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 13

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE

3

DIVISION

4

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

5

APPLE INC., a California Corporation,

6

Plaintiff,

7

vs.

Case No.
11-CV-01846-LHK

8

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a

9

Korean business entity, SAMSUNG

10

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New

11

York corporation, and SAMSUNG

12

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a

13

Delaware limited liability company.

14

HIGHLY
CONFIDENTIAL

Defendants.

15

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a

17

Korean business entity, SAMSUNG

18

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New

19

York corporation, and SAMSUNG

20

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a

21

EYES ONLY

_________________________________

16

ATTORNEYS'

Delaware limited liability company,

22

Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,

23
24

vs.
APPLE INC., a California corporation,

25
Apple v. Samsung

Counterclaim-Defendant.
Page 1

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2
3

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF WOODWARD YANG
Wednesday, May 8, 2012

4

9:33 a.m.

5

WilmerHale

6

60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109

7
8
9

REPORTER:

JANET MCHUGH, RMR, CRR, CLR

MERRILL LEGAL SOLUTIONS

10
11
12
13

APPEARANCES:

14
15

WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR LLP

16

(By David B. Bassett, Esquire)

17

399 Park Avenue

18

New York, New York 10022

19

212.230.8858

20

[e-mail]

21

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

22
23
24
25

- Continued -

Apple v. Samsung

Page 2

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

APPEARANCES:

(Continued)

2
3

WILMER, CUTLER, PICKERING, HALE AND DORR LLP

4

(By Derek S. Lam, Esquire)

5

60 State Street

6

Boston, Massachusetts 02109

7

617.526.6000

8

Counsel for the Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant

9
10
11

QUINN EMANUEL

12

(By Mark Tung, Ph.D., Esquire,

13

and Ketal Patel, Esquire)

14

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

15

New York, New York

16

[phone]

17

[e-mail]

18

[e-mail]

10010

19
20

Also Present:

21

Shawn Budd, Videographer

22
23
24
25
Apple v. Samsung

Page 3

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

but there are three core.

2
3

Q.

Well, let's look at Paragraph 41 of your

initial report, which is your infringement report.

4

A.

Yes.

5

(Witness complies.)

6

A.

I just don't want to change words on you.

7

Yes.

8

performance of three core functions on the device.

9

I said the patent is directed to the

Q.

Right.

And does your infringement analysis

10

under the '460 patent require the user to send an

11

e-mail with an image in the message body and not as

12

an attachment?

13

A.

I think I understand your question, but

14

could you please clarify what you mean by sending an

15

e-mail with an image in the message body versus what

16

you mean as sending an e-mail with an image as an

17

attachment?

18

Q.

19

difference?

20

A.

In your understanding, is there a

There can be a difference.

Depending -- I

21

believe that there's lots of different terminology

22

that's used for e-mail and how images are attached or

23

embedded or included and things like this.

24

just hoping for your question, if you could clarify

25

that for me, then I could give you a better answer.

Apple v. Samsung

So I was

Page 236

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

Q.

I will try to clarify once I get some

2

clarification from you, from my -- from my

3

perspective.

4

whether in your infringement analysis under the '460

5

patent, is it relevant whether the image is in the

6

body of an e-mail or an attachment, or is that not

7

relevant?

8
9

A.

Is it relevant, in your view, Doctor,

So I will try to answer your question with

what I think you're asking.

So you're asking me is

10

it important for the image to actually be displayed,

11

to actually be able to see the image in the body of

12

the image -- of the e-mail that's being composed, or

13

is it simply sufficient to have the e-mail attached?

14

For example, only seeing the file name.

15

that's the differentiation you're trying to make, as

16

far as whether it's attached or --

17

Q.

In the body of the e-mail?

18

A.

Or in the body of the e-mail.

I believe

19

I believe

that's the differential you're trying to make.

20

Q.

Sure.

21

A.

And I believe that that is critical,

22

because if you read the second paragraph here, it

23

says, "Entering a second e-mail transmission submode

24

upon user request for e-mail transmission while

25

operating in a display submode," that's all kind of

Apple v. Samsung

Page 237

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

preamble stuff, "the second e-mail transmission

2

submode displaying an image most recently captured in

3

camera mode."

4

Q.

So in -- as I understand it, if the image

5

were sent only as an attachment, and were not viewed

6

when you looked at -- were not viewable when you

7

looked at the e-mail, it would not infringe this

8

claim, correct?

9
10

MR. STRETCH:

Objection.

Calls for a

legal conclusion.

11

A.

I guess it depends what you're showing of

12

the image.

13

display an image.

14

name, I would tend to agree with you.

15

something I've given a great deal of thought to,

16

because, in fact, for infringement, the Apple

17

devices, in fact, display the image, so there's not

18

much of a question about that.

19

Q.

Because there's many different ways to
If all you're displaying is a file
It's not

If you look at Paragraph 43 of your initial

20

report, the second sentence of Paragraph 43, it talks

21

about -- the first sentence talks about the three

22

core functions.

23

"Although performance of these steps in the recited

24

sequence would certainly infringe the patent, I do

25

not understand Claim 1 to require that these five

Apple v. Samsung

And then the second sentence,

Page 238

Yang, Woodward, Ph.D. Vol. 1 (Samsung expert)

1

C E R T I F I C A T E

2

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

3

SUFFOLK, SS.

4

I, Janet M. McHugh, a Registered Merit

5

Reporter and a Notary Public within and for the

6

Commonwealth of Massachusetts do hereby certify:

7

THAT WOODWARD YANG, PH.D., the witness whose

8

testimony is hereinbefore set forth, was duly sworn

9

by me and that such testimony is a true and accurate

10

record of my stenotype notes taken in the foregoing

11

matter, to the best of my knowledge, skill and

12

ability.

13

I further certify that I am not related to any

14

parties to this action by blood or marriage; and

15

that I am in no way interested in the outcome of

16

this matter.

17
18

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 15th day of May, 2012.

19
20

______________________
JANET M. MCHUGH

21

Notary Public

22
23

My Commission Expires:

24

July 11, 2014

25
Apple v. Samsung

Page 291