On May 16, 2022 a
Letter,Correspondence
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
March 12, 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 in the above-referenced matter. I am writing to
request a status conference with the Court in light of the events described below.
As Your Honor will recall, on December 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff
Samsung’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the HEVC Administrative
Committee (“Committee”) may not, under § 6.1 of the Agreement Among Licensors
(“AAL”), conduct a vote that counts silence as a vote in favor of a proposal – in this case
an amendment to § 7.2.2 of the AAL. (Dkt. 246). On March 7, 2024, Matthew Corkett,
the Principal Court Clerk for the New York County Clerk’s Office, informed counsel for
MPEG LA that Your Honor signed MPEG LA’s proposed judgment (Dkt. 256), but
indicated a new judgment must be submitted before the Clerk can calculate interest. Prior
to submitting a revised proposed judgment, we write to inform Your Honor on recent
developments relating to Your Honor’s December 19, 2023 Order.
I have been provided with the attached resolution of the Committee, which amends
§ 7.2.2 without using the voting procedure that was the subject of Your Honor’s order.
We believe a status conference to discuss the effect of the attached resolution on
the course of this litigation would be the most efficient way of addressing the issue. There
is no doubt the Court retains jurisdiction to hold such a conference notwithstanding the
filing of the notice of appeal. See Kleinman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 298 N.Y. 217, 218
(N.Y. 1948) (holding that an appeal does “not have the effect of transferring the action,”
and, “with the exception of matters relating to the appeal itself[,] . . . the action is regarded
1 of 2
The Honorable Melissa A. Crane -2-
for all purposes as still pending in the court of original jurisdiction”); see also Ascentium
v. N. Cap. Assocs. XIII, L.P., 2014 WL 1650960, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2014)
(granting plaintiff a preliminary injunction while an appeal from a prior order granting
summary judgment was pending before the First Appellate Division because “a case, for
general purposes, remains within the jurisdiction of the trial court while it is appealed . . .
except for matters pertinent to the appeal”); Town of N. Elba v. Grimditch, 96 A.D. 3d
1300, 1301 (3d Dep’t 2012) (“Generally, an issuing court retains the power to entertain
and decide motions on an order that has been appealed even where the outcome may impact
the pending appeal.”). If the Court prefers, Defendant is prepared to make a formal motion
for relief from the judgment under CPLR § 5515 and/or to renew under CPLR § 2221, or
to take some other action as the Court may prefer.
Respectfully,
/s/ Garrard R. Beeney
Garrard R. Beeney
cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF)
(Attachment)
2 of 2
Document Filed Date
March 12, 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 March 12, 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 in the above-referenced matter. I am writing to request a status conference with the Court in light of the events described below. As Your Honor will recall, on December 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiff Samsung’s motion for summary judgment on the ground that the HEVC Administrative Committee (“Committee”) may not, under § 6.1 of the Agreement Among Licensors (“AAL”), conduct a vote that counts silence as a vote in favor of a proposal – in this case an amendment to § 7.2.2 of the AAL. (Dkt. 246). On March 7, 2024, Matthew Corkett, the Principal Court Clerk for the New York County Clerk’s Office, informed counsel for MPEG LA that Your Honor signed MPEG LA’s proposed judgment (Dkt. 256), but indicated a new judgment must be submitted before the Clerk can calculate interest. Prior to submitting a revised proposed judgment, we write to inform Your Honor on recent developments relating to Your Honor’s December 19, 2023 Order. I have been provided with the attached resolution of the Committee, which amends § 7.2.2 without using the voting procedure that was the subject of Your Honor’s order. We believe a status conference to discuss the effect of the attached resolution on the course of this litigation would be the most efficient way of addressing the issue. There is no doubt the Court retains jurisdiction to hold such a conference notwithstanding the filing of the notice of appeal. See Kleinman v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 298 N.Y. 217, 218 (N.Y. 1948) (holding that an appeal does “not have the effect of transferring the action,” and, “with the exception of matters relating to the appeal itself[,] . . . the action is regarded 1 of 2 The Honorable Melissa A. Crane -2- for all purposes as still pending in the court of original jurisdiction”); see also Ascentium v. N. Cap. Assocs. XIII, L.P., 2014 WL 1650960, at *1 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 25, 2014) (granting plaintiff a preliminary injunction while an appeal from a prior order granting summary judgment was pending before the First Appellate Division because “a case, for general purposes, remains within the jurisdiction of the trial court while it is appealed . . . except for matters pertinent to the appeal”); Town of N. Elba v. Grimditch, 96 A.D. 3d 1300, 1301 (3d Dep’t 2012) (“Generally, an issuing court retains the power to entertain and decide motions on an order that has been appealed even where the outcome may impact the pending appeal.”). If the Court prefers, Defendant is prepared to make a formal motion for relief from the judgment under CPLR § 5515 and/or to renew under CPLR § 2221, or to take some other action as the Court may prefer. Respectfully, /s/ Garrard R. Beeney Garrard R. Beeney cc: All Counsel of Record (via NYSCEF) (Attachment) 2 of 2