On May 16, 2022 a
LETTER / CORRESPONDENCE TO JUDGE - *Corrected* 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 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 reached
agreement on revised language—reflected in the attached redline—for each of MPEG LA’s
objections, with two exceptions: there is one disagreement and one MPEG LA proposed
edit as to which Samsung has not taken a position.
The agreed-upon edits to the proposed judgment are (i) adding references to Your
Honor’s decision + order and oral argument in the paragraph granting Samsung’s motion;
(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 other
two issues explained below.
As for the issue Samsung has not yet taken a position, MPEG LA proposes a stay
of execution on the judgment for approximately three weeks to allow MPEG LA to secure
a bond. We are in discussions with two companies and expect to be able to secure a bond
within that period. We respectfully ask for this short grace period. Although Samsung has
not yet taken a position on this request, Samsung has informed us that it does not intend to
object to MPEG LA’s calculation of the $25,278,415.93 figure at this time.
The Honorable Melissa A. Crane -2-
The one dispute concerns an “option” regarding the Redirection Royalties which
Samsung added to the proposed judgment. The added option to pay Samsung directly with
interest rather than the licensees was not contemplated in the Decision + Order nor
referenced in 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.” Our proposed edit tracks Your Honor’s Order. Indeed, it was that
agreement by Samsung at 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 mentioned 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)
(Attachment)
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 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 reached agreement on revised language—reflected in the attached redline—for each of MPEG LA’s objections, with two exceptions: there is one disagreement and one MPEG LA proposed edit as to which Samsung has not taken a position. The agreed-upon edits to the proposed judgment are (i) adding references to Your Honor’s decision + order and oral argument in the paragraph granting Samsung’s motion; (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 other two issues explained below. As for the issue Samsung has not yet taken a position, MPEG LA proposes a stay of execution on the judgment for approximately three weeks to allow MPEG LA to secure a bond. We are in discussions with two companies and expect to be able to secure a bond within that period. We respectfully ask for this short grace period. Although Samsung has not yet taken a position on this request, Samsung has informed us that it does not intend to object to MPEG LA’s calculation of the $25,278,415.93 figure at this time. The Honorable Melissa A. Crane -2- The one dispute concerns an “option” regarding the Redirection Royalties which Samsung added to the proposed judgment. The added option to pay Samsung directly with interest rather than the licensees was not contemplated in the Decision + Order nor referenced in 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.” Our proposed edit tracks Your Honor’s Order. Indeed, it was that agreement by Samsung at 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 mentioned 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) (Attachment)