Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Panasonic Corporation
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6256
9th Cir.2014Background
- SD Defendants created the SD card formats and licensing structure via the SD Group and SD-3C.
- 2003 license imposed a 6% royalty on non-SD Group manufacturers and did not cover new formats.
- 2006 license amended terms to extend to SDHC and microSD cards; Samsung refused to sign but began paying royalties when manufacturing the new formats.
- Samsung filed suit in June 2010 asserting Sherman Act §1 and §2 violations and related state-law claims.
- District court dismissed as time-barred; Samsung appeals asserting continuing violation and other exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Continuing-violation tolling scope | Samsung argues 2006 adoption and enforcement acts restarted accrual. | Defendants contend no new overt act outside prior framework. | Yes; acts restarted the limitations period. |
| Overt acts restarting the period | Adoption of 2006 license and collection of royalties were independent acts. | Only a continuation of prior terms, not new overt acts. | Both adoption and enforcement actions restart the period. |
| Speculative damages exception | Damages were uncertain at initial act but accrue when harm crystallizes. | Harm should be determined earlier; damages uncertain only if not crystallized. | Damages crystallized in 2006, making accrual timely. |
| Remand of state-law claims | UCL and Cartwright Act claims should proceed alongside federal claims. | Untimeliness justified dismissal of state claims. | Remanded to address timeliness under state law; UCL claim reinstated. |
| Equitable relief debris (laches) timing | Equitable claim should be timely under laches guidelines. | District court did not address equitable claim on timeliness. | Equitable claim remanded for timeliness determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (continuing violation accrual when injury occurs from each act)
- Pace Industries, Inc. v. Three Phoenix Co., 813 F.2d 234 (9th Cir. 1987) (overt acts causing new accrual; continuing violation framework)
- AMF, Inc. v. General Motors Corp., 591 F.2d 68 (9th Cir. 1979) (pre-limitations acts can restart the statute when enforcement occurs)
- Columbia Steel Casting Co., Inc. v. Portland General Electric Co., 111 F.3d 1427 (9th Cir. 1997) (overt acts under pre-limitations contract can restart limitations period)
- Hennegan v. Pacifico Creative Service, Inc., 787 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1986) (acts under pre-limitations contracts can create new accrual)