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

Filing 102

Declaration of AUSTIN TARANGO in Support of #101 MOTION to Disqualify Counsel BRIDGES & MAVRAKAKIS LLP filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (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)(Related document(s) #101 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 7/11/2011)

EXHIBIT 4

MICHAEL T. PIEJA
[phone]
[e-mail]

June 29, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Victoria Maroulis, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re:
(N.D. Cal.)

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK

Ms. Maroulis:
I am in receipt of your June 27, 2011 letter to Kenneth Bridges regarding Samsung's
assertion of a purported conflict of interest with respect to our firm's representation of Apple in
the above-captioned matter. Mr. Bridges is out of the office this week and is therefore not
available to participate in a meet-and-confer within the two-day window that your letter
identified.
In any event, your allegations that Mr. Bridges, or any unnamed "other attorney[] at
Bridges & Mavrakakis," has a conflict that would preclude representation of Apple in this matter
have no factual basis. The only prior matter you allege as the basis for a purported conflict is the
Samsung v. Ericsson litigation. Yet Mr. Bridges did not obtain any information in Ericsson that
could be "material to" the present case. Nor could he have – the Ericsson litigation concerned
subject matter that is not "material to" the present case, and any confidential information at issue
in that matter likewise is not "material to" this case.
The only basis you identify for your conflict allegations is a statement that Ericsson is
"clearly" related to this case because Ericsson "relat[ed] to mobile devices." This vague
assertion provides no basis for asserting a conflict exists and your implication that any
confidential information at issue in Ericsson is material to the present case is factually incorrect.
As you are aware, the Ericsson litigation concluded over four years ago – in early 2007. In view
of that – and the rapid pace of change in the relevant industry – it is not surprising that Ericsson
involved completely different products and different technologies than the present case.
First, the products at issue in the Ericsson case have no overlap with, or relation to, those
at issue here. None of the Samsung products at issue in Ericsson are accused here – indeed, to
our knowledge, those products have not been sold in the United States in years. Similarly, the
products at issue here were all released years after Ericsson concluded. The functionalities and

Victoria Maroulis
June 29, 2011
Page 2
capabilities of the products at issue in Ericsson and those at issue here are also vastly different.
For instance, while Samsung's accused Galaxy products (and other devices), run on the Android
software platform, Android was not even available as a mobile platform at the time the Ericsson
case ended, and the first Samsung Android devices were not released until much later.
Second, the technologies at issue here are entirely different from those at issue in
Ericsson. For instance, while the asserted utility patents in this matter relate generally to
touchscreen hardware and related software, and touch-based user interfaces for modern multipurpose communications devices, nothing resembling these technologies was at issue in
Ericsson. Likewise, Ericsson obviously did not relate to Samsung's copying of the iPhone and
iPad, which is at issue here.
Further, in response to your question, although we have provided Apple and its other
counsel with the information contained in this letter, we have not provided, and have no intention
of providing, Apple or its other counsel with any non-public or confidential information relating
to any prior representation of Samsung.
These facts should resolve any good-faith concerns on your part. The attorneys involved
in this matter take their ethical responsibilities seriously and adhere strictly to all applicable rules
regarding conflicts and maintaining client confidences, and we encourage you to seriously
consider whether you and Samsung have a good-faith basis for continuing to pursue the
allegations you have set forth in your letter. To the extent you still believe a meet and confer is
necessary, we will be available to meet and confer next week. Please suggest a time. In
addition, if you wish to conduct a meet and confer, please be prepared to explain with specificity
your basis for asserting that any member of this firm has obtained "confidential information
material to" this employment as a result of the Ericsson litigation.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you should have any questions or concerns.
Kindly note that I am copying counsel from Morrison & Foerster and WilmerHale on this letter,
as you have also directed communications on this topic to them.
Sincerely,
/s/ Michael T. Pieja
Michael T. Pieja
cc: Jason Bartlett and Richard Hung, Morrison & Foerster
cc: Mark Selwyn, WilmerHale