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

Filing 1013

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Documents Under Seal Re Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Declaration Of Karl Kramer In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #3 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 1, #4 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 2, #5 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 3, #6 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 4, #7 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 5, #8 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 6, #9 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 7, #10 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 8, #11 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 9, #12 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 10, #13 Exhibit Kramer Decl. Ex. 11, #14 Declaration Of Michel Maharbiz, Ph.D. In Support Of Apples Opposition To Samsungs Motion For Summary Judgment, #15 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. A, #16 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. B, #17 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. E, #18 Exhibit Maharbiz Decl. Ex. F)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/1/2012)

Exhibit 10
(Submitted Under Seal)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
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,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

Defendants.
REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF STEPHEN GRAY
REGARDING NON-INFRINGEMENT OF ASSERTED CLAIMS OF U.S. PATENT NOS.
7,844,915 AND 7,864,163

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

45.

For at least reason, the Accused Products do not infringe any of the asserted claims of the

18 '915 Patent.
19

2.

It Is My Understanding That The Singh Report Opinions Regarding Indirect

20

Infringement Were Not Properly Disclosed In Apple's Infringement

21

Contentions.

22

46.

The opinions of the Singh Report rely on an indirect theory of infringement with respect

23 to the method claims of the '915 Patent. The opinion, as stated by the Singh report, is that "the Samsung
24 defendants have indirectly infringed the method claims of the '915 Patent." Singh Report at ¶ 304.
25 However, it is my understanding that Apple's P.L.R. 3-1 infringement contentions did not previously
26 disclose that it would be relying on this type of infringement theory with regard to the '915 Patent. The
27
28
-9-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1

59.

The Singh Report does not identify any specific component in the Accused Products that

2 receives a user input. Singh merely asserts that "[e]ach '915 Accused Product … includes a touch3 sensitive display," but does not cite to any evidence to establish that any such touch-sensitive displays
4 receive "one or more input points."

Further, The Singh Report does not identify any software

5 component that receives or handles the user input from the touch-sensitive display. Singh Report ¶ 308.
6

60.

Additionally, I note that any Accused Products that do not receive user input in the form

7 of "one or more input points" do not infringe Claim 1.
8
9

3.
61.

10
11

'915 Patent, Claim 1[b]

Claim 1[b] recites:
creating an event object in response to the user input;

62.

I note that any Accused Products that do not create an event object in response to user

12 input in the form of "one or more input points" do not infringe this limitation.
13
14

4.
63.

'915 Patent, Claim 1[c]

Claim 1[c] recites:

15

determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture operation

16

by distinguishing between a single input point applied to the touch-

17

sensitive display that is interpreted as the scroll operation and two or

18

more input points applied to the touch-sensitive display that are

19

interpreted as the gesture operation;

20
21
22

n.

23

65.

Claim 1[c] requires "determining whether the event object invokes a scroll or gesture

24 operation." I have previously submitted an expert report outlining the reasons for my conclusion that
25 Claim 1 of the '915 Patent is indefinite and therefore invalid over the cited prior art.
26
27
28
-13-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1

66.

In the alternative, should the court find that Claim 1 is not indefinite and confirms its

2 validity over the cited prior art, it is my opinion that Claim 1 is not infringed by the Accused Products,
3 either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, for at least the following reasons:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
()

27
28
-14-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1
2
3
4
5
6

74.

For at least these reasons, the Accused Products do not infringe Claim 1 of the '915

7 Patent, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
8

(

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-15-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

82.

For at least these reasons, the Accused Products do not infringe Claim 1 of the '915

17 Patent either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.
18
19

(c)
83.

Additional Comments

The Singh Report also relies on Ioi Lam's deposition testimony stating that Android has

20 "event objects." Singh Report ¶ 325. I note that this statement and citation is nearly meaningless, as all
21 event-driven GUI systems have event objects, or similar message-passing models.
22
23

5.
84.

'915 Patent, Claim 1[d]

Claim 1[d] recites:

24

issuing at least one scroll or gesture call based on invoking the scroll or

25

gesture operation;

26

85.

As discussed above, systems that do not issue one or more scroll or gesture calls from the

27 event object created in response to user input in the form of "one or more input points" do not infringe
28
-16-

SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
CONTAINS HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION

1 Dated: April 16, 2012
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-75-