on which the jury
based its award, and cannot reasonably calculate the amount of excess while
effectuating the intent of the jury. (Dist. Ct. Dkt. 2271, at 26 (Mar. 1, 2013).)
Likewise, the jurys damages awards on the products wrongly found to have
diluted Apples asserted trade dresses are based on an impermissible legal
theory, and further proceedings will be necessary to determine the total amount of
patent damages that Apple may recover.

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 13

Filed: 08/19/2015

Were the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reverse or vacate the
judgment on the design-patent claims, however, these proceedings on remand
would have been for naught, a remedial order from that Court would be necessary,
and still further proceedingson liability, damages, or bothwould be necessary
in the district court.

The potential for waste of judicial resources is thus

significant. A stay, on the other hand, will allow the Supreme Court to decide
whether to review the design-patent judgment before either the district court or the
parties expend resources to determine the final amount of patent damages and will
ensure that remand proceedings are minimized, thus furthering the interests of
judicial economy and efficiency.
Finally, Apple will not suffer any actual harm from a stay of the mandate
because its damages award is fully secured and continues to accrue interest. The
district court stayed enforcement and execution of the 2014 judgment on the
condition that Samsung post a supersedeas bond; Samsung posted a bond in the
amount of $1 billionwell more than the ultimate judgment will be in this case.
CONCLUSION
The Court should stay issuance of the mandate pending the filing and
disposition of Samsungs petition for a writ of certiorari and, if the petition is
granted, pending the Supreme Courts final disposition.

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 14

Filed: 08/19/2015

STATEMENT REGARDING CONSENT


Samsungs counsel contacted Apples counsel to seek Apples position on
this motion. Apples counsel stated that Apple opposes the motion and intends to
file a response.
Dated: August 19, 2015

Susan R. Estrich
Michael T. Zeller
Robert J. Becher
B. Dylan Proctor
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213) 443-3000

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kathleen M. Sullivan
Kathleen M. Sullivan
William B. Adams
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
(212) 849-7000

Victoria F. Maroulis
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
(650) 801-5000

Kevin A. Smith
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California St., 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 875-6600

Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants

10

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 15

Filed: 08/19/2015

CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants certifies the following:
1.

The full name of every party or amicus represented by me is:

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. Effective
January 1, 2015, Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (STA) merged
with and into Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and therefore STA no longer
exists as a separate corporate entity.
2.

The name of the real party in interest (if the party named in the caption

is not the real party in interest) represented by me is:


N/A
3.

All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10

percent or more of the stock of the party or amicus curiae represented by me


are:
Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC), a publicly held corporation organized
under the laws of the Republic of Korea. SEC is not owned by any parent
corporation and no other publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of its stock.
No other publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of SEAs stock.

11

Case: 14-1335

4.

Document: 208

Page: 16

Filed: 08/19/2015

The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared

for the party or amicus now represented by me in the trial court or are
expected to appear in this court are:
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP: Anne E. Abramowitz; William B.
Adams; Anthony P. Alden; Carl G. Anderson; Brett J. Arnold; Katharine F.
Barach; Robert J. Becher; Albert P. Bedecarre; Heather E. Belville; Kara M.
Borden; Todd M. Briggs; Margret M. Caruso; Jon C. Cederberg; Melissa N. Chan;
Prashanth Chennakesavan, Kenneth R. Chiate; Edward J. DeFranco; Susan R.
Estrich; Michael L. Fazio; Ryan S. Goldstein; John S. Gordon; Diane Hutnyan;
Kevin P.B. Johnson; Rachel H. Kassabian; Scott B. Kidman; Brian E. Mack;
Victoria F. Maroulis; Joseph B. Martin; Joseph Milowic; Melissa Chan OSullivan;
Thomas D. Pease; John M. Pierce; William C. Price; B. Dylan Proctor; John B.
Quinn; Carey R. Ramos; Kevin A. Smith; Christopher E. Stretch; Robert W. Stone;
Kathleen M. Sullivan; Bill Trac; Mark Tung; Charles K. Verhoeven; Curran M.
Walker; Scott L. Watson; Thomas R. Watson; Alan L. Whitehurst; Robert Wilson;
Michael T. Zeller
Colt / Singer / Bea LLP: Benjamin L. Singer
Crone Hawxhurst LLP: Daryl M. Crone
DLA Piper US LLP: Thomas G. Pasternak

12

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 17

Filed: 08/19/2015

Hopenfeld Singer Rice & Saito: James E. Hopenfeld; Edward H. Rice; Marina N.
Saito
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP : Gary L. Halling; Mona Solouki
Steptoe & Johnson LLP:

John M. Caracappa; Paul A. Gennari; Michael R.

Heimbold; Huan-Yi Lin; Kfir B. Levy; Dylan Ruga

Dated: August 19, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Kathleen M. Sullivan
Kathleen M. Sullivan
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART
& SULLIVAN, LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (212) 849-7000
Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
kathleensullivan@quinnemanuel.com
Attorney for Defendants-Appellants

13

Case: 14-1335

Document: 208

Page: 18

Filed: 08/19/2015

PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 19, 2015, I electronically
filed the foregoing MOTION TO STAY ISSUANCE OF MANDATE with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit by
using the appellate CM/ECF system. I certify that all participants in the case are
registered CM/ECF users and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF
system.
/s/ Kathleen M. Sullivan

14