Apple v. Samsung: The Next Round Begins in District Court with the Court Ordering the Case Streamlined Limiting Each Side to Twenty-Five Asserted Claims and Accused Products and Stating “the Court Will Not Permit the Parties to Involve over Fifty Experts

In the next round of litigation in the ongoing war between Apple and Samsung over Smartphones, the district court ordered the parties to file a joint status report to address whether the new action should be stayed pending the appeal in the prior litigation. As explained by the district court, “[o]n march 7, 2013, the parties in this action filed a joint status report regarding whether they believed that a stay of this litigation was appropriate pending resolution of the appeal of the parties’ separate litigation in Civil Action No. 11-cv-01846″) See ECF No. 393.”

The district court then declined to stay the case pending the appeal based on the parties’ joint status report. “The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). In light of the parties’ joint status report, the Court will not stay the case. Accordingly, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung electronics America, Inc, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC shall not file a motion seeking this administrative relief. If circumstances change, the Court will notify the parties.”

Nonetheless, the district court ordered the parties to streamline the case, limiting the asserted claims and accused products to twenty-five per side and limiting the consulting and testifying experts. “As this case proceeds, the Court will require the parties to streamline the issues raised in this action significantly. Therefore, within ten days after the Court issues its Claim Construction Order, the parties will be required to limit their asserted patent claims and accused products to twenty-five per side. In addition, the parties will be required to further narrow their asserted patent claims and accused products as well as limit their prior art references: before the close of expert discovery, before the Court considers any motions for summary judgment, after the Court rules on any motions for summary judgment, and again before the pretrial conference. Further, the parties will be required to limit the number of consulting and testifying experts. Unlike in the 1846 Case, the Court will not permit the parties to involve over fifty experts in this litigation.”

As a result, the district court ordered the parties to file a joint case management statement to propose narrowing of the case consistent with the Court’s order.

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Case No. 12-CV-00630-LHK (N.D. Cal. March 8, 2013)

The authors of www.PatentLawyerBlog.com are patent trial lawyers at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP. We represent inventors, patent owners and technology companies in patent licensing and litigation. Whether pursuing patent violations or defending infringement claims, we are aggressive and effective advocates for our clients. For more information contact Stan Gibson at 310.201.3548 or SGibson@jmbm.com.