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

Filing 1014

Declaration in Support of #1000 Opposition/Response to Motion, Declaration of James Ward In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Strike filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit E, #4 Exhibit F, #5 Exhibit L, #6 Exhibit M, #7 Exhibit N, #8 Exhibit O, #9 Exhibit P, #10 Exhibit R, #11 Exhibit S, #12 Exhibit U, #13 Exhibit V, #14 Exhibit W, #15 Exhibit AA, #16 Exhibit BB, #17 Exhibit CC, #18 Exhibit EE)*** EXHIBIT EE FILED IN ERROR WITH CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. DOCUMENT LOCKED. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** (Related document(s) #1000 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/1/2012) Modified on 8/13/2014 (fff, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT U

1

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

Defendant.





















SUPPLEMENT TO REBUTTAL EXPERT REPORT OF STEPHEN GRAY REGARDING
NON-INFRINGEMENT OF CLAIM 8 OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,844,915

1

1.

I submit this supplement to my rebuttal expert report on the non-infringement of

2 Claim 8 of U.S. Patent 7,844,915. If asked at hearings or trial, I am prepared to testify regarding
3 the matters I discuss in this supplement.
4

2.

At my deposition on May 4, 2012, I was asked which accused Samsung devices

5 support multi-finger scrolling. As I did not memorize the specific model numbers before the
6 deposition, I did not recall the specific model numbers at that time, although I recalled that eight
7 devices supported multi-finger scrolling in either the Web browser or another application. Apple’s
8 counsel did not provide me with any actual devices during my deposition, so I was unable confirm
9 the names and version numbers of those devices supporting multi-finger scrolling at that time.
10

3.

Following the deposition, I reviewed my notes and all the accused devices, and

11 found that the devices listed in the table below support multi-finger scrolling in the Web browser
12 and therefore do not distinguish between scroll and gesture operations within the meaning of the
13 '915 patent:
14

Samsung Accused Device
Galaxy Tab 10.1
Epic 4G
Galaxy Prevail
Nexus S
Nexus S 4G
Replenish

15
16
17
18
19

4.

Model #
GT-P7510
SPH-D700
SPH-M820
GT-I9020T
SPH-D720
SPH-M580

Android Version
3.1
2.2.1
2.3.5
2.3.4 and 4.0.4
2.3.4 and 4.0.4
2.3.6

Two other accused devices, the Gravity Smart (model SGH-T589 running Android

20 2.2.2) and the Vibrant (model SGH-T959 running Android 2.1-Update1), support multi-finger
21 scrolling in at least the photo gallery application.
22

5.

The opinions expressed in this supplement are my opinions based on my review to

23 date of the evidence in the record. I reserve the right to amend or update my opinions as
24 appropriate in response to future developments regarding claim construction. At a hearing or trial,
25 I reserve the right to use as exhibits various documents produced in this case that refer or relate to
26 the matters discussed in this supplement or to either of my expert reports. I have not yet selected
27 particular exhibits that might be used. I also reserve the right to create or assist in the creation of
28 certain demonstrative evidence that will assist me in testifying.
-1-

1
2
3

Dated: May

"tS,

2012

4

BY~J..u.-

5

Stephen Gray

6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

28
-2-

..

,

I