Elan Microelectronics Corporation v. Apple, Inc.
Filing
342
Declaration of Jane H. Bu in Support of 341 MOTION to Compel Discovery Related to Apple iOS Applications for the Accused Products filed byElan Microelectronics Corporation. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Related document(s) 341 ) (Bu, Jane) (Filed on 7/15/2011)
EXHIBIT E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
MATTHEW D. POWERS (Bar No. 104795)
matthew.powers@weil.com
JARED BOBROW (Bar No. 133712)
jared.bobrow@weil.com
SONAL N. MEHTA (Bar No. 222086)
sonal.mehta@weil.com
DEREK C. WALTER (Bar. No. 246322)
derek.walter@weil.com
NATHAN GREENBLATT (Bar No. 262279)
nathan.greenblatt@weil.com
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
Silicon Valley Office
201 Redwood Shores Parkway
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Telephone: (650) 802-3000
Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff
Apple Inc.
12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
14
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
15
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
16
ELAN MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION,
17
20
21
APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO ELAN
MICROELECTRONICS
CORPORATION’S NOTICE OF
DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 30(B)(6) TO
DEFENDANT APPLE INC.
Plaintiff and Counterclaim
Defendant,
18
19
Case No. C-09-01531 RS (PSG)
v.
APPLE INC.,
Defendant and Counterclaim
Plaintiff.
22
23
24
Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby objects and
25
responds to Elan Microelectronics Corporation's (“Elan”) Notice of Deposition Pursuant to
26
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) to Defendant Apple Inc. (the “Notice”).
27
28
APPLE'S OBJECTION & RESPONSES TO ELAN'S NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 30(B)(6)
1
1
2
TOPIC NO. 17:
Apple Apps that require or include features that that utilize the use of
3
multiple fingers, the Multi‐Touch technology, or the Accused Instrumentality.
4
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 17:
5
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
6
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
7
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
8
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
9
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
10
contentions. Apple further objects to this topic to the extent the burden or expense of the
11
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Apple also objects to this topic to the extent that
12
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
13
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
14
TOPIC NO. 18:
15
The number of units purchased, percentage purchased of total Apps
16
downloaded or otherwise obtained and usage rates of Apple Apps that require the use of
17
multiple fingers, the Multi‐Touch technology, or the Accused Instrumentality.
18
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 18:
19
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
20
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
21
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
22
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
23
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
24
contentions. Apple further objects to this topic to the extent the burden or expense of the
25
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Apple also objects to this topic to the extent that
26
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
27
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
28
APPLE'S OBJECTION & RESPONSES TO ELAN'S NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 30(B)(6)
17
1
TOPIC NO. 19:
2
The costs, revenues, and profits, on monthly and annual basis, since January 1,
3
2003, relating to Apps that require the use of multiple fingers, the Multi‐Touch technology,
4
or the Accused Instrumentality.
5
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 19:
6
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
7
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
8
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
9
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
10
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
11
contentions. Apple further objects to this topic to the extent the burden or expense of the
12
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Apple also objects to this topic to the extent that
13
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
14
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
15
TOPIC NO. 20:
16
The marketing, post‐sale and pre‐sale market research, analysis and study of
17
Apple Apps that require the use of multiple fingers, the Multi‐Touch technology, or the
18
Accused Instrumentality.
19
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 20:
20
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
21
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
22
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
23
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
24
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
25
contentions. Apple further objects to this topic to the extent the burden or expense of the
26
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Apple also objects to this topic to the extent that
27
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
28
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
APPLE'S OBJECTION & RESPONSES TO ELAN'S NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 30(B)(6)
18
1
TOPIC NO. 21:
2
Market demand, including demand from individual consumers, corporate
3
entities and software or program developers, for Apps for the Accused Products that
4
require the use of multiple fingers, the Multi‐Touch technology, or the Accused
5
Instrumentality.
6
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 21:
7
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
8
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
9
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
10
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
11
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
12
contentions. Apple further objects to this topic to the extent the burden or expense of the
13
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Apple also objects to this topic to the extent that
14
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
15
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
16
TOPIC NO. 22:
17
Surveys, market or product projections, market or consumer research or
18
report, or user studies conducted or commissioned by or on behalf of, or otherwise in the
19
possession of, Apple that relate to the use of multiple fingers, either independently or
20
included as part of the subject matter of the overall Accused Products, the Accused
21
Instrumentality, Multi‐Touch technology or the functionalities of touch‐sensing input
22
devices.
23
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 22:
24
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
25
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
26
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
27
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
28
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
APPLE'S OBJECTION & RESPONSES TO ELAN'S NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 30(B)(6)
19
1
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
2
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
3
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Apple will designate one or more
4
individuals to testify regarding user studies for the relevant functionalities of Apple’s iPhone 3G,
5
iPhone 3GS, iPod touch, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and Magic Mouse commercial
6
products.
7
TOPIC NO. 29:
Any tests, conducted by or for Apple, or by third party relating to the use of
8
9
10
multiple fingers on Accused Products and test data resulting from such tests.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 29:
11
In addition to its General Objections, Apple objects to this topic to the extent it
12
seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, or which is
13
otherwise immune from discovery. Apple objects to each of the topics as unduly burdensome and
14
not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to the extent it calls for
15
information outside of the accused functionalities as identified in Elan’s infringement
16
contentions. Apple further objects to this topic to the extent the burden or expense of the
17
proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Apple also objects to this topic to the extent that
18
it is duplicative of other discovery requests and/or is obtainable from some other source or form
19
of discovery that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
20
Subject to and without waiving its objections, Apple will designate one or more
21
individuals to testify regarding user studies for the relevant functionalities of Apple’s iPhone 3G,
22
iPhone 3GS, iPod touch, MacBook, MacBook Pro, MacBook Air, and Magic Mouse commercial
23
products.
24
Dated: June 24, 2011
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
25
26
By:
27
28
APPLE'S OBJECTION & RESPONSES TO ELAN'S NOTICE
OF DEPOSITION PURSUANT TO FED. RULE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 30(B)(6)
24
/s/ Sonal N. Mehta
Sonal N. Mehta
Attorneys for Defendant and
Counterclaim Plaintiff Apple Inc.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?