On May 16, 2022 a
LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE - MPEG LA's Objections to Samsung's Proposed Judgment
was filed
involving a dispute between
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,,
and
Mpeg La, L.L.C.,,
for Commercial - Contract - Commercial Division
in the District Court of New York County.
Preview
TELEPHONE: 1-212-558-4000
125 Broad Street
FACSIMILE: 1-212-558-3588
WWW.SULLCROM.COM New York, New York 10004-2498
______________________
LOS ANGELES • PALO ALTO • WASHINGTON, D.C.
BRUSSELS • FRANKFURT • LONDON • PARIS
BEIJING • HONG KONG • TOKYO
MELBOURNE • SYDNEY
January 5, 2024
Via NYSCEF and E-Mail
The Honorable Melissa A. Crane
Supreme Court, New York County,
Commercial Division,
60 Centre Street, Room 248,
New York, New York 10007.
Re: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. MPEG LA, LLC, Index No.
656312/2022
Dear Justice Crane:
I represent Defendant MPEG LA, LLC in the above-captioned matter and write
pursuant to this Court’s Decision + Order, dated December 19, 2023 (Dkt. 246), directing
MPEG LA to furnish objections to Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s proposed
judgment (Dkt. 251).
The parties have conferred regarding MPEG LA’s objections and have reached
agreement on revised language—reflected in the attached redline—for each of MPEG LA’s
objections, with one exception. The agreed-upon edits to the proposed judgment are
(i) adding references to Your Honor’s Decision + Order and oral argument in the first
ADJUDGED paragraph; (ii) adding a date to the purported amendment of the AAL for
purposes of clarity; and (iii) specifying the extent of Samsung’s request to be awarded
costs. We also have attached a “clean” version of the judgment which includes the
agreed-upon edits as well as the one disputed issue explained below.
The one dispute concerns an “option” regarding the Redirection Royalties that
Samsung added to the proposed judgment. The added option, for MPEG LA to pay
Samsung directly, rather than the dual licensees, with interest, was not contemplated in the
Decision + Order nor agreed upon at oral argument. As Your Honor’s Order noted: “On
the record, Samsung stated that it would not object if MPEG were directed to pay out an
additional $4,163,516.67 to various sublicensees.” (Dkt. 246 at 3.) Our proposed edit
tracks Your Honor’s Order. Indeed, it was that agreement by Samsung at oral argument
on the Redirection Royalties that eliminated the need for MPEG LA to raise several points
it was prepared to make at argument, including issues it would have raised had Samsung
1 of 2
The Honorable Melissa A. Crane -2-
demanded the “option” it now proposes to add to the judgment. MPEG LA respectfully
requests that the fifth and sixth AJUDGED paragraphs be revised, as shown in the attached
redline, to reflect the parties’ agreement and Your Honor’s Order, and not to provide that
there is any option or interest payable to Samsung on the Redirection Royalties. Although
not part of the agreement at argument, MPEG LA has agreed to provide Samsung an
indemnity to the extent the Redirection Royalties are not paid.
Thank you for your attention to MPEG LA’s objections and please let us know if
we can be of further assistance.
Respectfully,
/s/ Garrard R. Beeney
Garrard R. Beeney
cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
(Attachments)
2 of 2
Document Filed Date
January 05, 2024
Case Filing Date
May 16, 2022
Category
Commercial - Contract - Commercial Division
Status
Disposed-Court Date/Application Pending
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Preview
TELEPHONE: 1-212-558-4000 125 Broad Street FACSIMILE: 1-212-558-3588 WWW.SULLCROM.COM New York, New York 10004-2498 ______________________ LOS ANGELES • PALO ALTO • WASHINGTON, D.C. BRUSSELS • FRANKFURT • LONDON • PARIS BEIJING • HONG KONG • TOKYO MELBOURNE • SYDNEY January 5, 2024 Via NYSCEF and E-Mail The Honorable Melissa A. Crane Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, 60 Centre Street, Room 248, New York, New York 10007. Re: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. MPEG LA, LLC, Index No. 656312/2022 Dear Justice Crane: I represent Defendant MPEG LA, LLC in the above-captioned matter and write pursuant to this Court’s Decision + Order, dated December 19, 2023 (Dkt. 246), directing MPEG LA to furnish objections to Plaintiff Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s proposed judgment (Dkt. 251). The parties have conferred regarding MPEG LA’s objections and have reached agreement on revised language—reflected in the attached redline—for each of MPEG LA’s objections, with one exception. The agreed-upon edits to the proposed judgment are (i) adding references to Your Honor’s Decision + Order and oral argument in the first ADJUDGED paragraph; (ii) adding a date to the purported amendment of the AAL for purposes of clarity; and (iii) specifying the extent of Samsung’s request to be awarded costs. We also have attached a “clean” version of the judgment which includes the agreed-upon edits as well as the one disputed issue explained below. The one dispute concerns an “option” regarding the Redirection Royalties that Samsung added to the proposed judgment. The added option, for MPEG LA to pay Samsung directly, rather than the dual licensees, with interest, was not contemplated in the Decision + Order nor agreed upon at oral argument. As Your Honor’s Order noted: “On the record, Samsung stated that it would not object if MPEG were directed to pay out an additional $4,163,516.67 to various sublicensees.” (Dkt. 246 at 3.) Our proposed edit tracks Your Honor’s Order. Indeed, it was that agreement by Samsung at oral argument on the Redirection Royalties that eliminated the need for MPEG LA to raise several points it was prepared to make at argument, including issues it would have raised had Samsung 1 of 2 The Honorable Melissa A. Crane -2- demanded the “option” it now proposes to add to the judgment. MPEG LA respectfully requests that the fifth and sixth AJUDGED paragraphs be revised, as shown in the attached redline, to reflect the parties’ agreement and Your Honor’s Order, and not to provide that there is any option or interest payable to Samsung on the Redirection Royalties. Although not part of the agreement at argument, MPEG LA has agreed to provide Samsung an indemnity to the extent the Redirection Royalties are not paid. Thank you for your attention to MPEG LA’s objections and please let us know if we can be of further assistance. Respectfully, /s/ Garrard R. Beeney Garrard R. Beeney cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF) (Attachments) 2 of 2