Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 464 Filed 03/15/19 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196)
`mbettinger@sidley.com
`Irene Yang (SBN 245464)
`irene.yang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Ste. 2000
`San Francisco, California 94104
`415-772-1200 – Telephone
`415-772-7400 – Facsimile
`
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC.,
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., and
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`
`
`
`David T. Pritikin (pro hac vice)
`dpritikin@sidley.com
`David C. Giardina (pro hac vice)
`dgiardina@sidley.com
`Douglas I. Lewis (pro hac vice)
`dilewis@sidley.com
`John W. McBride (pro hac vice)
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`312-853-7000 – Telephone
`312-853-7036 – Facsimile
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
` Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE
`THE ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S
`MOTION FOR ANTISUIT INJUNCTION
`(DKT. 280-281)
`
`
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., and
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs / Counterclaim-Defendants,
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendants / Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`and
`
`SAMSUNG RESEARCH AMERICA,
`
`Defendant,
`v.
`
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 464 Filed 03/15/19 Page 2 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`On February 26, 2019, Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants Huawei Technologies Co.,
`Ltd., Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei Technologies USA, Inc., and HiSilicon Technologies Co.,
`Ltd. (collectively, “Huawei”) and Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc. (collectively,
`“Samsung”) notified the Court that the parties had entered into a confidential settlement agreement,
`and that they anticipated that in the following weeks they would complete the pending steps to
`finalize the settlement. Dkt. 461. Pursuant to the terms of the parties’ settlement, on March 6,
`2019, Huawei moved to dismiss its appeal to the Federal Circuit of the Court’s order granting
`Samsung’s motion for a preliminary antisuit injunction and requested that the Court of Appeals
`remand the case to this Court for consideration of an anticipated unopposed motion to vacate the
`order at issue in the appeal. See Dtk. 73, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir.). The Federal Circuit granted Huawei’s motion, in part,
`on March 15, 2019, remanding the matter to this Court for consideration of Huawei’s unopposed
`motion to vacate and otherwise holding the appeal in abeyance. Dkt. 74, Huawei Technologies Co.,
`Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Appeal No. 18-1979 (Fed. Cir.). Huawei now files the
`unopposed motion to vacate the Court’s order granting Samsung’s motion for a preliminary antisuit
`injunction referenced in its motion in the Federal Circuit (Dkt. 280 (unsealed), Dkt. 281 (sealed),
`hereinafter “the Order”).1
`Upon dismissal of a pending appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s “established procedure” is to remand
`
`“so the district court can decide whether to vacate its judgment.” American Games Inc. v. Trade
`Products, Inc., 142 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 1998).2 In the case of a preliminary injunction, once
`the dispute has become moot, by reason of settlement or otherwise, the preliminary injunction
`
`
`
`1 Upon resolution of this motion, the parties anticipate jointly filing a stipulation of dismissal of this
`action.
`2 Ninth Circuit law applies to this request to vacate, which does not involve matters unique to patent
`law. See Broyhill Furniture Industries, Inc. v. Craftmaster Furniture Corp., 12 F.3d 1080, 1082
`(Fed. Cir. 1993) (noting that in reviewing motions to vacate, the Federal Circuit “defer[s] to the law
`of the regional circuit in which the district court sits because such rulings commonly involve
`procedural matters that are not unique to patent law”); Microstrategy Inc. v. Apttus Corp., No. 3:15-
`CV-21-JAG, 2015 WL 12839248 at *1 (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 2015) (applying Fourth Circuit law to a
`request to vacate an order dismissing a patent infringement suit for patent-ineligible subject matter).
`2
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 464 Filed 03/15/19 Page 3 of 4
`
`
`
`
`should be vacated. See Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics v. United States Forest
`Service, 408 F. Supp. 2d 916, 921 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (vacating a preliminary injunction order that
`had become moot); Berkeley Community Health Project v. City of Berkeley, 119 F.3d 794, 794-795
`(9th Cir. 1997) (parties settled while appeal of preliminary injunction was pending; Court of
`Appeals remanded to allow district court to consider request to vacate, and dismissed the appeal
`after the district court vacated its preliminary injunction order as moot). This Court entered the
`preliminary antisuit injunction as a temporary measure to bar Huawei from seeking to enforce
`injunction orders issued by the Shenzhen Court until this Court had “the ability to determine the
`breach of contract claim,” i.e., until the trial in this matter could be held. Dkt. 281 at 20-21. At the
`time, the Court indicated that it expected the antisuit injunction to last “less than six months” and
`that it was “limited to a particular order dealing with two patents” and “a specific form of relief.”
`Id. at 20. Based on the parties’ settlement resolving all pending disputes between the parties—
`including all disputes in the United States and China—the basis for the preliminary injunction no
`longer exists.
`Therefore, Huawei respectfully requests that the Court vacate its preliminary injunction,
`which the Court issued as Dkt. 280 (unsealed) and Dkt. 281 (sealed). Counsel for Samsung has
`stated that it does not oppose this motion.
`
`
`Dated: March 15, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Michael J. Bettinger
`
`Michael J. Bettinger (SBN 122196)
`mbettinger@sidley.com
`Irene Yang (SBN 245464)
`irene.yang@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`555 California Street, Ste. 2000
`San Francisco, California 94104
`Telephone: +1 415 772-1200
`Facsimile: +1 415 772-7400
`
`
`
`3
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 464 Filed 03/15/19 Page 4 of 4
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`David T. Pritikin (pro hac vice)
`dpritikin@sidley.com
`David C. Giardina (pro hac vice)
`dgiardina@sidley.com
`Douglas I. Lewis (pro hac vice)
`dlewis@sidley.com
`John W. McBride (pro hac vice)
`jwmcbride@sidley.com
`SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
`One South Dearborn
`Chicago, Illinois 60603
`Telephone: +1 312 853 7000
`Facsimile: +1 312 853 7036
`
`Attorneys for Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.,
`Huawei Device USA, Inc., Huawei
`Technologies USA, Inc., and HiSilicon
`Technologies Co., Ltd.
`
`
`4
`UNOPPOSED MOTION TO VACATE
`CASE 16-CV-02787-WHO
`
`
`