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 5

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
14 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18
19 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

20
21

vs.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS AND
RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND
SET OF INTERROGATORIES (Nos. 2-6)

22 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
23 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
24 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
25
Defendant.
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1

INTERROGATORIES

2 INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
3

For each of the Asserted Claims, set forth in detail Samsung’s bases for asserting the

4 defense of non-infringement, including a claim chart indicating whether each element of the claim
5 is present or absent in each of the Products at Issue and, if Samsung contends that an element is
6 absent, the detailed basis for that contention.
7 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 2:
8

Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to

9 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
10 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
11 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung objects to
12 Apple‘s definition of “Products at Issue” as overly broad, vague, and ambiguous insofar as it
13 includes the undefined categories of “any similar products” and “any products that Apple accuses
14 of infringing its intellectual property in this litigation.” Samsung further objects to this
15 interrogatory as premature to the extent it requests information regarding Samsung’s non16 infringement contentions just seven business days after Apple has served its infringement
17 contentions and before sufficient discovery has been conducted. Samsung further objects to this
18 interrogatory to the extent it prematurely calls for contentions at this stage of litigation. Samsung
19 will provide such contentions in accordance with the Court’s Minute Order and Case Management
20 Order, dated August 25, 2011.
21

Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung responds as follows:

22

For U.S. Patent No. 7,812,828, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

23 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
24 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
25

For U.S. Patent No. 6,493,002, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

26 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
27 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1

For U.S. Patent No. 7,469,381, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

2 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
3 infringement contentions and respond thereto. Samsung also incorporates by reference the
4 Declaration of Jeffrey Johnson in Support of Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion for a
5 Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. No. 174).
6

For U.S. Patent No. 7,844,915, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

7 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
8 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
9

For U.S. Patent No. 7,853,891, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

10 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
11 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
12

For U.S. Patent No. 7,663,607, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

13 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
14 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
15

For U.S. Patent No. 7,864,163, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

16 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
17 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
18

For U.S. Patent No. 7,920,129, Samsung’s investigation is ongoing and Samsung will

19 supplement this interrogatory after it has had a reasonable opportunity to review Apple’s
20 infringement contentions and respond thereto.
21 INTERROGATORY NO. 3:
22

Identify in detail the person or persons most knowledgeable about the design,

23 development, implementation, structure, operation, and promotion of each of the Products at Issue,
24 including the design, development, implementation, structure, or operation of the Hardware
25 Design of each of the Products at Issue and the Graphical User Interface Design installed or
26 available on each of the Products at Issue, including a detailed description of each of their roles.
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-6SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES

1 including an identification of any documents on which Samsung intends to rely or which tend to
2 prove or disprove Samsung’s contention.
3 RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 6:
4

Samsung objects to this interrogatory as vague and ambiguous. Samsung further objects to

5 this interrogatory to the extent that it seeks to elicit information subject to and protected by the
6 attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the
7 common interest doctrine, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Samsung further
8 objects to this interrogatory as premature to the extent it requests information regarding
9 Samsung’s contentions before discovery has been completed or substantially completed, and to the
10 extent it requests information that is or will be the subject of expert testimony.
11

Subject to the foregoing general and specific objections, Samsung responds as follows:

12

Samsung directs Apple to Samsung’s Answer in this case. See Dkt. No. 80. Samsung also

13 refers Apple to smartphone and tablet computer product selections available on the market and in
14 retailer stores.
15

Samsung has not yet completed its discovery and investigation of the facts relating to this

16 interrogatory. Samsung will supplement this response with a narrative and/or with the documents
17 reflecting this information pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d).
18
19 DATED: September 8, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

20

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By
/s/ Todd Briggs
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-9SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO APPLE INC.’S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES