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 11
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 1
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
APPLE INC., a California
corporation,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
)
vs.
) Case 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.
)
____________________________)
12
13
14
15
H I G H L Y C O N F I D E N T I A L
A T T O R N E Y S' E Y E S O N L Y
16
17
18
19
VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF STEPHEN GRAY
Palo Alto, California
Friday, May, 4, 2012
20
21
22
23
24
BY: HEIDI BELTON, CSR, RPR, CRR, CCRR
CSR LICENSE NO. 12885
JOB NO. 49273
25
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 52
1
A.
Okay.
2
Q.
What errors have you identified in reviewing
3
4
10:29:20
your invalidity report?
A.
There is one error having to do with the --
5
with the date of a prior art reference.
6
remember -- I'm not recollecting the date, but it was --
7
it was incorrectly identified as January 20 -- let me
8
see if I can find it.
9
I can't
10:29:35
So on paragraph 305, page 86 of my invalidity
10
report, Exhibit 1, the date -- a date -- it says, "On
11
January 20, 2011, the examiner issued a notice of
12
allowability."
13
back to the file.
14
this is with regard to the '163.
And the date's wrong.
15
I'm not sure what that date is.
I'd have to go back to
16
the -- excuse me.
17
history to determine what that date should have been.
18
But the first date, the January 20th, 2011 date, is
19
incorrect.
20
21
22
Q.
That date's incorrect.
10:30:54
I have to go
Oh, this is with regard to -- oh,
10:31:31
I'd have to go back to the file
Are you aware, as you sit here today, of any
10:31:46
other errors in your invalidity report?
A.
Yes.
There's another error in the
23
indefiniteness section pertaining to the '915 patent,
24
paragraph 266 on page 75.
25
paragraph 266 doesn't make sense.
There's a sentence -- the
Something --
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
10:32:29
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 53
1
something happened in the drafting or something.
2
doesn't -- it doesn't make sense.
3
But it
10:32:37
The first sentence reads -- well, let's start
4
with the second sentence.
5
"Each of the independent claims recites 'the event
6
object invokes a...operation.'
7
systems experience, I have never observed a system where
8
an event object invoked a method."
9
That's not true.
The second sentence says,
10:32:48
In my 35 years of
That's the inaccuracy.
10
goes on to say that -- it goes on to make some claim
11
It
about it.
12
10:33:10
Then there is a reference to a Platzer
13
deposition that -- the sentence leading into that says,
14
"Additionally, one of the inventors of the '915 patent,
15
Mr. Platzer, agreed with me at his deposition."
16
there's a quote.
And it doesn't follow the rest of the
17
paragraph in 266.
I saw this over the last couple of
18
days when I was rereading my report.
19
inaccurate.
And
10:33:30
And it -- it is
20
Q.
What should it say?
21
A.
Well, I don't -- I'm not sure -- I don't
10:33:49
22
have -- I'm not sure exactly what it -- but what I think
23
it should have said is that -- something to the effect
24
that "In my 35 years of experience, I've never observed
25
a system where an event object invoked a method that
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
10:34:05
Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only
Page 54
1
performed scrolling or zooming operations" would be an
2
accurate statement.
3
just not accurate.
4
correct.
5
if asked by the attorneys for Samsung, I'll update it.
6
7
8
9
Q.
10:34:12
But the way it's phrased there is
And factually I don't think it's
So 266 I think is -- needs some revision.
And
10:34:31
Are there any other errors in your invalidity
report that you're aware of today?
A.
Those two errors I discovered over the last
couple of days in reviewing the report; and those are
10
the two that I know about now.
11
those are the two that I've come across now.
12
13
Q.
All right.
There may be others, but
10:34:50
Let's turn to your
non-infringement rebuttal report, Deposition Exhibit 2.
14
As you sit here today, does that report
15
accurately express all of the opinions on
16
non-infringement that you may offer at trial, given what
17
you know today?
18
A.
10:35:10
Given what I know today, sitting here, I
19
believe that Exhibit 2, my rebuttal report regarding
20
non-infringement, contains the opinions of -- that I'm
21
aware of today.
22
10:35:40
Again, as facts emerge and other information
23
comes to light, I do want to make sure I reserve the
24
right to modify it should something occur that
25
changes -- materially changes my opinion about
TSG Reporting - Worldwide
877-702-9580
10:36:02
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?