Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1002

Declaration of Sam Stake in Support of #1005 Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/1/2012) Modified on 6/4/2012 linking entry to document #1005 and correcting filing date. counsel posted document on 6/1/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 10

Oh, Jeong-Seok

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

1
2
3
4

APPLE INC., a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,

5
6

vs

7

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., a Korean business
entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., a New York
corporation, SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability
company,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - -

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
>

CASE
NO.:

4:11-cv01846-LB

PROTECTIVE ORDER
** CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY

15
16

JEONG-SEOK OH

DATE:

November 11, 2011

PLACE:

17

VIDEOTAPED
DEPOSITION OF:
TAKEN BY:

**

Regus Business Centre
Seoul, Korea
9:49 a.m. to 1:19 p.m.
Lynann Nicely, RMR, CRR
Notary Public
State of Hawaii at Large
Pages 1 - 68

Counsel for Plaintiff

18
19
20
21
22

TIME:
REPORTED BY:

23
24
25
Apple v. Samsung

Page 1

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1

Q

Other than the three inventors listed on patent

2

460, were there any other people working on the team that

3

contributed to the invention described in the patent?

4

MS. MAROULIS:

5

calls for a conclusion.

6

A

7

Objection; vague, assumes facts,

As for the writing up of the patent, that was

the work done by the three of us.

8

Q

9

the patent?

10

A

No, sir.

11

Q

Please describe the invention described in the

12

Did anyone else contribute to the writing of

patent in your own words.
MS. MAROULIS:

13
14

conclusion.

15

A

16

title, sir?

17

Q

Objection; calls for legal

18
19

By that do you mean to ask me to read you the

No, just to describe what you claim to have

invented, in your own words.
A

As of the time of the present invention, what

20

was available was -- with respect to hand sets was text

21

only, using a black and white LCD.

22

invention entailed was to basically incorporate a camera

23

via which you would snap photos and store same and

24

manipulate it over a number of processes and ultimately

25

to be able to transmit the same.

Apple v. Samsung

And what our

Page 21

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1
2

Q

What do you consider to have been your specific

contribution to the invention?

3

MS. MAROULIS:

Objection; vague.

4

THE INTERPRETER:

Quick interjection.

Counsel

5

means that in the singular as opposed to the plural,

6

the three, right?

7

MR. CULTICE:

8
9

A

Yes, correct.

If memory serves, I believe it was I who

drafted the draft of the underlying Korean patent and I

10

designed the interface for both the camera module and the

11

-- strike, the interface as goes between the camera

12

module and the phone module.

13

Q

What was Mr. Kim's contribution?

14

A

Well, for starters he conducted a review as to

15

basically correct any errors as to the draft that I had

16

come up with and otherwise he additionally provided

17

certain other functionalities that ought to be

18

incorporated.

19

Q

What other functionalities, please?

20

A

Well, I don't exactly recall at the moment.

21

Q

Is there a document you could look at that

22

might refresh your recollection on that question?
MS. MAROULIS:

23

Objection; assumes facts.

24

A

No, sir.

25

Q

Can you think of any way that your recollection

Apple v. Samsung

Page 22

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1

might be refreshed on that score?

2

A

No, I don't think so.

3

Q

What was Mr. Park's contribution?

4

A

Now, he would be the actual person who came up

5
6

with the actual circuitry.
Q

What inspired your contribution?

7

MS. MAROULIS:

8

THE INTERPRETER:

9

12
13

Singular or plural, counsel,

please?
MR. CULTICE:

10
11

Objection; vague.

A

"Your" singular.

I don't believe I quite understand your

question, sir.
Q

Let me start another way.

When did the idea

14

come to you that is embodied in the invention described

15

in patent 460?

16

A

There happened to be certain plans to the

17

effect that, hey, let's come up with a camera phone.

18

for the time frame, that was in 1999 -- well, actually

19

more like 1998.

20

Q

22

How did you come up with the idea?
MS. MAROULIS:

21
A

As

Objection; vague.

I contemplated as to how to go about connecting

23

a camera to a phone and ultimately I came to write up

24

what I drafted.

25

Q

Apple v. Samsung

What problem were you attempting to solve?
Page 23

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1

A

Well, whereas in the past phones were phones

2

and cameras were cameras, they were separate disparate

3

objects and had nothing to do with one another basically,

4

and the idea was how to go about how to go about

5

exercising control vis-a-vis the both of them using the

6

one same identical screen.

7

Q

Do you claim to have invented the camera phone?
MS. MAROULIS:

8

Objection; vague.

9

A

Yes.

10

Q

Do you contend that at the time of your

11

conception of the camera phone that camera phones didn't

12

exist in the prior art?

13

MS. MAROULIS:

Objection; calls for legal

14

conclusion, calls for speculation.

15

A

16
17
18
19
20
21

There weren't any to the best of my

understanding.
Q

You are speaking about 1998 to 1999, is that

correct?
A

Yes, the time frame when we embarked on it was

in 1998 and the patent application was submitted in 1999.
Q

The patent application to which you refer is

22

the Korean patent that was filed in 1999; is that

23

correct?

24

A

Yes.

25

Q

To be sure that I understand you, your

Apple v. Samsung

Page 24

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1
2

unquote, scroll key?
Q

Yes.
MS. MAROULIS:

3
4

legal conclusion.

5

A

Objection; vague, calls for

Well, if you are asking as to the expression

6

scroll key, quote unquote, that itself, if I'm the one

7

who came up with that, then I think my answer would have

8

to be no.

9

Q

I'm asking about the function of the scroll key

10

that's described in patent 460 relating to the invention

11

that you claim to be a co-inventor of.

12

MS. MAROULIS:

Objection; calls for legal

13

conclusion, vague.

14

A

I don't quite recall.

15

Q

Do I understand you correctly that you do not

16

quite recall whether you claim to have invented the

17

scroll key or not?
MS. MAROULIS:

18

Objection; misstates testimony,

19

asked and answered, asks for a conclusion.

20

A

21
22

I do not recall, sir, as to what sort of

function is performed by the scroll key in this context.
Q

Does looking at the sentence that reads

23

"sequentially displaying other images stored in a memory

24

through the use of scroll keys" help you recollect that

25

function that you can't currently recollect?

Apple v. Samsung

Page 35

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1

A

Well, at the present moment I fail to recollect

2

as to what my intentions may have been at the time when

3

we were writing this up.

4

now, what does come to mind when I look at the word

5

"scroll key" is that it might be in reference to

6

something that's hardware oriented, maybe software

7

oriented, maybe something in reference to the flipping of

8

pages.

9

Q

10

But as I look at this right

What is your understanding of sequentially

displaying other images?
MS. MAROULIS:

11

Objection; calls for legal

12

conclusion, expert testimony.

13

A

I'm not too sure.

14

Q

Is there any way you can think of to refresh

15

your recollection on that point?

16

A

No, there is no way.

17

Q

I'm directing your attention now to lines 41

18

through 44 under column 14 on the Bates numbered page

19

14745 of the 460 patent.

20

the user interface referred to in those lines?
MS. MAROULIS:

21

What is your understanding of

Objection; calls for legal

22

conclusion and expert testimony.

23

A

Well, I guess after all by "user interface"

24

that is in reference to pretty much everything that is

25

shown to or everything that is visible to the user.

Apple v. Samsung

Page 36

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1

Q

MS. MAROULIS:

2
3

I borrowed that phrase from you.
Objection.

No question pending.

BY MR. CULTICE:

4

Q

Do you know what a handheld device is?

5

A

I think it all depends on the circumstances.

6

I

think it's going to be a little difficult to define it.

7

Q

How would you define handheld device?

8

A

Well, I guess given that things needed to be

9

expressed in English, I think it may have been put in

10

such a way, but I guess after all when they talk about

11

portable devices, they're talking about things that you

12

can carry with you.
VIDEOGRAPHER:

13

This marks the end of tape

14

number 2 in the deposition of Jeong-Seok Oh.

15

off the record, the time is 11:59 a.m.

16

(Brief recess.)

17

VIDEOGRAPHER:

Going

Back on the record.

This marks

18

the beginning of tape number 3 in the deposition of

19

Jeong-Seok Oh.

20
21

The time is 12:12 p.m.

BY MR. CULTICE:
Q

Mr. Oh, you did not -- you are not claiming to

22

have invented the attachment of a photo to e-mail in a

23

handheld device, are you?
MS. MAROULIS:

24
25

A

Apple v. Samsung

Objection; vague.

What I was proposing was that the transmission
Page 46

Oh, Jeong-Seok

1

of e-mail from and by use of a handheld -- sorry, a

2

mobile phone be enabled.
INTERPRETER:

3

May the interpreter correct.

4

"What I was proposing was that the transmission of e-mail

5

from and by use of a portable phone -- portable device,

6

rather, be enabled."

7
8

Q

Do you claim to have invented the attachment of

a photo to an e-mail from a portable device?
MS. MAROULIS:

9

Objection; vague, asked and

10

answered, calls for a legal conclusion.

11

A

Well, what I have invented is to the extent of

12

being able to snap a photo using such a device and then

13

sending that as part of an e-mail.

14
15

Q

Do you claim that that invention is described

in patent 460?
MS. MAROULIS:

16

Objection; vague, calls for

17

legal conclusion.

18

A

Correct.

19

Q

Is that the invention described by Claim 1 on

20

page 14745 of the 460 patent?
MS. MAROULIS:

21

Objection; vague, calls for

22

legal conclusion.

23

A

I don't quite know.

24

Q

By reading the language on Claim 1 on Bates

25

page 14745, could you practice the invention ascribed in

Apple v. Samsung

Page 47

Oh, Jeong-Seok

CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER

1
2
3

I, LYNANN NICELY, Registered Professional

4
5

Reporter, certify that I was authorized to and did

6

stenographically report the foregoing deposition; that a

7

review of the transcript was requested; and that the

8

transcript is a true record of the testimony given by the

9

witness.

10
I further certify that I am not a relative,

11
12

employee, attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor

13

am I a relative or employee of any of the parties'

14

attorney or counsel connected with the action, nor am I

15

financially interested in the action.

16
17

Dated this day 11/17/2011.

18
19
20
21

____________________________

22

Lynann Nicely, RMR, CRR

23
24
25
Apple v. Samsung

Page 67