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)

Download PDF
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?