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 2

Srivastava, Mani, Ph.D. (Apple expert)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

--------------------------------x
APPLE INC., a California
)
corporation,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)No. 11-CV-01846-LHK
)
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,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF MANI SRIVASTAVA
16
Los Angeles, California
17
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

Reported By:
SUSAN A. SULLIVAN, CSR #3522, RPR, CRR
JOB NO. 48799

Apple v. Samsung

Page 1

Srivastava, Mani, Ph.D. (Apple expert)

1

originally being anticipatory; is that correct?
A

2

I analyzed them and found them to be

3

anticipatory.

4

invalidity contentions.
Q

5

I did have access to Apple's

But, in other words, you didn't come up

6

with the Suso reference yourself, you were limited

7

to what Apple had disclosed under the local rules;

8

is that correct?
A

9
10

I was told that I was limited to

it, yes.
THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

11
12

Right.

We're getting pretty close to

the end of the tape.

13

MR. STRETCH:

Why don't we change the tape.

14

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

This marks the end of Disc

15

No. 1 in the continuing deposition.

16

11:18 a.m. and we are now off the record.

17

(Recess)

18

THE VIDEOGRAPHER:

The time is

This marks the beginning of

19

Disc No. 2 in the continuing deposition.

20

is 11:30 a.m. and we're back on the record.

21

BY MR. STRETCH:
Q

22

The time

Doctor, let me ask you to first before we

23

look at the actual references, ask you to look at

24

Exhibit, I think it is 2A.

25

'460 that's asserted.

Apple v. Samsung

It is the claim of the

Page 75

Srivastava, Mani, Ph.D. (Apple expert)

1

A

Uh-huh.

2

Q

Do you have that in front of you?

3

A

Yes.

4

Q

Now I understand that you have various

5

opinions and arguments about that it is not

6

infringed, it is invalid, everything else.
Can we agree that at the very least this

7
8

claim requires the three core functions that Dr.

9

Yang opined on?

And by that I mean two separate

10

E-mail transmission modes, one for text only, one --

11

a second one for sending E-mail that's entered

12

through a display sub-mode and the ability to

13

sequentially display other images stored in memory?

14

MS. WHELAN:

15

THE WITNESS:

Objection.
I do find the claim overall

16

confusing as to what method it is citing.

17

there are two E-mail sub-modes or not, the claim

18

language does use the first E-mail sub-mode and the

19

second E-mail sub-mode.

20

report, the specification is at variance with that.

21

But in terms of does it talk about sending an E-mail

22

text alone, an E-mail with text and image and

23

sequentially scrolling through the images, yes, the

24

claim does talk about these three things.

25
Apple v. Samsung

Q

Whether

As I alluded to in my

BY MR. STRETCH:

Okay.
Page 76

Srivastava, Mani, Ph.D. (Apple expert)

1

State of California

)
)

2

ss.

County of Los Angeles )

3
I, SUSAN A. SULLIVAN, CALIFORNIA CSR No.

4
5

3522, RPR, CRR, do hereby certify:
That prior to being examined MANI

6
7

SRIVASTAVA, the witness named in the foregoing

8

deposition, was, before the commencement of the

9

deposition, duly administered an oath in accordance

10

with C.C.P. Section 2094;

11

That the said deposition was taken before

12

me at the time and place therein set forth, and was

13

taken down by me in shorthand and thereafter

14

transcribed into typewriting under my direction and

15

supervision; that the said deposition is a true and

16

correct record of the testimony given by the

17

witness;
I further certify that I am neither counsel

18
19

for, nor in any way related to any party to said

20

action, nor in any way interested in the outcome

21

thereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my

22
23

name on this 26th day of April, 2012.

24

___________________________________
SUSAN A. SULLIVAN CSR No. 3522

25
Apple v. Samsung

Page 209