Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Document: 208
Page: 1
Filed: 08/19/2015
2014-1335, 2015-1029
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
Case: 14-1335
Document: 208
Page: 2
Filed: 08/19/2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... ii
ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 1
I.
II.
B.
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
iii
Case: 14-1335
Document: 208
Page: 5
Filed: 08/19/2015
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
10
Case: 14-1335
Document: 208
Page: 15
Filed: 08/19/2015
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
Counsel for Defendants-Appellants certifies the following:
1.
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
All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own 10
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:
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